sar ^ ,. -<* :v«<-. - * ar- ao ; *¦*¦ "tsOCt ,-**¦' *;^S^-!'--'? nrpoffevxfj v/j.mv eViTti^eii' ev 'Pwfiy drjpiofia-^rjaai, iva $ia tov fiaprvpiov eTrtrv^eiv Svvt]6, eav Aa/3a Kaipov evde- rov, e'ire eyio, e'ire "bv irefi-^ro) irpecrfleva'ovra Kai nrepi vficov. las eirurroAas 'I-yvanov ras ire/jrf)8eio~as r\fRv itr airov, Kai aAAas oiras e'lyofxev Trap' fjjMV, eirefj.'^ra/xev v/Jiv, Ka6u>s evereiAaade' airives vvore- rav fxe^aAa uxjieArjOrjvai Swrj- aeirOe. XIepie%ovo~i 'yap iricriv, Kal inrofiovijv, Kal nrao~av oiKO^ofirjV riqv eis rov Kvptov y/iZv avvjKovo'av. I quote these words as they are given by Eusebius,* taking it for granted that they are genuine, without waiting to consider any of the objec tions which have been brought against them,f from the circum stance of their not being found in any of the Greek copies of St. Polycarp's Epistle, of which several are extant, and also from their not agreeing perfectly with the Latin translation of this Epistle, as well as other weighty exceptions which have been taken against them. But allowing them to be entirely genuine, surely all that can be gathered from them is, that Epistles of Ignatius to him, and other letters, as many as he had by him (I am willing to allow that these also refer to letters by Ignatius, although the text has left it indefinite), St. Polycarp appended to his own Epistle, and sent them, together with it, to the Philippians. Not one word is said how many these Epistles were, or to whom they were ad dressed. This must have been in the year 107, or, according to Bishop Pearson, in the year 116 at the latest. Neither IrenEeus nor Origen, in quoting the words of St. Ignatius, ever once mention his letters, much less do they say any thing of the persons to whom they were sent. The next account therefore, at all definite, which we have ofthe Epistles of this holy martyr, is that given by Eusebius, who does not appear to have been quite sa- * Hist. Eccl. lib iii. c. 36. t See Hefele, Proleg. pp. 54. and 14. and Daille, De Ignat. Epist. c. 32. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 35 tisfied himself on this head, as he prefaces his notice of them with the words A.070S -S' e^ei.* He speaks, however, of seven, or at least of six ; and the names of the parties to whom they were addressed agree with the names of the same number out of the twelve found in the Antient Latin copies first published by Archbishop Usher, and five or six of those in the imperfect Greek copy ofthe Medicean Library. If, then, the recurrence of the names of three persons mentioned by Eusebius in three of these Epistles, and the citation of one passage from one Epistle, and of two more from another, be sufficient to warrant such a conclusion, "these seven Epistles coincided in title and substance with those which we possess." It may, however, be worth while to remark here, that Eusebius styles Onesimus the Pastor (jroi/jtrjv) of the Church at Ephesus, and Polybius the Ruler (apxvv) of that at Tralles, while in the Epistles both of them are called Bishop (enrio-KoTros) ; but this may only be a rhetorical manner of expression, similar instances of which are observable in the Review now before us. Moreover, in the passage as cited by Eusebius from the Epistle to the Romans, which is comprised in seventeen lines of Mr. Jacob- son's edition, or fourteen of that of Hefele, there are no less than nine readings, varying from the Medicean text, one of which is the omission of two words, and another of one. In the next sentence cited by Eusebius from this same Epistle, consisting only of two lines, there are also two various readings, one of which is the omission of two words ; and in the third passage quoted from the Epistle to the Smyrneans there are two variations, although it consists of not more than, four lines.f These variations may seem * It seems also to be quite evident, from the following passages, that Eusebius himself did not esteem the genuineness of the Epistles of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp to be equally established with that of the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, which was acknowledged by all : — Kal 6 UoAvtcapiros Se toutibi/ aitrcov fjtefxvtjrai ev 77} tpepopevv avrov irpbq ^lAnrirtjtriov^ kTruTToAq, Book iii. c. 36. uttnrep ovv afxeXei rov'lyvariov ev cus Kareke^apev eirttrroAais, Kai tov KAjJ- pevros ev TJJ avapoAoyrjpevq nrapa •Kattiv, r\v ex irpoo-wtrov ttjs 'Vcupaicov eKKAtjo-ias T9 KoptvOiav Siervrruxraro. ibid. c. 37. 'H pev ovv rod Khrj/jevTos ofioAoyovfievti ypatptj, irpoStjAos. Ei/»7tcu Be Kal ra 'lyvartov Kai HoAvKapirov. ibid. u. 38. t In making these collations I have used the Edition of Eusebius, by Dr. Burton, Oxford, 1838 ; and Mr. Jacobson's Edition of the Apostolic Fathers. d2 36 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, to be of no weight, and unworthy of consideration in the eyes of the Reviewer ; but if we are to examine the question with that strict criticism which alone can help us to arrive at the truth in a question of such difficulty, they appear to me to be of great im portance. But to return to our subject, assuming the year330, given by the Reviewer — although no doubt he is aware that this is a dis puted question — as the time at which Eusebius wrote his history, and the date' of the journey of St. Ignatius to Rome, to be A.D. 116, as advocated by Bishop Pearson, an interval of more than two hundred years must have elapsed between the mention of Letters from Ignatius to Polycarp and the first notice whatever that we have given us of the names of the other parties to whom any of his Epistles were said to have been addressed. Moreover, this was a period abounding in forgeries. Jerome composed his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers about sixty years after Eusebius, according to Bishop Pearson, in A. D. 393* ; and any thing which he has said on this subject is of no additional authority, for he copied almost word for word from Eusebius, as the learned Prelate just spoken of writes : " et re- liqua Eusebiana fere omnia, tacito Eusebii nomine, transcripsit." f That his knowledge of the Ignatian Epistles was not accurate is plain, since, in his third book against the Pelagians X, he quotes the words of the Letter attributed to St. Barnabas, and says that they belong to St. Ignatius. § One passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians is referred to by Jerome, in his Commentary on St. Matthew ||; but this same passage had been cited before by Origen, in his sixth Homily on St. Luke : and since Jerome trans lated this very homily of Origen into Latin II, he must of course have acquired a knowledge of these words of St. Ignatius from this source. In like manner, he seems to have borrowed those of the * See Vindicite, p. 9. t Ibid. p. 10. | See Edition of Erasmus, Vol. ii. p. 200. % See Menard's notes on the Epistle of Barnabas, p. 1 08. Bp. Pearson's Vindicite, p. 29. Cotelerius, Testimonia Veterum de Barnabas Epistola, torn. i. p. 4. || Chapter i. vers. 18. See Cotel. Test, de S. Ignatii Epist. Vol. ii. pp. 1. 3. Bp. Pearson's Vindiciae, p. 10. 'T See Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, Vol. v. p. 228. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 37 Epistle of Barnabas, above mentioned, from the same writer, who has cited them at the end of his first book against Celsus*; for Jerome was well versed in Origen's works, and translated several of them into Latin.f He also, once again, mentions the name of Ignatius.! So far, then, as we have any evidence before us to decide upon the matter, it seems most probable that Jerome never saw the Ignatian Epistles ; for the only accounts that he has given us of them are taken from other works, which we know that he had in his hands, and made much use of. The Reviewer therefore, in this place also, goes rather too far, when he states that " it is an indubitable fact that St. Jerome, living in the fourth century, had seven Epistles of Ignatius." I am sure the Reviewer himself must allow that it often happens that the words of an author are cited by persons who have never seen his books, or even been at the pains of verifying the quotations which they have taken from second-hand sources. But to proceed : in his work on Ecclesiastical Writers above mentioned, Jerome, when speaking of St. Polycarp, uses the words which the Reviewer has quoted in note 8, p. 323 : Scripsit Poly- carpus ad Philippenses valde utilem Epistolam, quce usque hodie in Asia conventu legitur ; by which he declares that a very useful Epistle of St. Polycarp was read about the year 393 in Conventu Asia : but not one word has he said respecting any Epistles of St. Ignatius being appended to it, or being read in a similar manner. It is highly improbable that he would have omitted altogether to notice such a fact, had he ever heard of it and believed in its exis tence, either when writing respecting this Epistle of St. Polycarp, or those of St. Ignatius. I give, at the bottom of the page, a note of E. S. Cyprianus respecting the meaning of the words Conventu Asice.\ * See Origen against Celsus, Lib. 1. Vol. i. p. 378. edit. Benedict. t Nam quod dicunt : Orlgenis me volumina compilare, et contaminari non decere Veterum scripta, quod illi maledictum vehemens esse existimant, eandem laudem ego maximam duco, cum ilium imitari volo, quem cunctis prudentibus et vobis placere non dubito. Hieronymus, Prologus in Secundum super Mi- eheam, Erasmus' Edition, Vol. vi. p. 119. X See adversus Helvidium, Vol. ii. p. 12., and Pearson's Vind. p. 10. § Quem Asise conventum intelligat, difficulter cognoscitur. Sophronius reddit : ev rg Ao-m vt) trvvoda. Constat igitur, non esse sermonem de conventi- bus Christianorum quotidianis, sed de notabili quodam totius Asiatics) gentis conventu. 38 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, I believe I have now stated, as fairly as I can, the whole of the evidence respecting this matter, and I have given my authorities for the same. And what does it amount to ? Simply to thus much : that St. Polycarp sent to the Philippians, at their request, Letters* which he had received from St. Ignatius, and other Letters — they also might have been from St. Ignatius, but it is not stated so — and that he subjoined them to an Epistle which he was then writing ; but there is no account whatever of the parties to whom those other Letters were addressed — that more than two hundred years after wards, for the first time, Eusebius mentions the names of seven parties to whom Letters of St. Ignatius were said (Aoyos <$' e%ei) to have been sent, and cites short passages from two, in which, nevertheless, there are several variations from the Reviewer's "received text" of these Epistles — that, about sixty years still later, Jerome repeats what Eusebius had said; alludes to one passage quoted in a work of Origen, which he himself had translated into Latin; makes a mistake with respect to another also cited by Origen, by putting into St. Ignatius' mouth words conventu. De provinciis Romanorum ex Plinii libro x. epistolis LX, CI et aliunde novimus, quod diem ilium, quo imperatores ad reipublicae guberna- cula admoti essent, quotannis magna religione ludisque ac spectaculis celebra- verint, praeeunte videlicet provincise praefecto, quem sequebantur milites ac legati civitatum, quos provinciales vocant Trajanus et Plinius. Hunc morem in Asia obtinuisse dubitari non potest, credoque hunc conventum ab Aurelio Antonino, lib. iv. Euseb. c. XIII. koivov rfji 'Ao-ii??, commune Asim appellari, ut et Valesius sentit in notis ad ilium Eusebii locum. Hunc quotannis conveniendi morem in Asia retentum fuisse arbitror, quum jam Christiani imperassent, adeoque koivov 'Ao-i'a? commune Asia, heic indigitari ab Hieronymo. In con ventu enim illo Christianos primo omnium de religione consultare decebat, ac. praelegere acta martyrum, praecipue vero epistolam sui primarii episcopi, Polycarpi, ut gentiles convenientium multitudine, ardore ac zelo, induceren- tur ad amplectendam doctrinam salutarem ; tum etiam ut Christiani confirma- rentur admirando Polycarpi monumento, ac praepararentur ad sustinendas persecutiones, si quae forte, ut Juliani tempore, supervenissent. Intelligo autem conventum AsiaB proconsularis, non Asiae, quae tertiam orbis terram partem notat. See Hieronymi Catalogus Scriptorwm Ecc. a E. S. C. 4to. Francof. 1722. p. 245. * This, in all probability, means only the one Epistle, which is come down to us, addressed to Polycarp, but containing also advice and admonition to the Smyrneans who were under his charge. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 39 which it appears he never uttered ; once again mentions his name ; and afterwards writes, that the Epistle of St. Polycarp was read, even to his own time, in conventu Asice. Let us now see what the Reviewer makes of this. "The Epistles were addressed to various Churches, and copies of them were made by Polycarp, and annexed to an Epistle of his own, which was publicly read in the Church. — It is certain, also, that Irenaeus, the scholar of Polycarp, and Bishop of Lyons, possessed Epistles of Ignatius ; and it is an indubitable fact, that Eusebius and St. Jerome, Uving in the fourth century, had seven Epistles of Ignatius ; and that these seven Epistles coincided in title and sub stance with those we now possess." From so little to make so much, surely the learned Reviewer must have drawn largely upon his own imagination. At page 323 the Reviewer writes : This appears to us very unaccountable ; and it becomes more so, when we consider carefully the recorded history of the Epistles of Ignatius, and endeavour to reconcile it with Mr. Cureton's theory. He acknowledges, as we have said, that they were preserved in their integrity till the time of Eusebius, who has described them in his "Ecclesiastical History," written about A.D. 330 ; but within thirty years after Eusebius wrote, they were interpolated (such is Mr. Cureton's conjecture), so as to assume at least twice their original bulk. I must confess that I was much surprised when I first read this passage, in which I am stated to "acknowledge" what I never even thought of, and to be the author of a "conjecture" which never once occurred to me. I have never said that the Epistles were preserved in their integrity till the time of Euse bius ; nor have I ever conjectured " that within thirty years after he wrote they were interpolated so as to assume at least twice their original bulk." I regret that I should have expressed my self so indistinctly as to have afforded scope for any one to draw such an inference. I have already observed, that had I been imprudent enough to make such an acknowledgment, or to utter such a conjecture, and it had proved to be altogether erroneous, this would only have been an indication of my own want of judgment, but it would not have affected the question as to the interpolations themselves. The Reviewer, however, seems deter mined to take this for granted; and then endeavours to build an 40 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, argument thereon, when he returns to the subject, at page 324, in the following words : — And, further, let us observe the particular period in which this interpolation is imagined by Mr. Cureton to have taken place. It is in the interval between A.D. 330 and A.D. 360, or, at the latest, before A.D. 446, the year in which Theodoret wrote his EranisteB, in which they are largely cited ; that is, pre cisely in the most brilliant period of Ecclesiastical literature ; the age of Euse bius, of Jerome, one of whom lived till A.D. 340, and the other died A.D. 420, aged 91 ; and both of whom have given a detailed account of these Epistles ; the age of Chrysostom, of the Gregories, of Basil, of Cyril ; the age of Church historians, of Biblical commentators, of libraries, of museums, and of schools. Could the works of the venerable Ignatius have been so altered by addition, as Mr. Cureton supposes : and, even if no Eusebius or Jerome came forth to de fend the writings of Ignatius, which they themselves had described, is it credi ble that no single voice should have been raised in that learned and stirring age, to restore the holy Martyr to himself ? I have already remarked that there are several variations in the pa'ssages cited by Eusebius, from the "received text." I will proceed now to examine those quoted 116 years later, according to the Reviewer's date3, by Theodoret. In the Epistle to the Smyrneans, in the well-known passage commencing ETs iarpos, k.t.A.*, comprised in three lines and a half of Mr. Jacobson' s edi tion, we find the following variations : Medicean Text, ev a-apKi •yevopievos ®eos; Theodoret, ev avdpanra ®eos; Med. ev adavara; Theod. ev Bavaria, adding, also, 'Itjo-ovs Xpurrbs o Kvptos rj^av. In the same Epistle, in a passage of four lines, besides two slight variations t, Med. "va ra iradei to v^ap Ka8aplp.evos of the Medicean text. In six lines from the same Epistle IT there are three variations ; one, the transposition of the word aArjdas ; ano- * See Jacobson's edit. p. 272. Usher's Disser. p. xvi. t Jacobson, p. 288. Usher ibid. p. xix. J Jacobson, p. 294. Usher, p. xx. § Jacobson, p. 334. Usher, p. xx. II Jacobson, p. 404. Usher, p. xxiii. ^ Jacobson, p. 400. Usher, p. xxiii. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 41 ther, Kara deorrjra for Kara deAr/pa ; and the third, the omission of ®eov. In another passage from the same, consisting* of four lines, there are four variations, one of which is the omission of fie, and another, as vexpoipopov for &v veKpocpopos. And again, in seven lines from this Epistle f, as cited by Theodoret, there are five variations, one being the omission of ftera^v dr/piav, fierat-v ®eov, and another of av rav irapa aiperiKoti : fragmentum servatum in vu Synodo, actione v. See Fabricius, Bibl. Grsec. Vol. 7. p. 505. t The Reviewer appears to be ignorant of the opinion which Whiston has expressed on this subject more than a century ago. See p. 58. below. 46 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, scholars. The Reviewer repeats what he had just before said, in the following words : — In the mean time, we beg leave to suggest, that the great discrepancies which prevail among those who contend against the genuineness of the received Epistles, ought to be admitted as a strong argument in their favour. Now, if this mode of reasoning be correct, let us see whither it must carry us. Bp. Pearson, Daille, and others, differ in opinion as to the period of the fabrications of the works which go under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. This, therefore, " ought to be admitted as a strong argument in their favour : " or to come to more recent days, there " has been a great deal of disputing about " * who wrote ~Eiko>v Bao-iAiKtj ; this, therefore, is " a strong argument in favour " of the authorship of King Charles, whose name this book bears. At page 326 the Reviewer continues in the following words : — ¦ It may here, indeed, be objected, in support of Mr. Cureton's hypothesis, that a similar interpolation to that which he has supposed, has actually taken place, according to our own shewing; for, from the year 1557 to 1646, when the edition of Vossius first appeared, the Ignatian Epistles were known to the world only in that interpolated form in which they are found in the two MSS. of Augsburg and Caspar Nydpryck. But we reply, that the difference be tween this interpolation and that imagined by Mr. Cureton, is only, in truth, another proof that the interpolation alleged by him is no interpolation at all. For how do we prove the former to be an interpolation ? Mainly, from the fact, that none of the matter by which it differs from the received Greek text, can be shewn to have been quoted by any author before the sixth century. It was, therefore, unknown to the first five centuries after Christ. If this argument be worth any thing — but I confess I do not hold its value to be very considerable — it makes entirely for the cause of the Syriac version, and shews the Medicean text to be interpolated. " For, (to use the Reviewer's own words,) how do we prove the latter to be an interpolation? Mainly from the fact, that none ofthe matter by which it differs from the Syriac text can be shewn to have been quoted by any author before the fourth century. It was, therefore, unknown to the first three centuries." The next sentence, in which the Reviewer speaks of "passages which are not found in the Syriac," will be considered in the sequel. The paragraph terminates with these words — * Bishop Burnet's History of his own time : quoted by Todd in the title- page of his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 47 The difference between the longer Greek copy and the shorter, and that between the shorter and the Syriac, was unknown to the first five centuries ; and the same argument which proves the former to be an interpolated work, shews the latter to be an epitome. I do not understand this passage myself, and leave it, therefore, for the readers' consideration. I will only observe, that there is no evidence whatever. for the existence either of the Longer or Shorter Greek copies for two centuries after the death of St. Ignatius. No one after Polycarp, who spoke of the Letter addressed to him self, has ever mentioned the names of these Epistles till the time of Eusebius; and all that had been cited as from Ignatius, before that period, belongs to the Syriac recension. In the next sentence he continues — And here we are led to observe, that Mr. Cureton has, most fortunately for the sake of Ignatius, appended extracts from various other Syriac MSS. in the Tattam collection, to his Syriac version of the three Epistles, derived from two MSS. I merely quote this passage as an admission, on the Reviewer's part, of the weakness of his own cause ; that he would have found some difficulty to make out a case, if the question of the Syriac version had been left simply to its own merits, and I had not, " most fortunately for the sake of Ignatius, appended these ex tracts." But these extracts, it will be seen, have really nothing whatever to do with the question, because the authors by whom they are cited lived more than a century after the period at which it seems certain the Ignatian Epistles must have assumed very nearly the form in which they are found in the Medicean text ; and they are evidently cited from the interpolated recension, which appears to have been common in the fifth and sixth centuries. I have spoken of this in my Preface. My object in giving these extracts was to lay before the public every thing that I found in this Syriac collection in any way respecting St. Ignatius. A little further, the Reviewer writes that one of these extracts " is, in fact, another Syriac version of one of the Epistles." Here we see the reason for the change of the definite for the indefinite article at the commencement of his paper. But why did not the Reviewer state, for the benefit of his readers, of which Epistle there is " another Syriac version," and how it came into the place where it is found ? But I will explain this matter for him. It is a part of the Epistle to the Romans, usually inserted in the acts of 48 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW . the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, of which I have spoken at p. ix. of my Preface. It belongs to a totally different class of MSS., is written in a Nestorian hand, on paper of about the eleventh or twelfth century*, and was evidently translated, together with the acts of martyrdom, at a much later period. Copies of this martyrdom, and the Epistle to the Romans inserted in it, have also been translated- into Copticf The Reviewer again manifests a degree of courage, which to me appears almost unaccountable, when he says "that this other Syriac version does not correspond with Mr. Cureton's Syriac version, but it does correspond with the Greek." It is a coarse translation, made by some one who does not appear to have well understood the Greek ; and, according to my notion of the word, corresponds neither with the Syriac nor the Greek. In the first line of the Inscription it reads, magnified in the greatness of the most high, for pitied in the greatness of ihe Father most high, of both Greek and Syriac. In the third line it adds God, which is not found in the Greek; in the fourth it omits our God, after Jesus Christ, of the Greek ; in the fifth it has nothing to correspond with xaPi0V' &*c- I" the second line of the Epistle it adds, in the body, which is not found in the Greek ; and so on. But in two places it confirms the reading 'Kpurrovofios for Xpurravvfios, according to the Syriac, and the Christi habens legem of the Latin version of the English MSS.; and also, again am I voice, of the Syriac, and rursus factus sum vox, of the same Latin version, instead of the evidently corrupt reading in the Greek, ¦7raA.ii' eo-o/uai rpe%av.X Nor is the statement which the Reviewer has made, that "all" the other extracts which I have given, " accurately correspond with the Greek Text," at all more correct. I will not trouble my readers by pointing out the seve ral variations, which perhaps, after what has been said, they will not think necessary, but I refer them to the notes to my * Mr. Forshall, in the Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, attributes this MS. to the thirteenth century : Codex bombycinus formse quartae majoris admodum mutilus .... sseculo ut videtur decimo tertio. (Cod. 7200. Rich.) See Cat. Codd. MSS. Orientt. pars. 1 . p. 92. t See Assemani Bibl. Orient. Vol.i. p. 618. X See a note on this passage in my book, p. 94. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 49 volume, in which I have mentioned some of these differences, and beg them to make the comparison for themselves. The Reviewer continues — What, then, is the age and authority of these extracts ? Happily this question is readily answered. Some of them are taken, as their title shews, from the works of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, and of Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria. Severus became Bishop of Antioch in A.D. 513, and Timotheus was raised to the See of Alexandria in A.D. 51 9, and died A.D. 535 ; so that these passages were quoted before the middle of the sixth century. Now, inasmuch as there have been no less than three Patriarchs of Alexandria, who bore the name of Timotheus, * in the course of about sixty years, the Reviewer would have done well to examine the matter before he decided to which of the three the extracts in question belong, so as to found any argument thereon. They cer tainly do not appertain to "Timotheus Asterius," whom he has fixed upon, as it is evident fi-om a statement of faith sent by this author to the Emperor Leof, who had been dead about five and forty years before Timotheus Asterius was raised to the Patriarchate. X In page 327 the Reviewer writes — It is clear, therefore, (because quoted by Severus in his Sermons) that the Greek recension which we now possess of the Ignatian Epistles was received as genuine in the Church of Ignatius himself in the sixth century ; and that the Syriac version now offered to us as " representing most nearly what Ignatius wrote," was not known there as such at that period. And it may similarly be shewn, from the citations of Timotheus, that it was not received at Alexandria any more than at Antioch ; and therefore it is highly probable that it did not exist so early as the beginning of the sixth century. Although the Syriac language, as well as the Greek, was still spoken at Antioch in the time of Severus, all the sermons of that Patriarch, and his other works, so far as we know, were written in the latter : he would hardly, therefore, cite a " Syriac version." The shorter interpolated Greek recension, as I have already ob served, appears not to have been uncommon at that period, although there is a difference worth remarking between the passages that Severus cites, and those which answer to them in the " received * See L'Art de Verifier les dates, Vol. i. pp. 234. 236. 240. t See Add. MS. 12,156. fol. 62. t See ibid, p. 404. 50 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, text." Nay, even Severus himself points out the circumstance of the existence of different and older copies than that which he seems generally to have used, if not of different recensions, when he writes, in the extract from his book against Grammaticus, at p. 29: "Permit me to be an imitator of the sufferings of my God." But it is found in other copies than these, which are rather older, thus : " Permit ye me to be a disciple of the sufferings of my God." The "Syriac version" was scarcely likely to be known at Alexandria, where that language was altogether foreign. But before dismissing this subject, I will observe that, if the Re viewer's argument be good with respect to one Patriarch of Antioch, and one recension of the Ignatian Epistles, it must also hold good with respect to another Patriarch of Antiochj and another recension of the Ignatian Epistles. Among several who have cited the "Longer interpolated Epistles, in the sixth century^ is Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch.* To apply the Reviewer's argument, " it is clear, there fore, that the Longer Greek recension, which we now possess, of the Ignatian Epistles, was received as genuine in the Church of Igna tius himself in the sixth century, and that the Shorter recension was not known there at that period." At page 328 there is a passage not very clear : I therefore, for the sake of illustration, place in juxta-position with it another occuring at page 339. We do not now say that interpola tion in the one case, or omission in in the other, was per se probable, a priori ; but supposing it to be so, we do affirm, that omission . in the Syriac was more probable than interpolation in the Greek. Let us here observe, by the way, as a general proposition, that omission appears to us much more probable, a, priori, than interpolation ; and that there is, therefore, an abstract greater verisimilitude that the Syriac should be an abridged text than the Greek an interpolated one. The Reviewer, I suppose, intends from this to draw an argument from probability. I will not stop to examine with what success, as it is my purpose to deal only with facts, and not with proba bilities. According to the Reviewer's own confession, we have one instance of interpolation in the Longer recension of these very Ignatian Epistles; and if the authorities which I have given in the * See Archbp. Usher's Dissertation, p. xxxiii. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 51 Appendix, and even Bishop Pearson * himself be not mistaken in their criticism, we have another instance of interpolation even in the Shorter recension of the same Epistles. In the case, there fore, under our immediate consideration, the truth of facts seems to preponderate, rather than the "verisimilitude" of probability. In the same page the Reviewer writes — Translation is a laborious work : it is very irksome, as St. Jerome says, to speak " alieno stomacho non suo ; " and to translate many passages similar to each other might seem, perhaps, to be as needless as the introduction of them would certainly have been. We think, therefore, that omission in the Syriac was more probable than insertion in the Greek. However "laborious a work" translation may be, surely the task of translating these three Epistles, which altogether do not amount to so much as some of St. Paul's single Epistles, could not have been very great, nor in any way worthy of being compared with the labour of Jerome, who, besides rendering the whole of the Scriptures from their original languages into Latin, translated also several other important and extensive works from the Greek. But to say nothing of this, I think any one, who will trouble him self to examine into the matter, will agree with me, that it must have been a far more laborious and difficult task to make such an abridgment from "the received Greek text" as these Syriac Epistles exhibit, than to have translated them entirely through and through. The Reviewer, in a later part of his article, wishes to shew that it is an epitome, made by design for heretical purposes, and, consequently, requiring much diligence and attention: in this place he endeavours to account for it being an abridgment, on the ground of avoiding trouble and labour. This brings me to another statement made by him. But Mr. Cureton affirms that we know " no instances of such abridgment in any Christian writer," whereas, he alleges, the examples of interpolation are very numerous, I know not what right the Reviewer, or any other person, has to take my words and put upon them his own peculiar construc tion, and give them his own emphasis. I wrote the passage, * See p. 1 8 above. e2 52 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, "no instances of such abridgment;" and I think that any single-? minded person, and for such only I wished to write, could hardly have failed, if he must make any thing emphatic, to read it, " no instances of such abridgment," the peculiar nature of which, if it could be an abridgment, I had spoken of previously. This, therefore, renders it needless for me to make any remark relative to the Reviewer's notion of a Latin abridgment of the Apocryphal Epistle attributed to St. Barnabas, or of his strange idea of the " suppression of the Gospel of St. John," by certain heretics, being an " effectual abridgment." But I think I ought not to pass over the following words of the Reviewer, although they do not materially affect my present argu ment, further than to give my readers caution not to place too much reliance upon any passage cited apart from the context. He must pardon us for believing, that what happened frequently to profane writings, might sometimes happen to Christian ones. Our historical and critical readers will remember the words of the immortal Casaubon, in his famous Dedication of his Polybius to Henry IV. of France, concerning the treatment of classical authors by Byzantine literati : " accessit pestis alia compendiorum et epitomarum confectio, quod genus scriptionis ut ad privatum conficientium usum non parvas utilitates habeat, ita publice noxium et magnis scriptoribus semper fuit exitiosissimum." And if such epitomes were so common of histo rical works, were they never made of theological ? For my part, I had no recollection of the passage of Casaubon just cited: perhaps I might never have read it before ; at any rate, I had forgotten it. But I, nevertheless, strongly suspected, from the place where it occurred, that it could have but very little reference to the subject before us. I had, therefore, the curiosity to turn to the place ; and to save such of my readers as may be unwilling to take this trouble for themselves, I give here the result of my search, which I cannot do better than in quoting Casaubon' s own words : "Sic Con- " stantinus Porphyrogenitus, memorati Leonis, uti reor, filius, quum " animadverteret et historicorum scriptorum numerum innumerum " circumferri, adeo ut multi sua estate voluntatem cognoscendi res " gestas simul cum spe abjicerent tot volumina unqu'am perle- " gendi ; conquisitis undique maxima cura et diligentia omnibus " ejus generis auctoribus, qui poterant adhuc in Grseciae et Orientis " Bibliothecis reperiri, corpus historicum prascepit concinnari, in " partes ceu communes locos LIII tributum, quod Politicis hqmi- RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 53 " nibus rerum ipsis cognitu necessariarum Thesaurum quendam " inaestimabilem, et ut ille ait, pransum paratum exhiberet " Sed crederetne aliquis ipsum illud consilium, quod a Principe " esset profectum Historiae amantissimo, inter praecipuas causas " Historiae perdendae fuisse? atqui ita evenit tamen. Nam ubi " semel Corpus illud historicum in Politicorum usum ab eo con- " cinnatum, versari in manibus hominum est cceptum ; e vestigio " nobilissimi quique Historiae scriptores antiquiores, (ex talibus " utique flores illi fuerant decerpti) pristinam suam dignationem " amiserunt ; et monumenta aeternitati consecrata, tot nobilium in- " geniorum, ubi desita sunt legi, etiam describi, quod erat necesse, " desierunt: Accessit et pestis alia, etc." It appears, therefore, that the passage cited may refer as much to "Christian writings" as to *" profane ones," but that it can hardly apply to this Syriac version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, which must have been made nearly four centuries before. Constantine Porphyrogenites mounted the Imperial throne of Constantinople A. D. 912*, and the Syriac version was transcribed soon after A.D. 500. It would have been more to the Reviewer's purpose to have mentioned the epitome of the Clementines, given together with both the recensions of the Ignatian Epistles, by Coleterius, in his Patres Apostolici, the summary of Epiphanius' Panarium, the epitome of the Divine Institutions of Lactantius, or of the history of Philostorgius made by Photius, with various other epitomes of " Theological works," which it would not be difficult to specify. I have hitherto given the reader several opportunities of seeing the learned Reviewer's powers of making the most of his mate rials : I come now to shew his skill in diminution. In page 330 he writes — But we are assured by Mr. Cureton, that all the passages cited from the Igna tian Epistles by Christian writers, to the time of Eusebius, inclusively, are taken from these Epistles, with the exception of one citation from the Epistle to the Smyrneans, of which the Syriac version has not reached us ; and that all the passages so cited are found in this Syriac translation. On this first assertion we must first observe, that the remnants of Christian antiquity of the second and third centuries are very scanty, and that the direct citations from * See l'Art de Verifier les dates. Vol. i. p. 430. 54 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, Ignatius by name in those writings do not amount in all to more than two ; so that no argument, either one way or the other, can justly be drawn from them. Here I must differ most widely from the learned Reviewer. There are three citations during this period. One by Irenseus in the second century, and two by Origen in the third ; and these are the only evidence that we have of the existence of any writings of St. Ignatius for a period of more than two hundred years. And if these have been urged in proof of the genuineness of a collection of seven Epistles, because these passages, cited by such antient writers, are found in two of the seven, surely they afford much stronger evidence in favour of the genuineness of a collection of only three Epistles, in two of which all the passages so cited are found ; while the third is the only Epistle that was ever distinctly mentioned for more than two hundred years after the holy Martyr's death. The case stands thus. Origen cites two passages from Ignatius, by name; these are found, one in the Epi stle to the Romans, the other in that to the Ephesians. Irenaeus speaks in such terms as to leave no doubt whom he intended; while Eusebius* says expressly it was Ignatius, and the words which he quotes are als.o found in the Epistle to the Romans. Poly carp writes that he had received a letter or letters from Ignatius. The Sylloge of Epistles, written in the vernacular language of St. Ignatius himself, recently discovered, but transcribed several cen turies before any other known copy, consists of precisely these three Epistles, and these three only. If, therefore, this be an epitome of seven genuine Greek Epistles, made more than two hun dred years after the "detailed description" given by Eusebius, as the Reviewer is anxious to prove, this Asiatic epitomizer must not only have been endowed with most admirable prudence to select, from seven mentioned by Eusebius, precisely the only three for which there was any testimony in early Christian antiquity, but he must also have been gifted with an almost incredible degree of * OfSe Se avrov ('lyvdnov) to paprvpiov Kal o Elpqvalos, Kal -rwv eirio-roASv airov pvtjpoveiei Aeyav owe!, &>« e'ire to tZv fjperepmv Sta r!jv irpot 0ebv pap- rvptav KarapiBeU irpof Bijpia : on trvros eipl 0eo5: k.t.A. See Euseb. book iii. u. 36, RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 55 foresight and sagacity, to omit those very passages from these three Epistles, which European critics, more than a thousand years after wards, were likely to object against as unsuited to the age and character of St. Ignatius. But Bishop Pearson has advanced a conjectural argument, which it has fallen in the Reviewer's purpose in this place to pass by alto gether in silence. He prefaces it with these words : " Luculentissi- " mis hisce testimoniis tres conjecturas subjungendas putavi, ex " eodem saeculo petitas : quaa si eruditis placeant, bene est : mihi " certe placent, ut conjecturae scilicet, neque alio nomine propono."* These three conjectures consist in apparent imitations ofthe words of Ignatius by other writers : two are taken from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna relative to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, and the third from a Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, written, as the learned Prelate supposes, by Theophilus, the sixth Bishop of Antioch. These three also, if the allusion be certain, refer to two of the three Epistles of the Syriac version. The last of them, indeed, is so clear, that it almost amounts to a direct citation. The words attributed to Theophilus are, Quarto, ut partus ejusfalleret diabolum, putantem Jesum de uxoratd, non de virgine natum; to which Basil referring, according to the autho rity of the same Prelate t, writes : Etpr/rai Se rZv -raAaiav nvi Kal erepos A0709, on virep rov Aadeiv rov ap^ovra rov aiavos rovrov rrjv irapdeviav rijs Mapias i? rov 'Ia eitevorfirj ftvtjo-reia. The words of Ignatius are, ''EAadev rov ap^ovra rov alZvos rovrov r\ irapdevia Mapias.X These allusions or imitations of the Greek Epistles of St. Ignatius, all of which correspond with the Syriac, the Reviewer has thought it prudent to pass over altogether without notice. We come now to consider others, adduced by Bp. Pearson § in a later part ofliis work, and for a different purpose, which he does mention. Bishop Pearson affirms that Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, imitates Ignatius, as well he might do, considering his relation to the Epistles and to their author. Bishop Pearson cites two passages, (and to these may be * See Vindiciae, p. 4. t See Vindicito, p. 5. || See my edition, p. 79. § See Vindiciae, p. 79. 56 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, added a third) in which there is apparently such an imitation ; and not one of the parallels to these passages is found in the Syriac, but they are all in the Greek. I will now lay these "parallels," as pointed out by the Re viewer, before the reader, and leave him to draw his own con clusions. Ignatius. 1. ev a ra Jeo>ia irepupepa, rovs irvevp-ariKovs /Jtapyapiras. Epist. to Ephes. ch. 2. p. 280. Polycarp. 1. rovs eveiArinixevovs rois a'yioirpe- ireo-t Secrfiois, ariva kern StaSrjfiara rav aAtjOZs, K.r.A. Epist. to Phil. ch. 1. edit. Jacobson, p. 466. 2. kol oi eva'y'yeAnra/j.evoi ij/iaj d-Tro- Kai rovs irpo^fjras Se afaira/nev, (TToAoi, Kal oi irpo b^CfQ, even when rendered by me into English as literally as I could, " I have been forward to beg," surely need signify nothing more than a forwardness on the writer's mind to express what he was about to say, without waiting for any request or solicitation to do so on the part of those to whom he was writing. And. if the Reviewer did not un derstand the .meaning of my translation, nor of the Syriac, he might, if he had chosen to do so, have turned to the original words in the Greek, in that part of my volume in which I had given the Greek text of the three Epistles " as they correspond with the Syriac version."* He would there have seen that they correspond with irpaeAafiov irapaKaAeivf, which he has trans lated, in the page before, " I have taken upon me to exhort you ; " and, if the translation of the long passage at pp. 316, 317 be his own, " I have forestalled you to exhort you." The exact transla tion would be, I have anticipated to exhort you ; and these words can only apply to the following sentence, oiras o-wrpexrjre tj? ^vZp.r\, rov ®eov, and not to any thing whatever which precedes. More over, I cannot believe that the Syriac translator, if he were a de- * See p. 172. t The learned Reviewer would scarcely have advanced such an argument, if he had turned to consult the original Greek. 62 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, ceitful epitomizer, designing to favour some heretical purpose, as the Reviewer supposes, would have been so foolish as to leave, in a subsequent part of his work, a direct allusion to what he had been at the pains previously to omit. Further, there is a passage similar to this, and in all probability copied from it, in the Epistle to the Magnesians, which runs thus : " Knowing the well-ordered (state) of your love according to God, rejoicing, I have fore-chosen (jrpoei- Ao/j.tjv) in the faith of Jesus Christ, to speak to you." — To use the Reviewer's own words, " We examine the preceding part of the Epistle as it stands in the Greek, in quest of any paragraphs in which the writer has fore-chosen to speak to them, but in vain." It is the first sentence of the Epistle after the salutation. The author continues in the next place — In the same Epistle we . read, in the Syriac version, as follows : — " Those things which ye have done in the body, even they are spiritual, because ye have done every thing in Jesus Christ, and ye are prepared for the building of God the Father, and ye are raised on high by the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross." — p. 13/ — The bold metaphor here used appears to us to be very abruptly introduced ; but if we refer to the Greek, we find it softened and qualified, as follows : " Ye are the stones of the Temple of the Father, pre pared for the building of God, raised to high places by the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross. In this place most of my readers will perhaps agree with me, that it is a much bolder metaphor, to call men stones, than to say that they are prepared for the building of God, an expression more than once jnade use of by St. Paul.* It is true that St. Peter, in employing the same metaphor, makes use of the word stones, but only by way of comparison, " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house." t But I cannot dismiss this objection ofthe Reviewer without quoting here the words of a most learned writer, who had taken great pains to investigate the question of the Igna tian Epistles, on this very sentence. " Hear another passage in the " smaller, which presently follows : Bvo-avres ra ara, eis rb p.rj irapa- " Se^airdai ra (nreipopieva vir' avrZv, ds bvres Aidoi vaov irarpos : Obstru- " entes awes, ad non recipere seminata ab ipsis, ut existentes lapides " templi Patris. This seems an ill-contrived abridgment of a noble * 1 Cor. iii. 9. 2 Cor. v. 1. t 1 Pet. ii. 5. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 63 " context in the Larger ; and by introducing men stopping their ears, " that they may not hear what is sowed by liereticks, as being stones " qf the temple of God, does so jumble together inconsistent meta- " phors, that one cannot, without great injustice, ascribe it to so " great a man as Ignatius."* In page 333 the Reviewer continues — Again, in the same Epistle, we find the words, — " Let us be imitators of our Lord in gentleness, andt who rather may be injured and unjustly used and defrauded : not that the promise is the deed, unless that in the power of faith a man may be found faithful even to the end." — These words as they here stand seem to us very enigmatical. What promise is that of which he speaks ? Consult the Greek, and all which is here obscure becomes clear, and what is abrupt becomes smooth. — "Let us endeavour to be imitators of our Lord. Who can be injured, who be defrauded, who can be set at naught more than He was ? " — Then follow three short chapters in the same strain, and in a fourth the author goes on to say, — " No one who professes faith is guilty of sin ; no one hates who possesses charity. The tree is manifest from its fruit, so they who profess to be Christians shall be proved by their deeds : for the work lies not in the profession, but in the power of faith, if they be found stedfast unto the end." It does not belong to the object which I have before me to criti cise the Reviewer's version of these passages. If the English literal translation from the Syriac appear " enigmatical," why did he not here also turn to consult the Greek text as I have printed it " as it cor responds with the Syriac" ? And why did he make no observation upon the following note on this passage at p. 91 of my volume : " There is nothing in the Syriac to correspond with vvv of the " shorter edition of the Greek, which seems to have been intro- " duced from a miscomprehension of the sense of the passage, " rendered obscure by the long interpolation preceding. The " sense in the Syriac is very plain. — ' But let us be imitators of our " ' Lord in meekness, and in our readiness to undergo injuries and " ' suffering ; for the profession of faith is nothing unless we con- " ' tinue stedfast in the practice of it to the end.' — The preceding " passages, however, OiSels "Kitrriv eirwyyeAAo/jievos aptapravei — oi * See Whiston's Dissertation upon the Epistles of Ignatius in Primitive Christianity, p. 24.' t The Reviewer again has omitted here the word " that," and also added the word " faithful." 64 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, " eirwyyeAAofievoi Xpiariavol eivai, St av irpacrarovo-iv o(p6rj(rovrat, " express this meaning, and seem to be nothing more than a para- " phrase of the words Ov yap eirayyeAias rb epyov, aAA' ev Svva/xei " Tia-reac. See a similar passage in the Epistle to the Romans, p. 18." Why did the Reviewer omit to observe that, at the be ginning of this passage in the Greek, Bishop Pearson had noted Locus est corruptus*, and Dr. Smith, at the end of it, Locus sane perplexus ? t These two learned men did not find, by " consulting the Greek, that all which is here obscure becomes clear, and what is abrupt becomes smooth." And why has the learned Reviewer, in giving his own version of this passage, omitted to take any account of the little particle vvv of the Greek, and nunc of the Latin? I have perhaps said enough already to shew that the Reviewer's attempts to point out "omissions" and " gaps, or rough places," in these Epistles, as they are represented in the Syriac, have not been very successful. To my own mind, I confess this internal argument carries with it almost equal force to the united weight of the many external proofs, to which I have been forced to yield con viction. I request every candid and unprejudiced person to read the Epistles as they stand, now that the interpolated passages have been removed from the Greek, and then to read them as they for merly stood, and to judge for himself. I request him to examine the purified Greek, which the Reviewer himself acknowledges to be " Ignatian, and (a few words excepted) nothing but Ignatian J," and to judge whether that, and the parts omitted as interpolations, could have been by the same hand and the same heart. The Epistle to St. Polycarp, it will be seen, ha3 suffered no other inter polation than the addition of two chapters at the end ; its original style, therefore, remains unaltered: and this Epistle varies but slightly in both the Longer and Shorter recensions. That to the Romans, also, is almost free from insertions in the first five chapters, although it has received many additions towards the end : the difference in this Epistle also, in the two recensions, is com- * See Smith's edition, p. 38. f Ibid. p. 74. t See Review, p. 339. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 65 paratively slight, amounting to only three short insertions in the whole of the three first chapters, one of two words, another of three, and a third of five*; so that its original style, likewise, is not altoge ther obscured.! But the Epistle to the Ephesians has received so much addition and admixture as to be almost entirely changed from its primitive form. The difference in the style of the Epistle to Polycarp from that ofthe rest weighed with Archbishop Usher J in rejecting it as spurious, as it had also done in part with Vedelius§ and Scultetusll before him. And it is also a circumstance worthy of observation, that the sagacity of Vedelius 1T has marked out, as different from the rest, that part ofthe Epistle to the Trallians which forms the fourth and fifth chapters in the usual Greek editions. These two chapters, in all probability, are the only genuine words of St. Ignatius in this Epistle, and the Syriac version shews that they have been transferred thither, without further change or admixture, -from their true position in the Epistle to the Romans.** Whiston, Mosheim,ff and SchroeckJt, have likewise made observations upon the difference of style in the Epistle to Polycarp. I now leave my readers, who have had the patience and kindness to follow me through this detail, to form their own judgment whether the Reviewer be correct in the conclusion at which he arrives in the next page, 334. On the whole, then, we find ourselves brought by the force of evidence, both external and internal, to the conclusion, that the Syriac version contained in the volume before us is an imperfect and mutilated representation of the three Epistles of Ignatius. Thus far I have considered the Reviewer's statements at some length, in the hope of being able thereby to hring forward some facts relating to the Epistles of St. Ignatius., which may be useful * See Usher's edit. p. 82. t " The other is from such parts as are common both to the larger and smaller editions, especially the Epistles to the Romans and to Polycarp, which, as we shall note liereafter, are almost the same in both." Winston's Disser. p. 20. I See Usher's Disser. p. ix. § See Vedelius' edition, pp. 208 and 209. || See Medulla Patrum, lib. ii. cap. 3. If See edition of Vedelius, p. 6 ** See my Preface, p. 29. tt See Appendix, p. 18. It Ibid. p. 19. 66 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, to those who may not have the means of making the investiga tion for themselves, even after the temporary object of this Reply has been accomplished. In the sequel I shall be more brief, as I have only to combat the learned Reviewer's "conjectures." Having proceeded to this point, he endeavours to account for " the time at which, and the reasons for which, such a Syriac epitome of Ignatius, if it be an epitome, was made." With respect to the time, " he is induced to conjecture that it is not earlier than the close of the sixth century." Now, unless he can bring forward something more valid as an argument than a " con jecture" to contradict and disprove the passage which I am about to quote from my Preface, relative to the MS. in which a copy of one of these Epistles is found, it would be useless in me to waste my own and my readers' time in confuting this " conjecture." This one Epistle may be considered as a fair specimen of the text of the Syriac version at the age when it was transcribed ; and it- will be seen, from the collation which I have made with the other copy containing the three Epistles, written apparently about a cen tury later, that they both perfectly agree, with the exception of two or three very slight variations, the interchange of two prepositions of the same signification, and a little difference of orthography in some words, just sufficient to shew that they have not both been transcribed from the same copy. The reason why only one Epi stle exists in this manuscript is probably to be found in the fact of its having been written upon the last leaf of the book, and there not being sufficient space for the addition even of one of the others. The vellum of this one leaf, however, was too valuable to be left vacant. The transcriber seems, therefore, to have added to the rest of the contents of the volume the short Letter to Polycarp, which stands the first of those three which form the Syriac collec tion of the Epistles of St. Ignatius. I transcribe here, from my Preface, p. x., the passage alluded to relative to the age of this manuscript : " There is no date to this volume, but the other, " bound up with it, has a date at the end, which has been partly " erased. Enough, however, remains to shew that it was tran- " scribed between the year of the Greeks 840 and 850, which will " give the date of the MS. between A. D. 530 and 540. The " other volume, bound up with it, was undoubtedly written at the RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 67 ' same period, and indeed the hand-writing seems to be identical. " We may therefore safely conclude, that this copy of the Epistle " of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp was transcribed in the first half of " the sixth century, or before A.D- 550." There is another "conjecture," also, made by the Reviewer, which I cannot pass by without observation. We feel little doubt in our own minds that the collection of Syriac MSS., recently deposited in the British Museum, will turn out to be a nest of Euty- chianism. — p. 336. This is a bold conjecture to be hazarded by one who must have been almost entirely ignorant ofthe nature of the contents of the collection to which it refers. And had the learned proposer of it, to use his own words, " waited to take counsel of his calmer judgment*," he would perhaps scarcely have ventured to pro pound it. In the beginning of his article, as I have already observed, he has stated that he understood that " about 250 volumes, some of them of very great antiquity," which in the same page he calls "valuable MS. materials," "were now safely lodged in our National Museum." In my book I have made use of thirteen of these MSS. Two of them contain copies of the works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, a third is the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, a fourth is a Catena on the Scriptures, and two others contain the Epistles of St. Ignatius, together with various ascetic works by Pachomius and Evagrius, the Monks of the Desert in Egypt, some of the writings of St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum, of Mar Jacob f, &c. &c, and the Prophecy of Isaiah. Thus, six at least, out ofthe thirteen, are free from what the Reviewer designates Eutychianism. Of the rest, three contam works by Severus of Antioch, one, writings of Timotheus of Alexandria, and also works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Gregory of Neocaesarea and Epiphanius, and three are imperfect fragments, one consisting only of ten leaves, of controversial works by Monophysites, but who in all probability were not Eutychians. These amount in all, perfect and imperfect, to seven volumes. * See Beviewer, p. 348. t Who this Mar Jacob was will be seen below, at p. SO. f'2 68 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, Thus the Reviewer, with the contents of only thirteen MSS. par tially made known to him, to six of which he attaches no sus picion — having, also, but a very vague and indistinct notion of the nature of the remaining sevens— ventures to assert that he felt " little doubt -in his own mind," that the very collection, which in the beginning of his paper he had stated he understood " consisted of about two hundred and fifty volumes," " of very great antiquity," and "valuable MS. materials," will turn out to be a nest of Euty- chianism. Yet this very collection* the Pope Clement XI. sent into Egypt twice, at an interval of ten years, to endeavour to ob tain. A part of it was first procured and brought into England by the Archdeacon of Bedford. These volumes were examined, and a list of their contents made, by the Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, who also discovered among them, and published^ the Theophania of Eusebius, long supposed to have been lost. Their value was such as to make the Trustees ofthe National Library, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself at the head, de sirous to secure for this country the remainder of these MSS. ; and the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury deemed the object worthy of an especial grant for this purpose. It would not, therefore, perhaps have been too much to expect that the Reviewer, in his confessed ignorance of the nature and contents of about 240 of these volumes, even according to his own calculation, might have been induced to pay more deference to the judgment and character of the parties above specified, than to hazard an opinion that they would have been at so muoh pains to procure for the British nation, at the expense of a public grant from the Treasury, a mere nest of Eutychianism. t The Reviewer writes, in " offering his own opinion respecting the authorship of the ^Syriac version of the three Epistles of St, Ignatius/' in the following terms : — p. 336. • We haye shewn above that this version was not known in the metropolis of Syria or of Egypt at the commencement of the sixth century ; and we do not believe that it was then in existence ; but about the middle of that century, the * The reader will find a short account of this collection in No. mm. p. 39, of the Quarterly Review. t See above, page 7. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 69 Eutychians, after a temporary depression, became dominant in Syria, and over a great part ofthe East; and have so continued to be till this day, uhder their two patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. We know also that they were un scrupulous in mutilating the writings of the early Christian Fathers, to accom modate them to their own heretical dogmas — " id Monophysitis solenne," says Assemani (ii. 289.) ; and we are sure that the Eutychians of Antioch would have been very desirous of enlisting, if possible, on their side the name of the venerable bishop and martyr of that city, St. Ignatius ; and we find this ver sion in the society of various Eutychian works. All these circumstances, taken together, induce us to conjecture that it is from the hand of a Syrian Monophy- site, not earlier than the close of the sixth century. A sufficient answer, I trust, to the first and- last sentences of this paragraph will be found in what has been already said. I do not think it worth while, for my present purpose, to test the historical information which the Reviewer offers in the second. But the next statement I proceed to examine. I confess, for my own part, when I read the passage, I supposed that Assemani had declared that the Monophysites were in the habit of mutilating the works of the fathers ; that is, of exhibiting them, as the Reviewer has just concluded the Syriac version to be, " an imperfect an ^^C : ,~4.^Ua.Sij ^-^M .™*o Ul ^>«*oaio fS fCans ^*-»? oct \i+s \S) ^>o^> ^•^¦»P • ^cls-^ ^s>ZoLmi> PI .}Li*£a ^biai ¦r.)> \k£ fCxm^D ^aisZZ P ^z>) |2uj-f*»| jLos ^oair&j jZabaJioZoo ]Z.q£+±sis> . ^-^oi fA\> -»P ocaj* y*}>> t-^A \3Qtt^ f-vv J001 P . UfiC^ -^QOfZUO ]oi^.p ^Ou^Al ^\=ib£&£i> r-^A ^-^CoS P| .p^t"4 lA"'t-0 U<-^=1 Oi-fl-Z .^^.CH Po Vials»a. ,-i£> ^y^^* rr*^-»l '^acQ^o . 'yOfiD ^oou»M; |Zca=l> fho^o Uai^ |_r>2uii-li ^.asoOx* ^-^-l .^0^*00 r^*]^o ] Vo.dq.1 £uV*Jr*»l ^aOAS&OO |i.»to •I^Cf-" l-*-*f° U^1-*3! aifii.Z ^!^ypapev&v, which comes the nearest to Q. Cicero's version ; Nervos atque artus esse sapientiie, non tcmere credere. De Petit. Consul. Ch. a. * See Gregorii Naz. Opera, edit. Parisiis, 1609. Vol. i. p. 814. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 77 (for what purpose he is to go into Syria is not intelligible from the Syriac, but it is clear from the Greek). The words, " m my stead, as I charged thee," are not found in the Greek. Our conjecture is, that they were interpolated in extenuation of the schismatical acts of the Eutychians, who obtruded their Bishops in the place of orthodox ones (as they did Severus,. in the room of Flavian), in contravention of the well-known rule* of Nicffia, that no second Bishop should ever be created in a city where there was one already. On the subject of the first part of this paragraph I have already spoken in the Preface to my volume, pp. xxvii. and xxviii., to which I beg to refer. I think the reader will hardly fail to draw the same conclusion as I have done, that it was much more natural for St. Ignatius, in writing to St. Polycarp, whom he had so lately seen, to make such an allusion as is conveyed in these words, re specting the person who was to go to Antioch in his stead, than to write express directions as to the manner in which St. Polycarp was to proceed, such as are given in the seventh and eighth chap ters of this Epistle in the Greek, and which in themselves seem more consonant with the practice of later times. The. words, " in my stead," certainly do not exist in the Greek in this place, but they are, as the Reviewer himself observes, found in the " spurious Epistle to the Antiochians," whither, in all probability, they have been transferred from their true position in the Syriac by the fabri cator of that Epistle, in the same manner as the latter part of the Epistle to the Romans has been transferred to that to the Trallians, and as numerous other passages from the genuine Epistles are borrowed, to give plausibility to those whieh are false. The author's "conjecture" relative to these words in the Syriac version I leave to my readers' own judgment, and pass on to lay before them one or two other " conjectures." At page 340 the Reviewer writes — We must advert here to a slight alteration in -the Syriac version of this Epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius says in the Greek, " When there is no strife among you, ye live the life of God." This is plain enough ; but our Syriac translator having, perhaps, before his eyes the strifes of the twelve diffe rent factions of Eutychians, to say nothing of their feuds with -the orthodox, chooses to read epa>s, love, for epis, strife ; and at the price of a false concord, and taking love in a vicious sense, to warn them against it, instead of against strife ! We have here another specimen of the learned Reviewer's style of verbal criticism. My translation is, " one of those lusts ;" and 78 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, both the English, as well as its corresponding Syriac word, ex presses other desires than those of "love in a vicious sense." How, then, could he possibly tell that the translator, who, ac cording to his own theory, must have performed his task more than twelve centuries ago, chose to read epos for epis, and also to take it in a vicious sense ? I think, however, I can prove that it is very unlikely that he did read epas, and also, that I shall be able to shew what in all probability he did read. The word epas occurs once, and only once, in the Greek of the Ignatian Epistles, in the well-known words, 6 ep.bs epas eo-ravparai* ; and as this is a genuine passage, it is also found in the Syriac version, where it is rendered by | h^a^i t, as it also is in the same passage cited in the Syriac translation of the supposed works of Dionysius the Areopagite. X The Syriac word in the Epistle to the Ephesians, now under our consideration, is | &^*^j | § ; and this occurs also in the Epistle to Polycarp, in the passage, that they may not be found the slaves qf lusts, ]b^-*y>\\; and again, a little further on, from the same root, although not quite in the same form, that the marriage might be in our Lord, and not in lust, | ^5 .11 It is found likewise in the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, in the desire |Zui qf the sufferings ofthe cross.** In all of these three places the corresponding Greek word is eiridvfjia. We have every reason, therefore, to suppose that the Syriac translator must have read the same word in the fourth place : and so, indeed, we find that he did, upon referring to the Longer recension, which in this, as in many other instances, has preserved the true reading : orav yap fiijSepia eTtdvfiia ev ipiiv inrapyei, k. T.A.tt Will the Reviewer urge, in this case, that the interpolator of the Longer recension, " having perhaps before his eyes the strifes of the twelve different factions of Eutychians, to say nothing of their feuds with the orthodox, chooses to read emdv/jla, lust, for epis, strife," &c. ? At page 348 the Reviewer writes — It is a remarkable fact, that all the Jacobite Patriarchs of Syria at this day * Epist. to Romans, ch. vi. edit. Jacobson, p. 364. tP.22. 1. 5. X P. 54. 1.8. § P. 12.1.10. II P. 6. 1.11. If P. 6. 1.22. ** F. 66. 1.16. tt See Archbp. Usher's edition, p. 33. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 79 usurp the title of Ignatius ! They thus shew their desire to appropriate the holy Martyr to themselves; and the same spirit would have not spared his works which has taken this liberty with his name. According to the authority of Le Quien, the first Jacobite Patri arch who bore the name of Ignatius was raised to that office* A. D. 877, or about two hundred years, according to the Reviewer's own calculation, after the Syriac version was made. The next who took this appellation was elevated to the Patriarchate about three hundred and forty-five years later t, A.D. 1222. If there be any value in the Reviewer's argument with respect to Jacobite Patriarchs of Syria, let us apply it to the Popes of Rome. " It is a remarkable fact, that no less than thirteen Popes of Rome have usurped the title of Clement. They thus shew their desire to appropriate that apostolic Father to themselves ; and the same spirit would not have spared his works which has taken this liberty with his name." The Reviewer then proceeds — Our conjecture, that this Syriac version is of Jacobite extraction, is further confirmed by the fact, that in the very same MS. volume which contains it, are found sermons by Mar Jacob, whom we conjecture to be no other than the celebrated heretical and schismatical Bishop of Edessa. To this he adds the following note : — If this Mar Jacob should turn out to be the other Bishop of Edessa (see above, p. 347, note), he also was a Monophysite J ,¦ if we may judge from his translation of the writings of Severus, and from his ritual works, received by the Jacobites. And at page 349, more boldly — And there is a strong presumptive evidence against the orthodoxy and in tegrity of writings discovered, as the two MSS. of the Syriac version have been, in the suspicious company of Severus of Antioch, and Timotheus of Alexandria, and other Monophysite writers, and one of these MSS., the only one which contains the three Epistles, bound up in the same volume with a work of a leader, perhaps the head of the Jacobites. The few words in which these three sentences are comprised, contain so many errors, that it would occupy far too much time to notice * See Oriens Christianus, Vol. ii. p- 1375. t See ibid, p 1392. t Assemani says he was an orthodox Catholic, although he did translate the works of Severus. See Bibl. Orient. Vol. i. p. 470. The Liturgies of St. Chry sostom, St. Basil, &c, are also " received by the Jacobites i" shall we, therefore, suspect these Fathers of Monophysite doctrines? 80 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, them all : this I think will hardly be deemed necessary. I therefore limit myself to the examination of the one which is made princi pally to bear upon the matter at present under our consideration. In giving the short account in my Preface of the MSS. from which I had extracted my materials, after speaking of the three Epistles of St. Ignatius found in the volume alluded to, I merely added — " The rest of this MS. is miscellaneous, containing a Letter " of Gregory Theologus to Evagrius, Sermons of Mar Jacob, &c. &c."* I did not stop to inquire who this Mar Jacob was, be cause some research would be necessary to enable me to ascertain that fact ; and I did not for an instant imagine it could be sup posed to affect the question relating to the Syriac version, any more than I could conceive that Epiphanius and Gregory Thauma- turgus would incur the charge of Monophysitism because they are found in the same volume as Timotheus of Alexandria, or that Bp. Tomline would run the risk of being suspected of Calvinism be cause I might happen to find a copy of his Elements of Christian Theology bound up together with the Institutes of the famous Re former, of Geneva. I felt sure, however, that it could scarcely be Mar Jacob Baradams who has given name to the Jacobites, because I had transcribed his life, written by a contemporary Bishop, and had no recollection of any mention whatever of writings by him. f I thought it was very unlikely to be by Mar Jacob the Interpreter, because he was not consecrated Bishop before 651 1, and, conse quently, did not till then bear the title of Mar ; and I was by no means certain that the MS. might not have been transcribed before that date ; besides, although Assemani has given a long list of his works, he mentions no sermons. I should, therefore^ have drawn the conclusion, that the author under our consideration was no " Bishop .of Edessa " at all, but a man far more celebrated for his piety and learning than either, the famous Mar Jacob of Sarug, Bishop of Batnas ; and such proves to be the fact This will be evident to any one who will compare the beginning of this homily, which is metrical, ova H-"-*-* J-»^o \sol V*Q^»> oiZ}*., with the commencement of that described by Assemani in his first * See my Preface, p. 1 2. t Concerning the one or two -works, which have been falsely attributed to him, see Assemani Bibl.Or. Vol. ii. p. 67. t See ibid. Vol. i. p. 468. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 81 volume of hi3 Bibliotheca Orientalis, p. 316. No. 79. This Mar Jacob was born A.D. 452*, and died A.D. 521, or many years earlier than either of the other Bishops with whom the Reviewer could fain confound him. But lest the unfavourable light, in which the Reviewer seems to regard the other Bishops who bore this name, should also be reflected upon the author of the sermons found in the same MS. with the three Epistles of St. Ignatius, I transcribe Assemani's account of him : — " Jacobus Sarugensis, cog- nomento Doctor, Batnarum in Mesopotamia Episcopus, earn cilm doctrinae, tizm sanctitatis opinionem apud Syros obtinuit, ut ipsum tam Orthodoxi, qu&m Haeretici velut Sanctum venerentur." t At page 345 the Reviewer, after bringing several heavy charges against Severus, to which, as they are not drawn from my volume, I am not bound to reply, writes in the following words : — It will be further seen, that Severus has actually distorted one of these pas sages to suit his own particular dogma. " Christ (says the Greek) was baptized, that by suffering He might purify water." " Christ (says Severus) was bap tized, that being passible He might purify water." I think, before the Reviewer had ventured to bring such an accusation against a Christian Patriarch, he should have been at the pains fully to examine the idioms of the two languages, to ascer tain whether both these expressions made use of might not mean precisely the same thing. I cannot, however, even if they do not, dis prove the Reviewer's statement that Severus "has actually distorted this passage to suit his own dogma," because I have not read all his writings; but so far as I know, Severus has never used these words at all; they are, however, cited by Timotheus of Alexandria, as I have given them at page 54 of my volume, where, in all pro bability, the Reviewer became acquainted with them. The Reviewer adduces several sentences, concerning which he says it "is sufficiently obvious why an Eutychian should have rejected such passages," and endeavours thence to strengthen his supposition, that the Syriac version is a " miserable epitome made by an Eutychian heretic." With respect to these I observe gene rally, that so far as I am able to form an opinion, they have nothing * See Assemani's Bibl. Orient. Vol. i. pp. 239, 290. t Ibid. p. 283. 82 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, whatever to do with Eutychian tenets ; and further, the epitomizer must have spent his labour in vain, since he has allowed others to remain which inculcate the very same doctrine. Timotheus and Severus*, both able and learned men (and, according to the autho rity of the Reviewer, Eutychians), would hardly have cited these in favour of Eutychian opinions, if others thought it prudent to reject them as opposed to Eutychianism. I will, however, examine one or two of the passages which the Reviewer brings forward — We have just quoted one passage from the Greek respecting the Eucharist, which is wholly omitted from the Syriac : let us now say a few words concern ing another passage relative to the same subject. In the seventh chapter of his Epistles to the Romans, according to the Greek text, Ignatius exclaims : " I long for the Bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made in the last times of the seed of David and of Abraham ; and I long for the Drink of God which is His Blood, which is incorruptible love, and everlasting life." Those words which are printed in italics are not found in the Syriac version. In the first place, I remark that Dr. Smith commences a long note on this passage with the following words: ""Aprov ®eov ®eAa, K.r.A. Multa hie, quas occurrunt quoque apud Metaphras- tam, et reperiuntur etiam in vulgatis codicibus, manifestam sapiunt interpolationem." t In the next place, I observe that the Latin ver sion edited by Archbp. Usher has made almost the same omissions, as the following words shew : — " Panem Dei volo, quod est caro Jesu Christi, ejus qui ex genere David, et potum volo sanguinem ipsius, quod est charitas incorruptibilis." { It must therefore be no less " remarkable" (to use the Reviewer's own words in his observations on this passage), that the Latin translator, as well as "the Syriac translator, while he has pre served the expression " the bread of God," by which the elements seem to be divinized, has omitted the very term, " bread of life," which is urged by Orthodoxus against the Eutychian." — p. 342. * At page 345 the Reviewer makes the following remark : — " The Euty chianism, therefore, of the Translator appears in some respects to have differed from that of Severus. On the whole, therefore, it appears to us much more fortunate than wonderful, that Severus should have cited some passages which are omitted in the Syriac version." t See Smith's edition, notes, p. 101. I See Jacobson's edit. p. 367. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 83 Again, at p. 345— On the other hand, the Syriac translator has omitted the close of the follow ing sentence in the Epistle to the Ephesians (cap. i.) : — " I hope to obtain by your prayers to fight with beasts at Rome, that thus I may be able to be a disciple of God, who offered himself an oblation and sacrifice for us." The words after God do not appear in the Syriac. So likewise they "do not appear" in the Latin version edited by Archbp. Usher as we have seen above.* If, therefore, these omissions have been made in the Syriac version by the translator, to favour Eutychian tenets, for what purpose must we conclude that they have been made by the Latin translator ? Will the learned Reviewer now take upon himself to shew that this version also is a " mise rable work by an Eutychian heretic?" At page 346, the Reviewer writes — We have already adverted to a passage in which the Syriac translator has suppressed the word Jesus. He seems to have taken great pains to do so ; especially when Jesus stands before Christ, and when a distinction is made between His person and that of the Father. I will only add one passage more, and then close my remarks. Such is the result of a comparison of the Syriac with the Greek, as far as respects one great particular doctrine of Christianity, and we look in vain for any evidence that the Syriac translator would have accepted the following articles of the Creed :— " I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suf fered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried." There is no blindness so dark as that of those who wilfully close their eyes against the light. Let us, therefore, take the Syriac version as we find it. In the second line of the first Epistle, that to Polycarp, we read, by God the Father, and by Jesus Christ our Lord. In the same Epistle we find, Him who for our sakes suf fered; Sim who for our sakes endured every thing in every form. In that to the Ephesians we read, the greatness qf God the Father — the will of the Father of Jesus Christ our God — the love of Jesus Christ the Saviour — ye are raised on high by tlie engine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, and ye are drawn by the rope, which is the Soly Ghost . There was hidden from the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary, and the birth of our Lord. * See page 24.. 84 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, Surely here is evidence enough, taken from two of the Epistles only, in the author's own words, of his acceptance of the belief in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered and was crucified, and implied evidence also of his belief in the miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost, as well as of our Lord's death and consequent burial. Nothing, cer tainly, is said about Pontius Pilate. Neither is his name mentioned by St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, in their Epistles ; nor, indeed, do they speak of our Lord's miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost, or of his burial. Must we therefore conclude that " we look in vain for any evidence that these holy Apostles would have accepted these articles of the Apostles' Creed ? " I trust that I have now said enough to vindicate the Epistles of St. Ignatius, as they are represented to us in the Syriac version, from the charge of heresy amounting almost to infidelity, which has been brought against them by the Reviewer. It seems plain, from the Reviewer's concluding remarks, that his anxiety to uphold and defend the integrity of the seven Igna tian Epistles is closely connected with some apprehension that the rejection of those passages, which the Syriac version points out as spurious, may be detrimental to the cause of that system of Church. government which he is desirous of seeing strengthened by the " increase ofthe Episcopate." No one can be more desirous than myself that everything should be done which wisdom and pru dence can suggest, to augment the efficacy of that system, and its consequent benefits to our Christian community. But in consider ing a subject like that whiph we have before us, it becomes our duty to divest ourselves as much as possible of the bias of our pre judices and our Sympathies, in order that we may be the better able to discover the truth, and then to follow it simply for its own sake, whether it confirm or condemn om- previous notions and in clinations. I take, however, a very different view of this matter, and entertain no such apprehension. I have already stated my conviction, that were every word of the Ignatian Epistles proved to be false, nor had one syllable ofthe writings of that holy man been preserved to us, this would not in the slightest degree affect the cause of Epi scopacy, which is built upon surer ground than to be so easily RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 85 shaken. The establishment of that system in Christ's Church, to be of authority, must be looked for many years before St. Ignatius was led to suffer at Rome. Are we, therefore, to suppose that the basis upon which it is raised would have been weakened if he had written no letters on his journey? Indeed, the circumstances under which he was carried away, and the known character and behaviour of those who had the charge of him, render it at first sight improbable that he should have written many long letters on the way, or that one of his main objects in every one of them should have been the exaltation of the clergy, and especially of that order to which he himself belonged. This of itself has been felt to be a very weighty objection against the Ignatian Epistles ; and when added to so many other grounds for believing them to be spurious, it has rendered their authority altogether void and unavail ing in all controversies with those who objected to the Episcopal form of Church government. Indeed, that system seems to have suffered in estimation from the indiscreet zeal of some of its advo cates in insisting so much upon the Ignatian Epistles. In this instance, as in almost all other similar cases, when their opponents found the arguments, derived from this source, too weak to be maintained, they were ready to push their advantage further, and to conclude that the rest, which had not been made so prominent, were still more feeble and unavailing. None of. the objections, however, from the reasons just stated, can with justice be brought against the Epistles of St. Ignatius as they are found in the Syriac Version. He only refers to that sub ject in one of his Epistles, and his reason for so doing is suffi ciently obvious. It is well known that many heresies were then springing up ; and the people at that early period could only be taught the true faith, and kept therein, by the diligent attention of their bishops and pastors. St. Ignatius, who had recently parted from St. Polycarp, and probably was writing to him at his own request, could not have adopted a surer and safer plan to pre serve the Smyrneans from falling into error, than by exhorting them to give all heed to their Bishop, who had drawn the waters of life and truth so near to their only source. That this was the chief object of St. Ignatius is plain from the letter itself, which it is evident he intended to be read publicly to the Church at 86 REPLY TO AN ARTICLE IN THE ENGLISH REVIEW, Smyrna. He reminds St. Polycarp of his duty to maintain his position as a Christian Bishop, and to stand firmly : to love both the good and evil disciples, bringing the latter into subjection by gentleness and meekness. He exhorts him to stand up like a brave combatant against those who teach strange doctrines, and bids him to impress several important duties upon his flock ; and then, addressing himself to the people, he urges them to look to their Bishop for instruction and example, adding, that he was ready to offer his life for those who were obedient to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons. Nothing can be more admirable than this letter in this respect. St. Ignatius seems to have felt -that the Smyrneans would then be ready to give much heed to his words, as one so shortly about to suffer for Christ's sake ; and he therefore' took the opportunity of confirming them in their faith and duty, by teaching them through their own appointed teachers, and thus endeavouring to bind them together in the close ties of affection and obedience, which would be the most certain way of preventing them from sinning or from falling into error. Thus we obtain not only the testimony of St. Ignatius to the Episcopal form of government and the three distinct orders of the clergy, as established in still earlier times, existing in the Church of Smyrna at' the beginning ofthe second century; but also a certain insight into the separate and relative duties of the people and the clergy. We do not, however, find this holy man saying, that the Bishop sits in the place qf God, and the Presbyters in the place of ihe Apostles.* — Se who honor eth the Bishop, is honored of God, he who doeth any thing without the knowledge of the Bishop, serveth the Devil}; and using other expressions similar to these, such as we could hardly expect, after being acquainted with the Apostolic Epistles, from one who had both seen and heard the Beloved Dis ciple. Neither, indeed, do we find these express words, Let no one do any thing of what pertains to the Church without the Bishop.X But in writing to a Christian Bishop an epistle evidently intended to be read to his flock, Ignatius does say what is tantamount to this : * Ep to Magnes c. vi. edit. Jacobson, p. 306. t See Ep. to Smyrn. c. ix ibid. p. 416. X Ibid. c. vm. p. 414. RESPECTING THE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS. 87 Let nothing be done without thy will, to which he adds, Neither do thou any thing without the will of God, a caution no less salutary for Bishops than that which precedes it is for those who are en trusted to their charge. Had all Bishops in all ages, and under all circumstances, duly heeded these words of St. Ignatius, the Apostolic institution and spiritual authority of their sacred office probably would never have been questioned. In closing these observations, I cannot refrain from expressing my hope, that some one who has more learning and ability, and also is happy in having more leisure than myself, will reconsider the whole of this most interesting question, relative to the Ignatian Epistles. The object is well worthy of the labour ; and it formerly engaged the attention of some of the ablest and best Prelates of our Church. The point at issue is either to strip off, as Archbp. Usher expresses it, a number of beggarly patches added unto his purple by later hands, by which it is foully depraved *, or to com mit little less than sacrilege, by rending the Episcopal mantle of this holy Martyr. From that which has been said above it is plain what are my own convictions on this matter. I shall, however, be sorry if any one interested in this subject should rest contented with any arguments which I have adduced, without duly testing and examining them to ascertain if they be well founded. Who soever may undertake the investigation, it is due no less to himself than to others that he should endeavour to divest himself of every bias of prejudice or feeling ; that he should seek impartially, and state candidly, the evidence and the arguments on both sides; and if, from greater knowledge of the subject, more extensive research, or any more certain process of reasoning, he can prove my conclusions to be ill-founded, not only shall I be ready most willingly to acknowledge them to be so, but I also shall be among the first to offer him my sincere thanks for more clearly pointing out to me the Truth. * See above, p. 1 1 . APPENDIX. OPINIONS OF VARIOUS LEARNED MEN RESPECTING THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES, FROM THE YEAR 1650 DOWN TO THE DIS COVERY OF THE SYRIAC VERSION IN 1843. 1650. Petau (D.), De Theologicis Dogmatibus; — De Ecclesiaslica Hierarchia. 1 . Sed unum ex antiquissimis adeoque primi, et Apostolici saeculi Patribus nefas est praetermittere, sanctissimum Ignatium : cujus creberrimis, ac luculen- tissimis testimoniis catholica de Ecclesiasticorum ordinum discrimine traditio mirum in modum adstruitur. Quae res Leidensem primum professorem Sal- masium, tum hujus suffragatorem Blondellum offendit sic, ut ad elevandam immo pessundandam Apostolici viri auctoritatem, studium omne suum, et conatum uterque contulerit : atque eo demum progressi sunt, ut ab Ignatio ullas unquam esse scriptas epistolas negare non sunt veriti : quse mihi opinio prorsus absurda, et intoleranda videri solet. Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse : tum aliquas esse supposititias : verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio. Edits sunt ante annos quatuor ex Bibliotheca Florentina Ignatii epistolae sex hoc ordine : 1. ad Smyrnseos ; 2. ad Polycarpum ; 3. ad Ephesios ; 4. ad Magnesios ; 5. ad Philadelphenses ; 6. ad Trallianos : deerat ad Romanos septima. Totidem enim, et quidem istas percenset Hierony- mus in libro de Scriptoribus, capite 26. Eae porro multum a vulgatis hactenus discrepant : atque hoc habent prsecipuum, et magni utique faciendum, quod omnes in illis reperiantur sententiae, quae ab antiquis Patribus ex Epistolis Ignatii citataB leguntur : quae quidem in aliis desiderantur editionibus. Debemus hoc praestantissimuin Christianas antiquitatis monumentum eruditissimo viro Isaaco Vossio Gerardi filio, qui illas e Florentino codice descriptas trans Alpes retulit ; mihique legendas humanissime obtulit : ac non multo post Lugduni Batavorum Graece et Latine publicavit, addita, quam annis ante aliquot ediderat Jacobus Usserius, Latina veteri versione, apprime consentiente cum Graecis Florentini codicis : ut haic prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epi stolas ; quas antiquorum consensus illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac ap- probatas reliquit— Lib. 5. Cap. 8. Edit. Antverp. tom.iv. p. 161. 11 APPENDIX. 1681. Owen (John), On enquiry into the original nature, institution, power, order, and communion of Evangelical Churches. London, 1681. 4to. Unto this time— that is, about the year 107 or 108— do belong the epistles ascribed unto Ignatius-, if so be they were written by hini. For Polycarpus wrote his Epistle to the Philippians after Ignatius was carried to Rome, having wrote his epistles before in Asia. Many are the contests of learned men about those epistles which remain, whether they are genuine, or the same that were written by him : for that he did write epistles unto sundry churches is acknowledged by all. And whereas there have in this age been two copies found and published of those epistles, wherein very many things that were obnoxious unto just exception in those before published do not at all appear, yet men are not agreed which of them ought to be preferred ; and many yet deny that any of them were those written by Ignatius. I shall not interpose in this contest ; only I must say, that if any of his genuine writings do yet remain, yet the corruption and interpolation of them for many ages must needs much impair the authority of what is represented in them as his ; nor am I delivered from these thoughts by the late, either more sound or more maimed, editions of them ; and the truth is, the corruption and fiction of epistolical writings in the first ages was so intolerable, as that very little in that kind is preserved sincere and unquestionable. — Works, edited by Russel, 1826. vol. xx. p. 147. 1689. Spanheim (Frid.), Summa Histories Ecclesiastical. Lugd. Bat. 1689. 12mo. Non vero tacendus Ignatius Episcopus vel Praepositus Ecclesiae Antioclienae, Apostolorum discipulus et auditor, martyr sanctissimus, Trajani anno x. Mr& vulg. cviii. Hunc in Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis habent Veteres omnes, post Eusebium, ne dicam Irenaeum, et Originem citantes Ignatiana. Sane ejus Epistolae septem, in vinculis scriptee, prae reliquis, a pluribus approbantur, ad Smyrnasos, ad Polycarpim, ad Ephesios, ad Magnesios, ad Philadelphenses, ad Trallianos, et ad Romanes, ut ab Isaaco Vossio Graece, ab Usserio Armachano Latine, vulgataB fuerunt, omnium purgatissimae. Reliquae, sub Ignatii nomine, seu Latinae seu Graecae, tacitae Eusebio et Hieronymo, omnium consensione in supposititiis habentur. Sed nee leves sunt Salmasii, Blondelli, Dallaei, Laroquii, dubitandi de prioribus rationes. Quum sint in iis plurima, quae Ignatio poste- riora videantur, phraseologiae, facta, haereses, ritus, disciplines ratio. — P. 88. 1692. Schelstkate (Eman.), Antiquitas Ecclesiee dissertationibus monimentis ac notis illustrata. 1692. 2 Vol. fol. Nee obstat his omnibus, quod Ignatius teste Eusebio, cum e portu Smyr- APPENDIX. Ill nensi solvisset, Troademque venisset, privatim ad Polycarpum Smyrnensium episcopum litteras dederit, et in iis juxta editionem laudatam scripserit. Decet Polycarpe Deo beatissime concilium congregare Deo decentissimum, et ordinare aliquem, quem dilectam valde habetis, et impigrum, qui poteril Dei Cursor vocari, et hunc dignificari, ut vadens in Syriam glorifioet vestram impigram charitatem in gloriam Dei. Quamvis enim in Graeco legatur Xeiporovrja-ai ordinare ; haec tamen nequaquam de manus impositione Episcopi Antiocheni intelligi possunt, sed tantum de alicujus viri electione, qui munus Cursoris impleret, ut Antio- chiam pergeret, et litteras, aliaque perferret. Unde Polycarpus ipse in sua ad Philadelphienses epistola testatur : " Scripsistis ad me et vos, et Ignatius, u?si quis forte in Syriam proficisceretur, vestras litteras eb deferret. Quod quidem perficiam, si tempus opportunum nactus fuero, vel ego ipse, vel per alium quempiam, cui id munus vestra causa delegabo." Haec Polycarpus ad Phila delphienses apud Eusebium libro 3. cap. 36. Ex quibus patet, Ignatium litteras misisse ad Antiochenos, idque per Philadelphienses, quas litteras Polycarpus vel per se, vel per alium quempiam se missurum promisit. Non agebatur itaque de ordinando per B. Polycarpum Antiocheno Episcopo, sed eligendo viro egregio . Xeiporovea itaque significat ibi per suffragia eligere : electus autem ille Antio- chiam mittendus erat, ut epistolas Ignatii ad illius civitatis ecclesiam per ferret, et Antiochensem in virtute et fide confirmaret. Unde Divus Hiero- nymus libro de Scriptoribus agens de B. Ignatii ad Polycarpum epistola : Scripsit proprii ad Polycarpum, inquit, commendans illi Antiochensem Ecclesiam. Et ante D. Hieronymum Eusebius libro 3. cap. 36. Ignatius a Smyrna ulterius progressus, cum Troadem venisset, inde ad Philadelphienses litteras dedit, et ad SmyrntBorum Ecclesiam, privatvmque ad Polycarpum eorum episco pum, quem cum Apostolicum virwm esse plane eognoseeret, ipsi, tanquam bonus ac fidelis Pastor, gregem Antiochenos Ecclesiae cammendavit ; rogans ut omni cura ac diligentia ilium fovere vellet. Ignatius se absente Ecclesiam Antio- chenorum Polycarpo commendavit, de ordinando in sui locum Episcopo nihil scripsit, nihil locutus fuit : sed nee scribere, nee loqui potuit, cum Ignatio vivente alium Episcopum constituere non licuerit. Unde et ipse Ignatius epistola ad Antiochenos : Presbyteri paseite gregem, qui inter vos est, donee Deus designaverit eum, qui principatum in vobis habiturus est : ego enim jam immolor, ut Christum lucrifaciam. ' Ex quibus patet, Presbyteros Antiochenos absente Episcopo gregem istius Ecclesiae pascere debuisse, neque ad Poly carpum curam spectasse, nisi in quantum Ignatii litteris ei delegatum erat, ut Ecclesiam Antiochensem consilio suo, et adhortationibus juvaret, non vero eis Episcopum ordinaret, utpote qui post Ignatii martyrium Antiochiae electus, et creatus est, ut testatur Eusebius libro 3. cap. 35 : Eo, nimirum Ignatio, defuncto, Episcopatum Antiochence Ecclesia Heros suscepit. — Tom. ii. p. 249. 1692. Tentzel (Wil. Ernest), Exercitationes Selects. Lips. 1692. 4to. IX Postheec dispiciendum est, qua) Nostratium Doctcrum fuerit sententia, n 2 IV APPENDIX. notato prius discrimine inter eos, qui ante et post Usserii Vossiique editiones scripserunt. Ad priorem classem spectant Centuriatores Magd. Epistolas Ignatii omnes pro suspectis dubiisque habentes : quos more suo secutus est Lucas Osiander Centur. 1. p. 131. B.Chemnitius in Orat. de lect. PP. judi- cavit, multa admixta esse, qua non sunt Ignatii. Joh. "Pappus Epit. Histor. Eccles. p. 102. Epistolam ad Smyrnenses vel supposititiam%el certe corruptam esse censet. Simile judicium post B. Gerhardum Patrol, pp. 58, 59 est B. Dor- schei Mysar. Missse c. vii. p. 249. Ignatianas Epistolas adulteratas antiquitus fuisse et supposititia multa continere. In posteriori ordine primum locum obtinet Tlieologorum nostrae aetatis Principes, B. Hulsemannus Patrolog. pp. 975, 976, et D. Abr. Calovius, Patronus et Doctor maximus, in Methodo studii Theol. p. 300, et in Consid. Arminianismi p. 126. quos sequuntur Theologi ac Phi- lologi plurimi, quorum illustria nomina breve chartae spatium non capit. Censura eorum in hoc constitit, ut non omnem quidem prioribus septem Igna- tianis yvja-ior^ra derogent, ab omni tamen interpolatione aut mutilatione haud esse immunes dicant. Nee aliter poterit judicare, quicunque accuratius pon- deraverit tot causas gravissimas, quae summos viros ad hanc sententiam feren- dam impulerunt : quas utut magno studio tollere conatus sit Pearsonius, non omnibus tamen ex aequo ipsum satisfecisse eruditi animadverterunt. Praeterea ratio emendandi Graecum textum juxta Latinam versionem, quam inivit Usse rius, non adeo tuta, tantove negotio congrua videtur, cum versio ilia recentior sit, quippe circa confinia sexti septimive saeculi, conjectante ipso Usserio, confecta: nee tanta fide et cura Graecum exprimat textum, quanta in his monumentis requiritur, ut idem et Pearsonius passim observant : denique quod maximum est, editionem Ignatianarum non genuinam, sed interpolatam spu- riisque Epistolis auctam sequatur. Quare etiam Usserius Prolegom. c. iv. ex ea versione sola integritati sua restitui posse Ignatium polliceri non audet, nisi alterius exemplaris subsidium accesserit ; vel Greed, cujus ex Bibliotheca Florerttina obtinendi spes sibi nuper injecta sit non exigua : vel saltern Syriaci, quod Romte reperiri adhuc posse non desperet. Enimvero, quum quadraginta ferme annis ab Usserii editione elapsis nemo, quod sciam, Romse adservatum Codicem Syriacum memoraverit, nee probare queat institutum, quo ex ver sione Syra textus Graecus emendandus foret: videndum est, quae Codicis Medicei, quem tantopere praestolatur Usserius, et in sua editione expressit Vossius, auctoritas pondusque sit, et num veras et genuinas et testimoniis an- tiquorum ubique congruentes exhibeat epistolas, quemadmodum videtur illus- tri Vossio. At vero, si accuratius inspiciatur, ab omnibus plane inter- polationibus ac mutilationibus liber immunisque haud esse deprehendetur. Neque enim ubique ipsi convenit cum veterum Patrum, Theodoreti imprimis, allegatis, fatente in Notis plus semel Vossio, quod sane maximum aifert praeju dicium. Si enim in illis, quae a veferibus citantur, fides MSti vacillat, quis asseverabit, majorem in reliquis ipsi tribuendam esse auctoritatem ? Neque tamen dissimulo, magis cum veterum allegatis convenire Codicem Florentinum, quam Augustanum a Paceo editum. Hinc dum in Dissertatione de disciplina arcani adversus Schelstratium disputans negavi, locum ex Ignatii Epistola ad APPENDIX. V ? Smyrnteos a Theodoreto in tertio Dialogo recitatum inveniri in modernis codi- cibus sequutus sum tum Doctorum nostrorum, tum ipsius adversarii adserta, antiquioribus pi-ocul dubio editionibus innixa; sed in Vossiana eum postea de- prehendi : quod Petavius etiam monuit lib. xii. de Incarnatione cap. xiii, num. 3. neutiquam tamen dissimulans, pro voce nrpoo-evxas Theodoretum in suo exemplari habuisse irpoo-tpopai;, indeque concludens: Quare Eucharistia est ¦wpao- waBei rb vScop KaBapioii, ut passione aquam purificet ? Cum autem genuinos procul dubio codices consuluerint Theodoretus et Macarius, tum Mediceum interpolatum esse manifeste consequitur. X. Sunt etiam verba qusedam ab antiquis Ignatio tributa, quae in editione. Vossiana frustra quaeras. Cujusmodi sunt, quae Hieronymus lib. iii. adversus Pelagianos Ignatium audaciter senbere refert. Pearsonius quidem P. 1 . cap. Ui. . ¦ existimat, Hieronymum memoria lapsum pro Barnaba Ignatium posuisse. idem-. vi APPENDIX. , que ante eum censuit Hugo Menardus in Notis ad epistolam Barnabae. Sed quidni eadem scripserit Ignatius, quae vel ex eo hauserit postea supposititius Barnabas, vel ex sua sententia pariter edixerit ? Praeterea clarius exemplum defectus in Codice Mediceo ostendit Io.Baptista Cotelerius, tom.i. Monu- mentorum Ecclesiae, cui inter alia inseruit Joannis Antiocheni Orationem in donationes Monasteriorum Laicis factas, ubi num. xii. haec ex Ignatio profe- runtur : ra> Se eKKAija-iav @eou a-KavSaAio-avri oiiSe paprvpiov alpa, Kara rbv 8eo(popov 'lyvaTiov, apKei eh avvy&pnaiv — Ei autem, qui Ecclesiam Dei offen- derit, neque martyrii sanguis juxta Theophorum Ignatium, ad veniam sufficit. Vixit Joannes ille Antiochenus circa medium saeculi xii. quippe a Leone Isauro et Constantino Copronymo, .ipsoque adeo bello Iconomachico, ad sua usque tempora quadringentos numerat annos. De loco vero Ignatii ab eo producto Cotelerii in Notis haec est e-irutpurK : Nihil tale legitur in Epistolis S. Ignatii. Sed a Chrysostomo Ilomil. II. in Epistolam ad Ephesios, ubi contra schisma dis- serit, similia proferuntur, tanquam viri cujusdam Sancti, cujus nomen non appo- nitur. 'Avijp Se ris ayios, inquit beatus Doctor, ei-rre n Sokovv eivai roKprjpbv, ¦xAtjv &AA' Upas eipBeyfero. r( Se tovto eariv ; OvSe paprvpiov aipa ravTvjv Sv- vaa-Bai e^aAeiipeiv rrjv apapriav — Dixit autem vir quidem sanctus quiddam, quod mugnam pros se fert audaciam ; sed tamen est elocutus. Quid hoc est autem ? Dixit, ne sanguinem quidem martyrii posse delere hoc peccatum. At enim quis dubitaverit, Ignatium a Chrysostomo intelligi ? Quis nescit veterum Ecclesiae Doctorum morem, nomina Scriptorum, si quos allegant, nonnunquam subticen- tium? quemadmodum Irenaeus et Origines Ignatii apopthegmata proferentes nomen ejus non addunt. Causam si quaeras, cur hoc loco Chrysostomus idem fecerit, cogita, num conveniens fuerit, audaciaB coram universo populo ilium virum insimulare, quem alibi peculiari sermone summis adfecerat laudibus. XI. Notandum porro Codicem Florentinum in caeteris a corruptionibus liberum haud esse, adeo ut Vossius in Notis nunc verba quosdam librarii culpa in epistola ad Smyrnaeos excidisse putarit : nunc locum ex omnibus Ignalianis corruptissi- mum in ea ad Trallianos deprehenderit : nunc conquestus sit, tam inveterata in his Epistolis esse vulnera, ut tempus quo ilia inJUcta sint, prophts Ignatii quam nostrum accedat sosculum. Similiter Usserius in praefat. Appendicis Ignat. conqueritur, non reperisse se Mediceum codicem, qualem nobis Turricmus com- mendaverat, emendatissimum. Idem fatetur Hammondus Dissert. II. cap. ii. et Pearsonius Prolegom. cap. vi. Quapropter Hammondus etiam coactus fuit ad alias Orbis Bibliothecas provocare, in quibus tamen puriorein Codicem ad- versari hactenus nemo retulit. Ex quibus omnibus consequitur, genuinas Ignatii Epistolas hodie non superesse, sed variis modis alibi interpolatas, alibi decurtatas in Usserii Vossiique editionibus existere. Et cum Interpreti Latino Anglicano exemplar Graecum Florentinum apprime convenire, Vossius, Usse rius, Hammondus ac Pearsonius ultro f ateantur : interpres autem interpolatum, et spuriis Epistolis auctum Ignatianarum Codicem expresserit, quis aliter de hodie extantibus epistolis judicare potest ? Quare non desunt, qui lectionem interpolati Graeci Codicis nonnunquam praeferamt Mediceo, ut nuper fecit Richardus Simonius adversus ipsum Vossium disputans, de quo ex personati APPENDIX. VII Hieronymi le Camus Theologi Parisiensis judicio, p. 24. nonnulla attulisse suffi- ciet : Jam ad Ignatii looum, qui sumptus fuit ex illius Epistola ad Philadel phienses venio, ex quo posse ostendi tempus, quo primum Ebraioi Codices corrumpi cceperint, Vossius existimat. Sed quam fade etiam in hoc erratum fuerit, demonstra- verat Slmonius ipsius Ignatii mentem verbis illius Claris et apertis explicans. Nuno Vossius Ignatii sensum conatur obsourare. Miratur Simonii supinitatem, qui cum se criticum profiteatur, spurii Ignatii verba adduxerit ; affertque Vossius ipsa Ignatii verba, ut concipiuntur in codice Florentine nee quidquam in illis mulan- dum esse affirmat. Sed quam feliciter hoc negotium illi succedat, juvat expen- dere. Simonius Ignatii verba non quidem omnino ut extant in Florentino Codice, qui manifeste hoe loco corruptus est et obscurus, protulit ; sed ex interpo- lato Codice, qui isto loco interpolatus non est, immo simplicior est Florentino, et vetustam lectionem magis referens. Interpolatum enim Epistolarum Ignatii codicem in omnibus interpolatum esse nemo dixerit, ne quidem ipse Vossius. Ex- islimavil igitur Simonius, hie Florentinum Codicem, qui multum pros se fert obscuritatis, corrigendum esse ex alio Codice, qui simplicior est, cujusque verba clara sunt ; cum ipse Vossius hoc ipso loco legendum putet apxaioi?, ut habet Codex interpolatus, non vero apxeioK, ut extat ino Codice Florentino. Melior est, inquit Vossius, lectio Pseudo-Ignatii, quam et sequentia videntur approbare. Limit igitur Simonio sequi Pseudo-Ignatii lectionem, ubi constat ilium interpolatum non esse, melioremque sensum, quam Codex Florentinus efflcit. Est et alius in eadem ad Philadelphienses epistola Ignatii locus de conjugio Paulli, quem adhuc hodie ut genuinum laudare soient, ut loan. Adamus Osiander Disput. de conjugio Paulli, Cap. iii. num. 12. et 13. Casp. Loescherus de Latrociniis in scriptores publicos num. 65. Eberhard Rudolph. Rothius de Nicolaitis cap. ii. num.6. Hi aliique similes non codicem Florentinum, sed antea vulgatos sequi debent, cujus generis procul dubio est Noribergensis MStus, in quo Paulli etiam nomen extare audio. Nam in Florentino totius hujus de Apostolorum conjugio periodi nullum occurrit vestigium ; unde Pearsonius, p. ii. Vindiciarum cap. x. Dallaei hanc in rem disputata tribus verbis perstringit : Capite xx. de solo Paulli con jugio agit, et Interpolatorem ferit. Quare etiam Fridericus Spanhemius in Quaternione Dissertationum, p. 71. testimonium illud pro Ignatiano haud agnoscit. His praeiverat Franciscus Turrianus Libro i. pro Canonibus Apo stolorum cap ii. Ignatius, inquiens, in vetere interpretatione Latina manu- scripta epistolas ad Philadelph. quae in Vaticano est, non habet, quod in Grasea epistola nuper in publicum emissa (Pacsei editionem intelligit) legitur de Paullo inter eos, qui uxorem habuerunt. Hue sine dubio respexit Colomesius initio Paralipomenorum ad Cavii Chartophylacem, pag. 2. Antiquam Ignatii epistola rum versionem Latinam ex Bibliotheca Vaticana laudat Fr. Turrianus, (ob infi nitum ejus lectionem scepius a nobis advocandus) in Defensione Canonum Apostolicorum, circa initium. De hae versione ne ypii quidem Ignatii Epistola rum editores. Meretur sane haec Latina versio, ut diligentius inquiratur et cum impressis conferatur: quod fortasse illustris Ciampinus in Collatione His toric Ecclesiasticae a se instituta proponet, orbique litterario aperiet. Mihi enim videtur eadem esse cum Usseriana, quippe quae etiam caret verbis con- troversis de Paulli Conjugio. Vill APPENDIX. XII. Ut igiturtibere sententiam meam edisseram, sic animum composui, ut nihil pro Ignatiano habeam, nisi quod a Patribus priorum quatuor post marty- rium Ignatii saeculorum sanctissimo viro tribuitur : a qua opinione non adeo absunt Centuriatores Magdeburgenses. Qui autem sequentibus vixerunt aetati- bus, ut Antiochus Monachus, Joannes Damascenus, &c, non habuerunt amplius germanas purasque Ignatii Epistolas, sed varie interpolatas et novis et spuriis auctas, prout ostendit Usserius: eatenus tamen tanquam verorum Ignatii verbo- rum testes admitti possunt, quatenus cum antiquoribus illis aliquo modo consen- tiunt. Atque hue collimaturos spero omnes, qui epistolas Ignatii interpolatas esse hodie agnoscunt. Quo enim alioquin fundamento pro Ignatianis venditabuntur, quae pro talibus, stante hoc judicio, haberi neutiquam possunt ? Quo artificio secernentur to KifiSijAa Kal ra Soxtpa ? quibus characteribus internoscere dabi- tur ea, quae Ignatius scripsit, a transmutatis et adjectis ? Novi non deesse inter eruditos, qui hoc negotium facile confici dicant. Sed dicunt saltern, non probant ; nee suo ostendunt exemplo, rei procul dubio difficultate deterriti. Optimus dijudicandi modus consistit in diligenti Manuscriptorum Codicum antiquorum bonaeque notee collatione, quorum ope interpolata et corrupta facile agnosci et ab Auctoris verbis distingui possunt. At in Ignatianis hoc artificium locum non habet. Per universam quippe Europam, quantum constat, non reperitur Codex melior Florentino sive Mediceo. Cujus defectus cum supra monstrati sint, tum, nisi ex Asia aut aliunde novus ac genuinus emergat, de restituendis in integrum Ignatii Epistolis plane desperandum erit. Vidimus hactenus rationes oppido praegnantes wepl yvtja-ioTtrros Ignatiarum dubitandi. — P. 58. 1699. Ittig (L. T.), Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum. Lips. 1699. 12mo. Et laudanda quidem Ruinarti industria, qui hanc epistolam ad Romanos, qualem in Colbertino codice invenit, in addendis ad acta Martyrum sincera et selecta publici juris fecit. Num vero plane genuina haec sit epistola ad Roma nos Ignatiana eruditis dispiciendum relinquo et ad Vossii editionem redeo. P. 275. Etsi autem septem Ignatii epistolas ab Eusebio recensitas genuinas dici posse haud inficier, et pleraque in istis epistolis, quales e Florentino Codice prodie- runt, autorem Ignatium spirare existimem, asserere tamen haud ausim, quod Florentinus ille codex omni ex parte genuinus sit, et Ignatii epistolae per tot saecula ab omni interpolatione liberae ad nostram usque aetatem permanserint. P. 287. 1699. Gkabe (J. E.), Spicilegivm SS. Patrum. Oxoniae. 1699. 2 vol. 8vo. Jam septem genuinarum S. Ignatii epistolarum historiam, ordinem quo scriptse sunt, varias editiones, diversa de eis eruditorum judicia, etc., recenserem, nisi Usserius et Pearsonius aliique eorum ductu ista egregie preestitissent. De APPENDIX. IX auctore tamen interpolationis genuinarum et suppositionis spuriarum Epistola rum, hujusque occasione aliqua in Notis addam, et sinceritatem insuper Codieis Florentini adversus objectiones Tentzelii defendam : ex quibus simul patebit, alias adhuc a B. Martyre literas exaratas quidem, sed deperditas esse. Ad An tiochenos praecipue eum scripsisse nullus dubito : neque enim proprii gregis oblivisci-poterat, qui alias Ecclesias literis cohortabatur, ac in fide confirmabat. Ex genuina igitur ad Antiochenos epistola puto petitas a Damasceno duas sen- tentias, p. 24. recitandas, cum in spuria non extent. Caeterum ad finem prae- fationis properans, de epistola ad Bomanos solum tribus verbis moneo, earn ab Usserio et Vossio in nuUo MS. Codice Graece sinceram inventam, sed ope antiques Latinae versionis ab interpolatione defaecatam fuisse, donee earn anti quis Actis insertam nuper Buinartus edidit: cujus exemplar hie exhibere, ac ut appareat, quam parum Usserius in editione sua aberrarit, diversas ejus lectiones ad cujusque paginae oram annotare volui. Neque tamen dissimulare possum, et istud non omnino sincerum, sed loca Scriptures, 2 Cor. iv. et Matth. xvi. aliaque aliqua addita videri, quae a veteri versione absunt. — Vol.ii. p. 8. 1701. Le Nain de Tillemont (Sebastien), Memoires pour servir a I'Histoire Ecele- siastique. Paris, 1701. 4to. Note vm. Sur diverses lettres attributes a Saint Ignace. Nous avons sou- tenu contre Usserius dans la note 6, la verite de l'epistre que nous avons de S.Ignace a Saint Polycarpe. Mais nous n' avons pas les mesmes raisons pour defendre les autres lettres attributes a S. Ignace, qu' Usserius a rejettees comme fausses. Daille accorde aisement qu'il en a ecrit plusieurs, outre celles qui sont marquees par Eusebe : et il n'y a aucun moyen de douter qu'il n'ait ecrit au moins a son Eglise d'Antioche, sur ce que Dieu avoit appaise la perse cution. On peut mettre dans la mesme classe les trois autres qu' Usserius et Vossius ont trouvees dans les manuscrits avec celles qu'on reconnoist pour in- dubitables, savoir celle a Marie de Cassoboles, celle a V Eglise de Tarse, et celle a Heron diacre d'Antioche : et examiner ensuite s'il faut rejetter ces lettres par la seule raison qu Eusebe ne les a pas connues, parcequ'elles n' estoient point de celles que S. Polycarpe avoit envoyees aux Philippiens. Que si l'on trouve que cette raison ne suffit pas estant seule, il restera a examiner ces lettres en elles mesmes ; ce que nous n'avons pas cru devoir entreprendre ici. Nous remar- quons seulement que nous ne voyons pas moyen de satisfaire a ce que la lettre a ceux d'Antioche ne leur dit rien sur la paix. — Vol. ii. p. 581. 1706. Basnage (Sam.), Annales Politico-Ecclesiastici. Roter. 1706. 3 Vol. fol. Quasi verb prora puppisque Religionis penderet ex quaestione critica. In- X APPENDIX. dulgentiores sane nobis erunt Ignatiarum Epistolarum patroni, etsi succenseant viris clarissimis Blondello, Salmasio, Dallaeo, Larroquano, qui quas ex Bibliotheca Florentina doctissimus Isaac Vossius edidit Epistolas pro genuinis non habuere. Quorum sententiae lubenter nos comites addimus, etsi non indiligenter legerimus, quae vir magni nominis, Joannes Pearson, in Vindiciis Ignatianis scripsit. Totas sane et eruditionis et ingenii sui vires effudit, ut editae a Vossio Epistolae ascribe- rentur Ignatio. Ex eo fonte hortos irrigarunt suos viri ex Monachorum grege eruditi, Natalis Alexander Dominicanus, et Nicolaus Le Nourri, Ordinis S. Bene- dicti, qui invictis rationum monumentis, germano parenti suo Ignatio Epistolas se restituisse arbitratur. Duplici argumentorum genere utitur Pearson 6 nravv, quae externa sunt et interna. Externa a testimoniis, interna ab ipsis Episto lis. Testimonia quod attinet, ostendit capite secundo Vindiciarum, quod nullum seculum suis testibus careat, a secundo quo primum natae, ad decimum quintum, quo primum impresses sunt Epistolis. Quae, si verum volumus, ingens testi- moniorum strues, ad eruditionem Vindicis declarandam facere potest, ad pro- bandum non potest. Cum testimonia Autorum, qui post tertium floruere seculum, prioribus innitantur, nee plus sit in eo sufiragio virium, quam in Polycarpi, Irenaei, Originis, Eusebii. Potuisset ergo celeberrimus Vindiciarum autor, et sibi, et lectoribus tanti laboris exhauriendi dare immunitatem. Prae- terea cum certo certius sit, interpolatas fuisse Ignatii Epistolas, in dubium quoque revocari posset, an non et corruptionis aliquid passae sint illae, quas ex Bibliotheca Florentina Vossius suppeditavit, cum et in ipsis ea reperiantur, quae non sunt Ignatii iEvi. Nee paucae illas laciniae, quae etiamnum in Origine extant aut Eusebio, utut sincerae praedlcantur, satis argumento praebent, ut Epistolas corruptionis esse omnis immunes statuam. Quam si tueremur sen tentiam, desumptum a testibus caderet argumentum. In promptu enim re- sponsio esset, Ignatii quidem Epistolas ad nos pervenisse, sed adulteras, et ab impuris manibus nonnihil contaminatas, quod quomodo refelli posset, nulli videmus. Quod si magis placet, totas ab Ignatio Epistolas abjudicare, non ideo vincent earum patroni. Primum clariss. Pearsonio testimonium ex Polycarpo petitur. Epistolas omnes Ignatii, quas ad me scripsit, et quascunque demum apud nos reperire potuimus, quemadmodum nobis mandastis, ad vos misimus. Quae leguntur in Polycarpo ad Philippenses Epistola. Hinc acutissime col- ligit Vindex Ignatianus. An ullo modo verisimile est Epistolas a tanto Martyre exaratas, u, tanto editas atque laudatas Epistolas etiam UK subjectas, quas per tot soseula publice lecta earum memoriam perpetuo redintegrabat, statim periisse et ab omnium oculis ereptas fuisse. Hoc argumenti dilatat Le Nourii Disserta- tione Septima, c. iii. p. 1 5 1 . Iners tamen esse ipsamet experientia testatur. Laodicea Epistolam scriptam fuisse, a Colossensibus legendam, Paulus docuit Apostolus. Et cum perlecta fuerit apud vos Epistola, facite ut etiam in Laodi- censium edclesia recitetur, et scriptam Laodicea vos quoque legatis. CoLiv. 16. Non celebriores erant Ignatii Epistolae, non ilia sanctiores, queB Laodicea scripta est, ornata coelestis Apostoli testimonio, et in ecclesiis Apostolicis, palam et publice lecta. Periit tamen funditus, et ab omnium oculis erepta fuit. Non ecclesia rum veneratio, non testimonium Apostolorum, non scrinia Christianorum, im- APPENDIX. XI pedimento fuere, quominus ex mortalium evanucrit oculis. Quid, nonne ex verbis Polycarpi liquet, non unam ad se ab Ignatio Epistolam scriptam fuisse . Tor 'EiriaroAas 'lyvariov, rat irepQBeia-as ij/uii/ inr airov — Epistolas omnes Ignatii, quas ad me scripsit. Ecce plures Epistolas, quae ab ilia quoque distinguuntur, cujus mentionem fecerat paucis supra lineis : Scripsistis ad me, et vos et Ignatius. Atqui una tantum superest Ignatii ad Polycarpum Epistola, qua> a viris etiam eruditissimis, Usserio Bonaque, atro carlone notatur. Periit et sancta Philippensium ad Polycarpum Epistola. Ergone licebit, tragico more exclamare : Numquid omnes Eeelesias et Christiani, tantis animis, tantaque arte, in illarum Epistolarum perniciem extinctionemque conspirarunt ? Patribus, qui secundo floruere seculo ignotae fuerunt Ignatianee Epistola) ; ignotas Justino, Theophilo Antiocheno, Irenaeo, Clementi Alexandrino, Tertulliano, qui nun- quam eas adhibent refellendis Haereticis, licet Apocryphis libris saepenumero utantur. — Vol. ii. p. 20. 1710. Whiston (William), An Essay upon the Epistles of Ignatius. London, 1710. 8vo. I shall shew, by internal characters, that the Smaller Epistles cannot be the genuine ones, nor so early as the days of Ignatius, (l) In the Smaller Epi stle to the Ephesians, in all the copies, our Saviour is expressly affirmed to be d-yeVvip-os, ingenitus, unbegotten ; which is so impossible for Ignatius to say, or any of his time, that no one, till the days of Athanasius, ever durst mention a thing so notoriously contrary to the Christian Eeligion. Nay, if we are willing to suppose all the MSS. mistaken, and make it ayeviros, unmade, yet will the affirmation be still not much better, . . . . . . . And Theodorit (the first author who for certain cited the Smaller edition, or one very like it) read here yevvijToi; e£ ayevvfjrov, according to the sense of the Larger edition ; so that his copy was not herein so corrupt as the present smaller edition. Yet is Athanasius supposed to quote this Smaller edition ais to these very words. (2) In this Smaller edition our Saviour is expressly stil'd Aoyoq aiSic;, the Eternal Word1, which epithet was never applied to him by any Christian till the fourth century. And since neither Athanasius himself, nor any others of the orthodox, ever then quoted this text of Ignatius, which yet would have been of greater consequence than all that they said in that controversy, 'tis highly probable that they never saw that Smaller edition of these Epistles in which it is, even in all the three copies. (3) In the same Smaller edition, in the very same place, these words are added, ovk airo triyrjs wpoeABaiv, that he is the Eternal Word, not proceed ing from 0-17*7, Silence, that famous Valentinian origin of things. The allusion here to the famous o-iyrj of the Valentinians, or of Marcellus from them, is so (i) Magnes. c. 8. p. 310. edit. Jacobson. Xll APPENDIX. plain, that the greatest patrons of these Smaller epistles are aishamed directly to deny it, though it be so very strong and almost undeniable an argument against them. For 'tis undoubted, from Irenaeus1, that Valentinus himself was not publickly known as any famous Heretic, nor came from Egypt to Rome till the Pontificate of Hyginus, that is, not till between A.D. 126 and 130, or between ten and fourteen years after the death of Ignatius. Nay, 'tis also plain from Tertullian, an almost cotemporary writer, and very near the place also, that Valentinus was alive, and at Rome in the Pontificate of Eleu- therus afterward: that is, between A.D. 170 and 185. So that those who make his 0-17-7 famous at Antioch, or in Asia, before A.D. 116, the latest year possible for the death of Ignatius, do merely serve an hypothesis ; and assert what is highly improbable, if not next to impossible to be true ; without, nay against all the Original Testimonies thereto relating. Indeed, the learned are here driven to a great strait, and would fain affirm that some of the other ancienter heretics had introduced the aiylj before Valentinus : but still without one single ancient testimony for such an hypothesis. They tell us, indeed, that Eusebius2 ascribes it to Simon Magus, in these words; Kar avrbv eke?vov tov aBecov aipeo-tayrav apxiybv, bs ra dBea Soyparifav anretpaivero Aeyav, jjv ®eo? Kal o-iylj. Whereas, by this Ringleader of these sorts of Hereticks, Eusebius plainly means Valentinus, and no other ; as any one may learn from Epiphanius 3 And I wonder that anybody should expound him otherwise. So that this Testi mony is so far from a confirmation, that 'tis rather a confutation of the fore going evasion. We shall see anon that this character will best suit the latter days of Marcellus and Athanasius, long afterwards. (4) In the same smaller Epistles we have this passage of some Hereticks then arisen in the Church : TEivxapio-Tias Kai irpoa-evxrj1; airexovrai, Sta to prj opoAoyeiv rrjv evxapioTiav o~apKa elvdi tov o-arfjpos qpav 'Iijo-ov Xpurrov rijv inrep apapriaiv t)pS>v iraBova-av, ijv t$ xprjaTOTYYTi 6 TraTtjp Sjyeipev. These Hereticks, it seems, absented from the Christian Assemblies, because they did not own the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for them, and was raised again by the good Will of the Father. This is a strange passage indeed ; and so far from the age of Ignatius, when Christians did not permit' any Hereticks to communicate with them ; and when there are no footsteps of any such Hereticks in the world ; that it could hardly be so early as the middle of the fifth century, when yet these Epistles are certainly cited by Theodorit. Perhaps 'tis » still later interpola tion, even in the smaller copies ; yet it is in all the MSS., both the Greek one at Florence, and the two Latin ones in England. These four internal charac ters of times later than the death of Ignatius, seem to me so strong, that the arguments for the antiquity of the same Epistles ought to be next to demon strative ere they can be compared to them. — P. 6. I observe further, that the Abridger, as well as Eusebius, seems never to have seen more than those seven Epistles in Polycarp's collection. And ac cordingly, those to Tarsus, to Antioch, and to Hero, have suffered no altera- ( ' ) Advevs. Haeres. Book iii. c. 4. ( 2) De Eccl. Theolog. Book ii. c, 9. (3) Epiphan. Haeres. 72. sect. 7. APPENDIX. XIII tions at all. Yet 'tis strange that these Epistles, most plainly and indisputably of the Larger sort, and not less favourable to the Arians than the rest, if no other than Interpolated ones, should alone be preserved, and that by the Ortho dox too all along, and their originals utterly lost : Nay, that those originals should themselves never be certainly heard of in all the past writers and histo ries of the Church. I desire the admirers of the Smaller Edition to give a rational account of the strange case of these three Epistles also : for they appear to be genuine, and exactly of the same nature, stile, genius, doctrine, and time with the rest of the Larger Epistles. Nay, they are in the Medicean Greek, and in the two English Latin copies, with the Smaller, as well as in all but one of the Larger copies, both Greek and Latin, that are known among us, as I have already observed. I take notice, that the particular occasion and time of the epitomizing these Epistles may be in some measure guessed at by a passage in Eusebius against Marcellus, which has been in part alledged already, but which must be here set down entirely, in these words : aA 8e MapireAAos eroApa inroTiBeaBat, TraAai pev Aeymv eivai tov &ebv, Kal riva f\ ) Obsei-vatum quibusdam est, multa fecisse Clericum in gratiam Episcoporum Angliae, metu scilicet adductum, ne aliquando inusta taeeveseos noto Batavis cogeretur terris exce- dere, sperantemque, fore tum, ut sacri Angliae proceres se reciperent in sua tabernacula. APPENDIX. XVII Theophori in epistolarum harum inscriptionibus nomini Ignatii adjunctum j 4. fabulae junioris revi, e.g. in Epistolas ad Ephesios, §. xix. ; 5. ipsa peregrina- tionis ratio, in qua scriptae dicuntur hae epistolas 6. ipsa styli facies. Certe quotiescunque has legi epistolas, (legi autem sespius,) deprehendi, omnia in illis esse frigida, jejuna, inepti tumoris affectataeque grandiloquentiae plena, et nimis vivide spirantia vanum ac planum Graeculum; 7. auctoritas summorum Criticorum. Eusebius quidem eas epistolas, et quidem primus, venditavit pro genuinis. Verum quis moveatur auctoritate hominis criticae prudentiae tam expertis, ut vel Abgari et Christi mutuas epistolas pro veris amplexetur ? Quis non potius eos ducat sequendos, qui post susceptum illarum epistolarum examen censuerunt, eas ad unam omnes a Graeculo quopiam de- clamatore confectas et confictas fuisse ? Dixerunt antem hanc sententiam Centuriatores Magdeburgici, Mart. Chemnitius, Jo. Gerhardus, Kortholtus, Ten- xelius, Zeltnerus, Calvinus, Blondellus, Salmasius, Dallasus, Whitakerius, Rob. Cocus, Rob. Parkerus, Sam. Basnagius, Albertinus, Mat, et Dan. Larroquani, Frid. Spanhemius, Lampius. Omnium vero primo loco poni oportet Photium, qui, dum in sua Bibliotheca Epistolas Ignatii non recognovit, tacitus clamat, sibi dubium haud esse, quin nomen eae gerant falsissimum. — p. 492. 1751. Jortin (John), Remarks on Ecclesiastical History. London, 1751. 8vo. They who contend for the larger Epistles would do well to weigh one thing, which they never seem to think of, namely, that, whilst they want to support I know not what, they are hurting the reputation of an Apostolical Father, whom they have in great esteem : for if the passages which I have already pointed out, and those which others have censured, could be shewed to be genuine, Ignatius would be much less valued than he is by men of sense and judgment. But though the shorter Epistles are on many accounts preferable to the larger, yet I will not affirm that they have undergone no alteration at all.— Vol. i. p. 361. 1755. Mosheim ( J. L.), An Ecclesiastical History, Antient and Modern, translated by Archibald Maclaine. London, 1765. 2 Vol. 4to. There are yet extant several epistles attributed to him, concerning the authenticity of which there have been, however, warm disputes among the learned, which still subsist. Of these epistles, seven are said to have been written by this eminent martyr, during his journey from Antioch to Rome ; and these the most of learned men acknowledge to be genuine, as they stand in the edition that was published in the last century, from a manuscript in the Medi cean library. The others are generally rejected as spurious. As to my own sentiments of this matter, though I am willing to adopt this opinion as prefera ble to any other, yet I cannot help looking upon the authenticity of the XV1U APPENDIX, Epistle to Polycarp as extremely dubious, on account of the difference of style ; and, indeed, the whole question relating to the epistles of St. Ignatius in gene ral, seems to me to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with many difficulties. — Vol.i. p, 51. 1761. Ernesti (J. Aug.), Neue Theologische Bibliothek. Leipzig, 1761. 8vo. Wir erinnern uns dabey, dass dieses abgeschmackte Gleichniss unter die Dinge gehbret, um derentwillen wir lange aufgehoret haben zu glauben, dass Ignatius Verfasser von den unter seinem Namen bekannten Briefen sey, die Vossius und Usserius fur echt erkannt haben, da wir mit der Meynung, sie zu lesen angefangen hatten, sie waren von ihm. Denn da kbmmt gar oft das schone Spriichlein vor : Wer den Bischof ehret, der ehret Gott den Vater, wer den Priester, u. s. w. Wir kbnnen nicht glauben, dass ein Vir Apostolicus, den das Alterthum so riihmet, solche dumme Briefe habe schreiben kbnnen, und dass es der christi. Religion eine Ehre sey, das zu glauben und zu vertheidigen. Vol. 2. p. 489. 1768. Griesbach (J. J.), Dissertatio historico-theologica locos Theologicos ex Leone Magno, Pontifice Romano, sistens. Hallos, 1768. 4to. Sic ortae sunt procul dubio duae illee Actuum Andreas recensiones, quarum alteram omnes repudiant, alteram vero Bellarminus et Natalis Alexander cum aliis quibusdam pontificiis defendunt. Vide Beausobre. I. c. p. 400. Utra genuina, utra adulterata sit, id ad hanc causam nullius est momenti, cum illud tantum affirmem, utramlibet esse a quadam Christianorum parte ad con- firmandas suas opiniones immutatam. Forsitan etiam duplex ilia Ignatiana- rum Epistolarum recensio invenustis hujusmodi studiis suam debet originem. Quid ? si utraque, quee nobis superest, recensio dicatur paraphrasis esse Epi stolarum Ignatii genuinarum, plane deperditarum ? Non desunt enim in utraque interpolationum ac immutationum vestigia. A diversis Christianorum sectis, quarum altera tamen multo audacior fuit altera, concinnatae videntur diversae editiones. — J.J. Griesbachii Opuscula Academica. Svo. Jenie, 1824. Vol. i. p. 26. 1775. Schroeckh (J.M.), Christliche Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig, 1775. 8vo. Aber mitten unter dem guten Begriffe, den man von diesen kiirzern Briefen bekbmmt, erheben sich auch manche Zweifel, welche sie verdachtig machen. Nicht zu gedenken, dass es Stellen darinne giebt, von welchen man nicht sehen kann, wozu sie den Gemeinen dienen sollten, indem sie ausser Verbindung mit dem iibrigen Inhalte und Endzwecke stehen ; so trifft man auch andere an, die entweder sonderbare und dunkle Einfalle fiber Lehren APPENDIX. XIX der Religion enthalten, (wie ad Ephes. u. 19. von den drey Geheimnissen des Geschreyes, die in einem gbttlichen Stillschweigen vollendet worden seyn sollen, der Jungfrauschaft und Schwangerschaft Maria ; und dem Tode Jesu ;) oder solche, die auf Ketzereyen zu zielen scheinen, welche erst nach den Zeiten des Ignatius aufkamen, (wie ad Magnes. c. 8. von der Sige des Valentinus:) oder noch andere, in denen die Lehren des Christenthums nicht in den richtigsten Ausdriicken vorgestellt sind, (wie ad Smyrn. c. 1. wo Jesus Christus der Sohn Gottes nach dem Willen und nach der Macht Gottes genannt wird). Noch hat der Brief an den Polycarpus die merkliche Verschiedenheit der Schreibart, gegen die andern Briefe gehalten, wider sich : und vielen kommt es auch unna- tiirlich vor, dass in demselben eine weitliiuftige Stelle an die Gemeine zu Smyrna gerichtet ist, an welche Ignatius besonders geschrieben hatte. Alle diese Vorwiirfe kbnnen vielleicht abgelehnt oder gemildert werden ; der wich- tigste ist noch iibrig, namlich der ausserordentliche Eifer fur die bischbfiiche Wiirde und Regierung, der in diesen Briefen herrscht, und in der Empfehlung eines vollkommnen Gehorsams, einer uneingeschrankten Unterwiirfigkeit gegen die Bischbfe geschaftig ist. Eine so hervorstechende Absicht, muss man dabey denken, kommt nicht einem so bescheidenen Schiiler der Apostel, nicht Zeiten zu, in denen die kaum entstandnen Bischbfe nur lehrten, niemanden aber zu befehlen suchten. Man hat zwar dabey die Anmerkung gemaicht, es sey zu einer Zeit, da die Religion der Christen schon von so manchen Irrlehrern verdreht wurde, durchaus nothwendig gewesen, dass sie ihren Lehren, die zum Theil von den Aposteln selbst waven gesetzt worden, die Christliche Religion sehr wohl kannten, und sie auch in ihrem Leben ausiibten, ohne alle Ausnahme gehorchten : zumal, setzt man hinzu, da die Schriften der Apostel damals noch nicht alien Christen bekannt waren, und auch das Wohl, die Festigkeit dieser ersten Gemeinen, auf der genausten Verbindung mit ihren Lehrern beruhten. Aber diese nicht ungegriindete oder doch scheinbare Entschuldigung ist kaum fur diese Briefe zulanglich. Denn es ist nicht bloss Folgsamkeit gegen die christlichen Vorschriften der Lehrer, die den Christen darinne auferlegt wird ; sie werden vielmehr belehrt, dass sie auf den Bischof so sehr, als auf den Herrn selbst sehen miissten; (ad Ephes. c. 6.) sie waren verbunden, dem Bischof eben so nachzufolgen, wie Jesus Christus seinem Vater, und den Aeltesten so wie den Aposteln, (ad Smyr. c. 8.) und wer etwas ohne Vorwissen des Bischofs verrichte, diene dem Teufel (ibid. c. 9.). Schwerlich ist dieses die Sprache der Apostel, und der Geist des Christenthums, das seine Verehrer keineswegs so knechtisch an Menschen verwiesen und gleichsam gebunden hat, sondern, bey alien Forderungen an dieselben, doch ihre Freyheit vor menschlichem Ansehen in Sicherheit setzt. Ein sehr gewbhnliches Mittel, durch welches man dieser und den iibrigen Schwierigkeiten ausweichen kann, ist bey diesen Briefen mit gutem Erfolge gebraucht worden. Alle solche Stellen, hat man gesagt, die man mit der Denkungsart des Ignatius nicht vereinigen kann, sind Verfiilschuugen spaterer Zeiten. So wahrscheinlich auch dieses ist, so schwer bleibt es gleich- wohl, zu zeigen, welches die verfalschten Stellen sind.— Vol. ii. p. 341. XX APPENDIX. 1784. Semler (D. J. Sal.) Paraphrasis in Epistolam II. Petri. Halae, 1784. 12mo. Atque vel mediocriter perlegenti utramque Epistolarum recensionem satis patebit, interpolatorem jam in manibus habuisse quatuor Evangelia, omnes fere Epistolas Pauli, et primam Petri, forte et Jacobi ; sed prima recensio, quae est multo brevior, caruit tot allegationibus Veteris et Novi Testamenti ; quia scilicet isto tempore tam copiosus canon nondum in ecclesia ilia catholica receptus fuerat, cum ipsa societas haec major nondum coiisset. Hie non opus est, ut repetamus longam illam controversiam de his Epistolis ; mihi sufficit, jam Irenaeum scivisse Epistolas Ignatii ; excitavit enim aliquam sententiam (sum frumentum Christi etc.) quae extat in epistola ad Romanos. Nempe Romse aut in partibus Asiee Minoris collectae atque composite sunt hee epistolae ; quas Irenaeus jam novit ; proprior scilicet officinas, e qua prodierunt. Sub finem tamen seeculi 2. aut sub initium saeculi 3 ; nee potuit Irenaeus aliquid ipse reperire, quod Valentinianae opinioni opponeret ; quales tamen sententiae plures in istis Epistolis postea insunt. Clemens autem ille Alexandrinus, qui tamen itinera multa confecerat, nondum aliquid de Ignatio et omni ejus fabula didicerat. Prasfat. 1795. Rosenmuller (D. J. G.), Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ec clesia Christiana. Hildburg. 1795. 5 Vol. 12mo. Ad epistolas Ignatianas quod attinet, totam earum caussam valde impeditam esse, omnes hodie f atentur. Quicquid sit de earum auctore, atque de tempore, quo scriptee sunt, hoc saltern certum est et indubitatum, tantam esse Ignatia rum Epistolarum et Pseudo-Clementinarum Constitutionum, quee Apostolicae nominantur, cognationem et similitudinem, ut dubitari vix possit, quin alteruter Scriptor alterius dogmata atque praecepta expresserit, quin etiam ejus saepe sententias totidem verbis exscriptas transtulerit. Viderunt hoc etiam alii e. c. Franciscus Turrianus et Carolus Bovius, quorum uterque confidenter pronun- tiat, Ignatium Constitutiones Apostolorum esse imitatum. Alii fortassis dicent, Auctorem Constitutionum imitatum esse epistolas Ignatianais, et uberiore ser mone, additis Scriptures locis amplificasse ea, quae in illis epistolis breviter dicta erant, Quis autem in re tam obscura pronunciaverit ? — Vol. i. p. 116. 1798. Ziegler (W.C.L.), Versuch einer pragmatischen, Geschichte der kirchlichen Ver- fassungsformen in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten. Leipzig, 1798. 8vo. Den auffallendsten Beweis hievon wiirden die Briefe des Bischofs Ignatius (tl06) von Antiochien geben, selbst diejenigen, welche Hammond und Pearson noch haben retten wollen, denn in den Briefen an die Smyrnenser, Magnesier und Trallenscr stcht der voile Stufenunterschied zwischen Bischbfen, Presby- APPENDIX. XXI tern und Diaconen schon da : allein er ist auch bereits so stark gezeichnet, dass gerade diese Stellen es hbchst wahrscheinlicli machen, ihr Verfasser habe erst im dritten oder vierten Jahrhundert gelebt'. Eine sobcre Kritik kbnnte zwar noch spatere Interpolationen annehmen, um wenigsten, den Grundstoff fur den Ignatius zu retten, aber es scheint in der That wenig damit geholfen zu seyn, denn ich bin mit andern Gelehrten der Meinung, dass kaum noch ein Ganzes iibrig bleiben diirfte, so bald man alle verdachtige Stellen heraus wirft*. Wer vermag es, den Urstoff zu sondern von den spatern Interpolationen oder Ueberar- beitungen, die zu verschiedenen Zeiten erfolgt sind, um einem sichern histori- schen Beweis fiir eine gewisse Zeit aus diesem Cento fiihren zu kbnnen ? — P. 16. (') Schon der grosse Just Henning Bbbmer hielt unter den Deutchen die ganzen Briefe des Ignatius dieser Stellen wegen fiir untergeschoben,Diss. vi. de differentia inter ordinem ecclesiasticum, p. 333. Nachher haben sich Ernesti, Semler und Andere ebenfalls dagegen erklart. Unter den Auslandern war wohl Sanmaise dei- erste, welcher sie apodictisch dem Ignatius absprach. Er schrieb schon im Jahr 1645. Ignatium non esse earum auctorem, tam certum puto, quam me hase scribere. cf. Salmasius, 1. c. p. 58 fine. (2) S. R osier's Bibliothek der Kircbenvater 1. Th. S. 70. und Schmidt's Versnch iiber die gedoppelte Becension der Briefe des Ignatius in Henke's Magazin fiir Religionsphiloso- phie, u. s. w. 3. B. 1. St. Aus der scharfsinnigen kritischen Untersuchung dieses Gelehr ten ergiebt sich, dass es durch die Ueberarbeitung dieser Briefe, welche scbon zur Zeit des Irenaus dem Ignatius beygelegt wuvden, von Seiten der Eatbolischen Eirche unmoglich geworden ist den Urstoff noch heraus zu linden, wie er etwa zur Zeit des Irenaus war. Die zeitige Dogmatik der katholischen Partey und die zeitige Hierarchie sind so eng mit dem Ganzen verwebt, dass keine Absonderung mehr mbglich ist. Der Ui-stoff mag im- merhin schon aus den Zeiten des Antonin's oder Marc Aurel's seyn, wohin Saumaise das Ganze verlegen wollte. Es beisst nahmlich in dem Briefe an die Magnesier " der ewige Logos, welcher nicht aus der Sige hervor geht " {Xoyos ccthos eux ava Siyvs vr^ot>.6av). Diess bezieht sich auf die Valentinianer, welche viel von einem Bwtfo? und einer Siysj sprachen. Hieraus schliesst Saumaise, dass damahls, als diess gescbrieben wurde, die Valentinianer recht bliihcn mussten, und nimmt desswegen jenes Zeitalter an. Weil aber auch zugleich in diesem Briefe der hierarchische Stufenunterschied eine vtcrsgixv r»g/s heisst, so meint er ebenfalls, dass er um diese Zeit aufgekommen seyn miisse. Allein so stark, wie er hier gezeichnet wird, so dass der Bischof Gott und die Presbyter die Apostel vorstellen sollen, war dieser Unterschied in der Mitte des zweyten Jahrhundei-ts noch nicht. Dergleichen kann nur aus dem dritten oder pierten Jahrhunderte seyn. 1816. Kestner (Chr. Aug.), Commentatio de Eusebii, Historias Ecclesiasticas Conditoris, Auctoritate etfide diplomatica. Gottingae, 1816. 4to. Quales igitur quantasque etiam ab hae parte critico Eusebii studio estate nostra gratias agere debebimus ? Sed cautio tamen in hae re adhibenda erit, ne Eusebianae sententise gravitati falsa quadam ratiocinatione aliquando noceamus. Fieri enim potest, ut Eusebius autbentiam librorum quorundam strenue de- fendat, quos nostra quidem aetate pro spuriis haberi et habendos esse sciamus. Exemplo hujus rei sint Ignazii epistolae ; quas quidem Eusebius pro genuinis habendas esse notat atque etiam iii. 38. (ab init cap.) his verbis: " (axnrepcwi- apekei tov lyvanov, (sc. irapaSoo-is (pepeTai) ev an KaTe\el-apev eirioroAW idem -contendere perseverat. Recentiores vero, velut Blondellus, Salmasius, XXII APPENDIX. Owenus novissimeque Semlerus illas supposititias esse eo maxime argumento probarunt, quod multss illee continerent, quee Ignaxii tempore scribi omnino non potuissent; qualia essent, quee in epistola ad Trallenses luculentissime ad Papam extollendum spectantia reperirentur. Sed quam facile in hae re ab omni culpa liberari poterit Eusebius, si res, quee cum Ignazii tempore non congruunt, post Eusebii eetatem demum a falsario quodam interpolatas esse eadem conjectura evincas, qua jam Strothius, et praecipue Hammond et Pearson illas Epistolas non totas saltern spurias esse probaverunt. — p. 63. 1818. Henke (H. P. K.), Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Kirche. Braunschweig, 1818. 8vo. Von einem Bischofe zu Antiochien, wenn Petrus mit gezahlt wird, dem dritten, Ignatius, welchen Trajan selbst gekannt, und zum Kampfe mit wilden Thieren verurtheilt -haben soil, sind einige Briefe, die auf seiner Reise nach Rom zu solchen Kampfe von ihm gescrieben seyn sollen. Aber man ist fiber Anzahl und Aechtheit derselben, fiber den kiirzern oder langern Text, und den Werth des Inhalts, nicht einig. Sie sind voll holier Begriffe von Bischofswiirde und voll Ruhms derer, die fiir ihren Eifer verfolgt und getbdtet werden, (Martyrer) fiber wichtigere Dinge sehr seicht und armselig, und passen durchaus nicht fiir die Verhaltnisse jener Zeit und fiir den Mann. — Vol. i. p. 96. 1824. Schmidt ( Joh. Ernst Christ.), Handbuch der Christlichen Kirchengeschichte. Giessen, 1824. 8vo. Die ersten Spuren solcher Bestrebungen zeigen sich in der Geschichte des Ignatius, Bischofs von Antiochien — wenn anders den, unter seinem Namen vorhandenen Briefen, zu trauen ist. In Riicksicht dieser Briefe zeigt sich die sonderbare Erscheinung, dass sie in zwiefacher Gestalt vorhanden sind, einmahl kiirzer, das andere mahl langer und weitlauftiger. Die kurzeren Briefe enthalten manches, was sich nicht in den l'angeren findet. Dass auch die lan- geren vieles enthalten, was man in den kurzeren vermisst, versteht sich ohne- hin. Das Eigenthumliche, sowohl der langern als der der kiirzern Briefe, bestehet theils in Zusatzen von Bibelstellen, theils in Beziehungen auf Ketze- reyen der spateren Zeit. Dass dies alles von einer spateren Hand abgeleitet werden musse, daran kann man nicht zweifeln ; und die Sache enth'alt auch niclits befremdendes, denn man hat Beyspiele, dass altere christliche Schriften. von den spateren Christen auf diese Weise behandelt, — und, wie man glaubte, verbessert wurden. Nimmt man aber dieses alles weg, so stimmen doch beyde Texte noch nicht ganz mit einander iiberein. Allein beynahe alle Abweichun- gen, welche jetzt noch iibrig bleiben, betreffen entweder dogmatische Stellen, APPENDIX. XX111 oder Stellen von lokalem und individuellem Bezug. Setzt man bey erstern voraus, dass man sich's in spatern Zeiten erlaubt habe, dasjenige, was nach den Bestimmungen dieser spatern Zeiten nicht ganz rechtglaubig ausgedriickt war, zu veriindern, — und nimmt man bey letztercn an, dass man dasjenige, was lokalen und individuellen Bezug hatte, darum spaterhin verandert habe, um dadurch die Briefe allgemeiner brauchbar zu machen : so ist dies wenigstens ein Verfahren, was nicht den Vorwurf eines willkiihrlichen verdient. — Dass Igna tius solche Briefe geschrieben habe, dass diese sehr friihe ziemlich weit ver- breitet wurden, dass dieselben manche Stellen enthielten, welche sich in den noch vorhandenen wieder finden : dies alles ist historisch erweislich. Es muss daher erlaubt seyn, dass man auf die angegebene Weise versuche, aus den vorhandenen Briefen die urspriingliche Grundlage derselben herzustellen. Freylich bleiben dann noch Stellen iibrig, von welchen man sagt, sie verriethen die Denkart spaterer Zeiten — namlich Stellen, die zur Erhebuug des Ansehens der Bischbfe beytragen. Allein, war jene hohe Achtung fiir die Bischbfliche Wfirde diesen Zeiten wirklich so fremde, als man nun einmahl annimmt ? Hiervon wird kiinftig noch die Rede seyn. Und ware dies auch : wer biirgt denn daffir, dass nicht gerade die Ignazischen Briefe vieles dazu beytrugen, um die Denkart der folgenden Zeit zu bestimmen ? — Vol. i. p. 200. 1826. Neander (Augustus), The History of the Christian Religion and Church during the Three First Centuries. Translated by H. J. Rose. 1841. Ignatius, Bishop of the Church at Antioch, in the time of the Emperor Trajan, it would appear, was carried as prisoner to Rome, where he expected to be exposed to wild beasts. On the journey, it would seem, he wrote seven Epistles ; six to the Churches of Asia Minor, and one to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrnau Certainly these epistles contain passages which at least bear com pletely upon them the character of Antiquity. This is particularly the case with the passages directed against Judaism and Docetism : but even the shorter and more trustworthy edition is very much interpolated. — Vol. ii. p. 334. To the second edition of his Church-History, published in the year 1843, Neander has added the following to the above passage : — Wie der Bericht fiber den Martyrertod des Ignatius sehr verdachtig ist, so tragen auch die Briefe, welche die Richtigkeit dieser verdachtigen Sage voraus- setzen, durchaus nicht das Geprage einer bestimmten Eigenthiimlichkeit und eines Mannes aus dieser Zeit, eines Mannes, der seine letzten Worte den Gemeinden zuruft. Eine hierarchische Absichtlichkeit ist nicht zu verkenneu. p. 1140. XXIV APPENDIX. 1832. Baumgarten — Crusius (Lud. Tr. Ott.), Lehrbuch der Christichen Dogmen- geschichte. Jena, 1832. 8vo. Vornehmlich in den sieben Briefen des Ignatius ist es durchaus nicht mehr erkennbar, wie viel sich von dem Vorhandenen in den Originalen gefunden habe1. — P.83. (') Die Citate hei den alteren Vatern ausgenommen. Ausser den sieben Briefen (Eus. H. E 3. 36. Hieron catal. 16.) ist alles Ignatianische entschieden unacht, und, seit- dem die beiden Recensionen von jenen neben einander bekannt sind, wird die kiirzere gewohnlich vorgezogen, und fiir acht gehalten ; hochstens den an die Romer ausgenom men. Die Griinde dagegen von J. Dallaus (de scriptis, quae sub Di. Ar. et Ignatii nomini- bus circumferuntur. Gen. 666. 4. vgl. J. Pearson: Vindiciae epp. S. Ign. Cantbr. 672. 4.) sind indess nicht widerlegt. Nach Semler, Griesbach (opusc. L.26.), Schmidt (ii. die gedoppelte Recension der Briefe des Ign. Henk. Mag. iii. 91.) Staudlin (G. d. SL. I.ii. 84.) n. A., hat man wahrscheinlich beide 'Recensionen fiir Ueberarbeitungen der Originale anzusehen : die kiirzere mehr im kirchlichen, die langere mehr im dogmatischen Interesse angelegt ; daher sich in dieser auch noch bestimmtere Hindeutungen auf Haretiker linden, und entschiedener Gebrauch apost. Stellen. Es ist nicht unmoglich, dass sich noch an- dere Recensionen der Schriften einmal vorfinden. — Ausg. von Tho. Smith, Oxon. 709. 4. 1834. Harless (G. C. A.), Commentur uber den Brief Pauli an die Ephesier. 1834. Der Streit, ob die altere oder kiirzere der Recensionen den achten Text gebe, oder welche von beiden reiner und weniger entstellt, ist noch nicht zur Entscheidung gekommen. Jedenfalls glaube ich jedoch die Meinung Heu- mann's und Oudin's als seien diese Briefe durchaus unacht, mit den bedeutend- sten Kritiken alterer und neuerer Zeit entschieden verwerfen zu miissen. Einleitung, p. xxxiv. 1840. Baumgarten — Crusius (Lud. Tr. Ott.), Compendium der Christlichen Dogmen- geschichte. Leipzig, 1840. 8vo. Die Untersuchungen fiber die sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia, obwohl noch nicht geschlossen, haben doch wieder der altern Meinung niiher gefuhrt, dass die kiirzere, spater aufgefundene Recension urspriinglicher sei, als die langere, und dass sich in dieser mannichfache Entstellungen des ursprun- glichen Sinnes finden. Indessen kann auch die kiirzere noch, wo nicht Ueber arbeitungen, doch Interpolationen, erfahren haben. Die zwei, in den Briefen hervortretenden Idee'n, die Verehrung des bischbflichen Amts, und die Be- streitung des Doketismus, lassen sich in der Einfachbeit, wie sie sich hier darlegen, durchaus mit Sinn und Art der altesten Zeiten der Kirche verein- baren. — P. 79. WORKS BY THE REV. W. CURETON. I. J^\ J-UI (_^bfes : BOOK OF RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL SECTS, by Muhammad al-Shahrastani: now first edited from the collation of several MSS. 8vo. London. For the Society for the Publication of Oriental Texts. 2 Voll. 1842, 1846. II. m^p 1DD mt»: TANCHUMI HIEROSOLYMITANI Commentarius Arabicus in Lamentationes : e codice unico Bod- leiano literis Hebraicis exarato. 8vo. Londini, apud Jac. Madden, 1843. III. XpU-A, XLJ1 J*1 t JulLp s J*-* : PILLAR OF THE CREED OF THE SUNNITES ; being a brief Exposition of their principal Tenets, by al-Nasafi. 8vo. London. For the So ciety for the Publication of Oriental Texts. 1843. IV. THE ANTIENT SYRIAC VERSION of the EPISTLES of ST. IGNATIUS to St. Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. Edited with an English Translation and Notes. 8vo. London, Rivingtons. Berlin, Asher and Co. 1845. The whole of the impression of this work being already exhausted, a new and enlarged edition is in the course of preparation. ¦-V. CATALOGUS CODICUM MANUSCRIPTORUM ARA- BICORUM, qui in Museo Britannico asservantur. Pars I, fol. Londini, Impensis Curatorum Musei Britannici. 1846. IN THE PRESS. dno^&ljUl; 12l*j»V* 1zr<4: THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE FESTAL LETTERS OF ATHANASIUS, with an English Translation and Notes. THE ORIGINAL GREEK COPY OF THESE LETTERS IS LOST. ¦ mVnVn. fL^cifl : THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE RECOGNITIONS OF ST. CLEMENT, with an English Translation and Notes. THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THIS WORK HAS LIKEWISE BEEN LOST. SPICILEGIUM SYRIACUM; or Remnants of Writers of the Second and Third Centuries, preserved in the Syriac, with an English Translation and Notes. Part I. will contain the Remnants of Bardesanes, Melito, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. A v / S^&S^iP'ii-S^ :>. v: =S*=afca»; 6S>S5k:^*».. :— 3K»3»V --,*¦-'*- . ¦^s^c^f*-^^^^!^- ^fT ' '¦¦"¦• .-*''¦'•_ 'jf*r^ •P>3*~315 s££*=aH ¦Si: > > ^5i^rv*lt**' '**-.*¦