Chapter II: Of Ignatius's Epistles

Of Ignatius's Epistles.

Sect. 1.

The comparison between them and the Epistles of Clement, and Polycarpe. Of Salmasius and Blondel being the first that rejected them. Of the Vir doctissimus, answered by Vedelius. Of Bishop Mountague's censure of Vedelius. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩: Of Salmasius's Contumely, Title of Learned Grammarian. Illecebre. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩. Consulting Authors to serve our own turns.

Numb. 1. THE next charge I find in the eighth page of this Preface, in these words.

A late learned Doctor in his Dissertations about Episcopacy, or Dispute for it against Salmasius and Blondellus, tells us, that we may take a taste of his confidence in asserting, Dissert. 2. cap. 23. 1. That Salmasius and Blondellus, mortalium omnium primi, thought these Epistles to be feigned or counterfeit. And with more words, cap 24. he would make us believe that these Epistles of Ignatius were always of the same esteem with that of Clemens from Rome to the Corinthians, or that of Polycarpus to the Philippians, which we have in Eusebius, and then he adds, in the judgement of Salmasius and Blondellus, Solus Ignatius ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, cujus tamen Epistolae pari semper cum illis per universam ab omniaevo patrum nostrorum memoriam reverentiâ excipiebantur: nec prius à mortalium quovis in Judicium vocabantur (multò minus ut in re certâ, & extra dubium posita inter planè ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ & ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ rejiciebantur) quam Presbyteri Anglicani patribus suis contumeliam facere coepissent, iisque aut suppetias ferre, aut rem gratam facere (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) hi duo non ignobiles Presbyteranae causae hyperaspistae in selpsos recipissent. Of his two learned Antagonists one is dead, and the other almost blind, or probably they would have dealt not much more gently with the Doctor for his Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) then one of them formerly did (Salmasius de subscribendis & signandis Testamentis, seu specimen Consul. Animad. Heraldi, cap. 1. p. 19. Nuper quidam etiam nebulo in Angliâ, Capellanus, ut audio, Regis, Hammondus nomine, libro quem edidit de Potestate Clavium, Salmasio iratus, quod aliam quam ipse sententiam probet ac defendat, haud potuit majus convicium, quod ei diceret, invenire, quam si Grammaticum appellaret) for his terming him a Grammarian, yet indeed of him (such was the hard entertainment he found on all hands) it was by many supposed that he was illecebris adductus (and they stick not to name the bait he was caught withal) wrought over in a manner to destroy the faith of that which he had before set up and established.

For the thing itself affirmed by the Doctor, I cannot enough admire with what oscitancy or contempt he considers his Readers (of which manner of proceeding this is far from being the only instance:) that he should confidently impose such things upon them. He that has written so much about Ignatius, and does so triumph in his authority, ought doubtless to have considered these concernments of his Author, which are obvious to every ordinary Inquirer: Vedelius his Edition of Ignatius at Geneva came forth with his Notes in the year 1623. long before either Salmasius or Blondellus had written any thing about the supposititiousness of these Epistles; in the Apology of Ignatius whereto prefixed, he is forced to labor and sweat in the Answer of one, whom he deservedly styles virum Doctissimum; (arguing not contemptibly) that Ignatius never wrote any such Epistles, and that all those which were carried about in his name, were false and counterfeit.

But perhaps the Doctor had taken caution of one of the Fathers of his Church, that à Genevensiqus istis Typographis praeter fraudes & sucos & praestigias non est quod quicquam expectemus (Montac. Appar. l. 5. sect. 4. p. 19.) and so thought not fit to look into any thing that comes from them.

Especially may this be supposed to have some influence upon him, considering the gentle censure added in the next words by that Reverend Father of his Church, concerning the endeavour of Vedelius, in his Notes on that Edition. Neque audax ille & importunus Ignatii Censor quicquam attulit ad paginas suas implendas praeter inscitiam, & incuriam & impudentiam singularem (ne saevi magne sacerdos) dum ad suum Genevatismum antiquitatem detorquet invitissimam, non autem, quod oportuit Calvinismum amussitat ad antiquitatem. And what I pray you is the reason of his Episcopal censure? That he should deal with poor Vedelius in that language wherewith men of his order and authority were wont to deal with preaching Ministers at their Visitations? Why this poor man in that passage which you have in the Epistle to the Magnesians (in that Edition p. 56.) where treating of the Antient Fathers expectations of the coming of Christ, retains the common reading of ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, referring the word to their expectation of seeing him come in the flesh, which upon the testimony of our Savior himself, they desired to see, and saw it not, not correcting it by a change of ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ into ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, so referring it to their faith in Christ, and salvation by him, as in his judgment he ought to have done. ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩, A little thing would provoke the indignation of a Prelate against any thing that came from Geneva.

I say I would suppose that this might divert our Doctor from casting his ⟨◇⟩ Vedelius, whose defensative would have informed him that the Epistles had been opposed as false and counterfeit, before ever Salmasius or Blondellus had taken them into consideration; but that I find him sometimes relying on that Geneva Edition.

For whereas Cap. 2. sect. 2. he tells you that he intends to abide only upon the Edition of Isaac Vossius in Greek, published from the Archives of the Library of Laurence di Medici, and the Latin Edition published by Bishop Usher out of our Library here at Oxford, yet cap. 8. being pressed with the testimony of the writers of the Epistle to the Magnesians, calling Episcopacy ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ plainly intimating a comparative novelty in that order to others in the Churches, and fearing (as well he might) that his translation of ⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩ into the ordination of a young man, would scarce be received by the men of his own prejudice (for surely he never supposed that he should impose on any other, by such gross figments) he prefers the Vedelian Edition (where these words are not so used) before it, and informs us, that sic legendum (as it is in the Geneva Edition) suadet tota Epistolae series. Now this truly is marvelous to me (if the Doctor consults Authors any farther, than merely to serve his present turn) how he could ever advise with that Edition of Vedelius, and yet so confidently affirm, that Salmasius and Blondellus were the first that rejected these Epistles as feigned and counterfeit.

2. The sum of this charge is: 1. that I would make men believe that Ignatius his Epistles were always of the same esteem with that of Clement, and of Polycarpe. 2ndly that I say that Salmasius and Blondel were the first that thought these Epistles (of Ignatius) to be feigned and counterfeit. 3rdly that this is in me a confidence in asserting, an admirable piece of oscitancie and contempt of the Reader, confidently to impose upon him, and all this against express evidence, when 4thly long before either of these, Vedelius was fain to answer a vir doctissimus, arguing that Ignatius never wrote such Epistles, and this the more to be admired, because 5thly it appears that I had advised with that Edition of Vedelius, where those arguments are propounded, and answered, and yet say that Salmasius and Blondel were the first that rejected these Epistles. To these five branches of the original, and grand charge are added incidentally these other passages. 1 That if Salmasius were not dead, and Blondel almost blind, they would probably have called me knave for using this Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adducti nescio, I know not by what invitations they were brought to do what they did) adding of the former, that indeed it is by many supposed that he was illecebris adductus. 2 That Bishop Montacute inveighs bitterly against the Geneva Writers, and particularly against Vedelius his Censures on Ignatius. 3 That my interpretation of [in non-Latin alphabet] by the ordination of a young man, is a gross figment. 4 That it is doubtful whether I do consult Authors any farther than is for my own turn.

3. To these particulars, which will soon be found to be of no very weighty importance, yet such as they are, I shall punctually make my reply.

4. For the first, I shall not need labor for proofs to balance the estimation of Ignatius's Epistles, either with that of Clemens, or Polycarpe: for, beside that here is not a word objected against it, nor so much as the ordinary charge of confident asserting affixed to this part of my speech, but my words are barely repeated without any exception to them. The thing may be manifest to any that shall, for Clemens, peruse the Testimonies out of ancient Writers, concerning his first Epistle, that to the Corinthians, set down to his hand by Mr. Patrick Yong, before his Edition of that Epistle, and then compare them with those concerning Ignatius's Epistles prefixed by the Archbishop of Armagh to his former Edition of Ignatius, and to that add but this one place of Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. l. 3 c. [in non-Latin alphabet], where speaking of those Writings reserved to his time, wherein the Apostolic doctrine was [in non-Latin alphabet] by way of Records delivered to them, he instances in Ignatius ([in non-Latin alphabet], in the Collection of Epistles which he had formerly mentioned from Polycarpe) and in Clement's Epistle, which in the name of the Church of the Romans he sent to the Church of the Corinthians, and was [in non-Latin alphabet], received and confessed by all, which passage does directly assert this exactness of parallel between them two, as equal in conveying Apostolic Doctrine to us.

5. To which I may add, that the prejudices our present volume of Ignatius's Epistles are under, are not greater than those which lie against the Epistle of Clement, set forth from Tecla's copy. I shall instance in four: 1 Among the examples of generous Christian sufferers of that Age, proposed to be treated of ([in non-Latin alphabet], [in non-Latin alphabet]. Let us come to the eminent persons which are nearest us, let us take the generous copies of our age) immediately after Peter and Paul, and those that came in to them, are mentioned [in non-Latin alphabet], the Daughters of Danaus and Dirce, of whom it is said, that having suffered sore, or cruel contumelies, or punishments, they came to the constant course of Faith, and being weak in body, received a generous reward.

6. This is so unfit for the place wherein it is found in Tecla's copy (and we have no better, or other to mend it by) that Mr. Yong has set a mark upon it, as that which he cannot allow to be genuine Clemens.

7. Secondly: Speaking of the Sea, he has these words, [in non-Latin alphabet][in non-Latin alphabet][in non-Latin alphabet], the Ocean unbounded to men, or, which men cannot pass over, and the world that are beyond it.

8. Thirdly: Speaking of the Resurrection, he not only offers to contemplation the Resurrection, which every day brings us, [in non-Latin alphabet], the night lies down to sleep, the day rises again, but also the [in non-Latin alphabet] the wonderful sign which is in Arabia, the Phoenix, which being [in non-Latin alphabet], but one of the species, lives five hundred years, then drawing near to death, makes a nest of Frankincense and Myrrh, and other Spices, and goes into it, and dies; then out of the corruption of the flesh grows a Worm, which being fed with the moisture of the dead creature, grows to perfection and wings, then carries the nest where the former bird was entombed (and embalmed as it were) from Arabia to Aegypt, to Heliopolis, and in the day time in the presence of all men, lays it upon the Altar of the Sun, and returns again. And the Priests looking into their Records, and keeping exact calculation of the time, find that at the end of five hundred years this is done. And all this, says he, afforded us by God, who [in non-Latin alphabet], by this bird shows the magnificent greatness of his promise.

9. These two latter are the objections of Photius himself [in non-Latin alphabet], says he, one may find fault with him in these; adding also another (the 4th which I proposed to mention) that as the second Epistle under his name (which elsewhere he says [in non-Latin alphabet], is rejected as supposititious)[in non-Latin alphabet], inserts some passages as from Scripture, which are strangers to it, so this first Epistle is not perfectly free in this matter.

10. These four prejudices notwithstanding (and a fifth also by him mentioned) 'tis the same Photius his judgement, that it is [in non-Latin alphabet], an Epistle worthily esteemed, [in non-Latin alphabet][in non-Latin alphabet], thought by many worthy of such reception as to be read publicly.

11. And so it has among all men generally been entertained, and Mr. Yong's Edition of it justly looked on by this Prefacer, as a genuine piece, abundantly testified to of old, a writing full of ancient simplicity, humility and zeal, and testimony solemnly fetched from it, to prove the but two Orders in the Church, and the power of the People in ecclesiastical affairs.

Now, as on one side all these objections may, I suppose, have very competent answers adapted to them, and I think for the first three Mr. Yong's Notes may be sufficient, that the Danaides and Dirce was an insertion of some Scribe taken in from the Margent into the Text, that the Ocean was the British Sea, and the Worlds beyond it these Islands, that the Story of the Phoenix is no Fable, but vouched by very great and ancient Authors, though perhaps fabulosis aucta (and M. Blondel, I hear, has written a Dissertation in defence of it) so I am to think that all the objections against Ignatius, as far as our Copy, which we adhere to, is concerned, are answered also.

And so still the parallel remains complete between Clement's one Epistle set out from the King's Library, and Ignatius's seven set out from the Medicaean Greek, and our old Latin Copies.

And for Polcarpe and him, the comparison will be more easy by viewing the testimonies by the Lord Primate produced out of the Ancients concerning each of them, prefixt before the one common volume of both their Epistles. And indeed of them two, the advantage is clearly on Ignatius's side, because as generally they that make mention of the one, join the other with him, with the same reverence, only giving the precedence to Ignatius (Saint Hierome ad Helvidium may stand for many; Can I not, says he, summon the whole Catalogue of ancient Writers, Ignatius, Polycarpe—) so Polycarpe himself in his Epistle gives his testimony and commendations of Ignatius and his Epistles, and from him it is that originally we fetch our collection, and just esteem of them. I hope I shall not need to add more to justify my confidence in that matter.

Secondly: For my affirming that Salmasius and Blondel were the first that thought these Epistles of Ignatius to be feigned and counterfeit (which is the one thing that must bear all the weight of my accusation for confidence in asserting, confidence in imposing upon Readers, oscitancy, or contempt in considering them) my account will be soon given, by viewing my periods, on which this charge is laid, and they are three; two set down in his Text, one in his Margent: The two former are fully and truly cited by him: That in the Margent is set down imperfectly, and lies thus in the Dissert. (it should be) c. 23. sect. 3. In his quippe (Rebus in Ecclesiā primaevâ gestis, ut an Ignatius Epistolas scripserit) unicum D. Blondellum, aut alterum fortassis inter omnes mortales Walonem Messalinum rectius judicare, quam patres universos: This is to conclude, that in matters of fact done in the first Ages of the Church, one Blondel, or perhaps his second Salmasius, pass a righter judgement than all the Fathers.

The plain sense and drift of these words is this, that when there was a Copy of Ignatius produced, which had in it the several sentences, which the Fathers (all, without exception of one) cited from Ignatius, by which it appears that those Fathers universally gave credit to these Epistles in this form, in which D. Blondel, and Salmasius reject them; and when this was taken notice of by Blondel as an objection against his discourse [his ipsis Epistolis Patres fidem adhibuisse, That the Fathers gave credit to these very Epistles] and that answered by Blondel, with a Quid tum! Quam multa minimè suspicaces ac imparatos & fefellerunt semper, & quotidie fallunt? What matter for that? How many things both have always deceived, and do daily deceive persons, that are not suspicious, and upon their guard? From this answer of Blondel's I conclude, that if he has reason on his side in it, then the judgement of one or two Modern Writers, Blondel and Salmasius is to be preferred before all the Fathers, and that in a matter of story, a narration of things done in the Primitive times, wherein the Fathers lived, and from where these others are so many hundred years distant.

This conclusion of mine, as it is most undeniably deduced from Blondel's words, and is, I think, a competent evidence of the unreasonableness of his proceedings (for it is obvious to all men, who are the most competent Judges or Witnesses of matters of fact, sure they which are nearest the times, and have the most uniform consent of others that speak of it, not they that are but singular Affirmers, and at a vast distance from it) so it is a full interpretation of my meaning, not that Blondel and Salmasius were the first of men, which ever opposed any Volume of Ignatius's Epistles, or that thought them (I mean again, any that go under that name, or any volume of such, set out by any) feigned or counterfeit, but that they were the first which rejected those more emendate Copies, found upon trial to accord with all that the Fathers cite from them, and so which are by themselves confessed to be the very Epistles, which the Fathers used, and owned as Ignatius's.

An evidence of the truth of this I shall produce from Blondel's own words in his Preface p. 40 where mentioning how greedily he laid hold of the Laurentian Copy, lent him by Vossius in Manuscript, how he transcribed it with his own hand, collated it diligently with the places cited from these Epistles by the Ancients (and if it were done studiösè diligently, those Ancients must be, Polycarpe, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Hierome, Chrysostome, Theodoret, &c.) at length he confesses se gratulatum seculo nostro, quod illud ipsum exemplar quo ante 1300 annos usus erat Eusebius, novam ipsi propediem affulsuram lucem sponderet, that he congratulated our age, that that very Copy, which Eusebius used 1300 years ago, promised now to bestow new light upon the Age.

Here it appears, that in his dispassionate, impartial judgement (founded on prudent consideration, and his having used the best means of judging) this Copy, which Blondel rejected, was the Copy that the Ancients owned, particularly Eusebius. And of his rejecting this Copy (not any other, formerly published among us) it is most evident that I speak in all the places of the Dissertations, and consequently that unless some other man can now be named, which rejected this Copy (the Laurentian I mean, set out by Vossius, to which the old Latin one published by the Lord Primate is answerable, though a barbarous translation) or the Copy which Eusebius and the Fathers used, before Blondel and Salmasius rejected it, I have affirmed that which is exactly the truth, and am guilty neither of confidence, nor imposing, nor oscitancy, nor contempt of the Reader.

20. And then, I pray, how was I concerned in the negations and arguments of the Vir doctissimus, which Vedelius answered, which must needs belong to the Epistles then extant, and carried about in Ignatius's name, & could not, by divination be confronted to this Edition of Vossius, or to the Laurentian, or our old Latine Manuscripts, which may well be presumed to have never been heard of by him, or Vedelius either, and yet are the only volume of Ignatius's Epistles there spoken of by me, and of which my affirmation proceeds. As for this vir Doctissimus, I have now been able to consult Vedelius, and there I first find that he has neither Name nor Book delivered to us, and that in all probability he never publisht any word to that purpose. And for what has past between private men in more private Letters, I know not that I was obliged to take any notice, if I had remembred that Anonymus ineditus vir doctissimus. 2 That this unus quidam vir doctissimus is mentioned as the only person (and opposed to the alii, others, that exprest their doubts and scruples only) which extra omne dubium ponit, affirms positively, and without doubting, suppositionem harum Epistolarum, that these Epistles were supposititious, or that Ignatius never wrote such Epistles, from where by the way I am secured from the other instances which are by the refacer after brought to say the same thing which that vir Doctissimus had done, for Vedelius was as ignorant as I, an plures ejus mentis fuerint, whether there were any more of that mind with him. Lastly, that this vir Doctissimus durst say, that Ignatius never wrote any Epistles at all, which is to me an assurance that as learned as he was, he never knew any thing of Polycarpe's collection, or of the antient Writers citations out of them (which if he had, he might as well have said, that Polycarpe, and the rest of those antients never wrote neither) and consequently that his ignorance secured him from being guilty of that which I charge on Blondel and Salmasius, namely, rejecting all the Fathers with a [Quid tum?] and these Epistles in despight of all the authority which the Fathers were acknowledged to have given them. This ought to have been adverted by my Monitor, and then he might certainly have spared himself, and the Reader, and me the several gainless pains that his sharp Animadversion has, in several kinds cost each of us.

21. As for his amplifications, backward and forward, on this head of discourse, that perhaps I had received caution never to look into any thing that comes from Geneva, and yet that that could not be the truth, because I had occasionally insisted on that Edition of Vedelius, though now it be far from needing reply; yet I shall be willing to oblige him, by telling him the whole truth, and making him my Confessor in this matter. That 'tis now near thirty years since that I read over diligently that whole volume of Vedelius, with all his Exercitations annext to it, that I did it in my entrance on the study of Divinity, beginning with him as the first Ecclesiastical Writer then extant; for Clement's Epistle was by Mr. Yong seven or eight years after publisht. This vindicates me from his jealousy, that perhaps I took caution from Bishop Montague never to look into Book that came from Geneva.

22. For although I began not that study so, as to fall under Bishop Abbot's censure (in the top of the tenth page produced) that Calvin had holpen me to a mouth to speak (any more than it is true of me, that I am still opening my mouth against Calvin) yet truly my first Author, used in my search of the opinion of the Antient Church, was delivered me by Vedelius from Geneva, and so from Geneva it self I first learned the three Orders of men in the Church to be of Apostolic institution, which, as far as concerns the second of them (by him and ever since called Presbyters) the Scripture had not taught me.

23. If this be not enough, I next acknowledge, that when this Prefacer told me of the vir Doctissimus, that Vedelius was fain to answer, I had not any such thing in memory, and though I am sure I formerly read it, because I now see it is in that Book, yet 'tis due to his Animadversions, that I had not utterly lost it. From this occasion I shall not have temptation to lose time in bemoaning my self, that my memory is so frail, both because of the many thousand things which I have read, and heard, and utterly forgotten, this was as fit to be one, and as easy to be spared as any, and if it had been explicitly in my memory, it had been perfectly useless to me in this matter, I could not reasonably have interposed any mention of him, or added his name with any truth to those two of Blondel and Salmasius (the two men which peculiarly rejected the Laurentian (or Eusebian) Copy, Blondel having a transcript from Vossius, and Salmasius a sight or it from Blondel) and also because I see other mens memories are as frail as mine, and that in things both of present use, and fresh observation. Witness my Monitor himself, who, while he is a chiding, or admiring me for oscitancy, and contempt of my Reader, &c. tells me that Bishop Usher publisht his Latine Edition of Ignatius out of the Oxford Library, whereas that Arch-Bishop, that best knew, professes it was from two Manuscripts, one belonging to Caius College in Cambridge, the other to Bishop Montague. This were too mean a [illegible] to mention, but that, besides that it is an example, that men that are the severest on others no-slips, may themselves be guilty of as great, as they judge in others: It is also a way of giving some account of that speech of Bishop Montague's, which fall so tartly on Vedelius, and is here thought fit to be brought in, in the Prefacer's digression. For bating the asperity of the language, which I do as little commend in either Father, or Son of the Church, as any, the Copy which he had by him of so venerable Antiquity, might by him very reasonably be thought a more Scholarlike, and less deceivable way of correcting Ignatius's Epistles, than Vedelius's single conjectures, and prejudices, which made him, as that Bishop thought, willing to conform Antiquity to the Doctrines then received at Geneva.

24. And this will appear yet more reasonable in the particular, which is here said to have occasioned that bitter speech of that Bishop, where, in Videlius's reading, it is said of the Fathers of the Old Testament, that they came [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], ad vacuam spem, says Vedelius, to a frustration of their hope, but the Bishop's Latine Copy reads, in novitatem spei, to the newness of hope, evidencing the reading to bee with an easie change [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], to the newnesse, and so it is in the Laurentian Greek which is now extant. Now as again [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] might be an easie change for [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] which that Bishop it seems liked best [⟨◊⟩] and either of those readings might well pass, either that they joyned with us Christians in the same common hope Evangelical, or came to the newness of [illegible]ope, that is, hoped for mercy on the same terms of new Evangelical obedience, on which we now hope for it, and so set on purifying, as Saint John says he will doe, that has this hope in him, so truly the other of [[⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]] would hardly be kept from being blasphemy, cannot possibly be salved, as this Prefacer would salve it, by referring it to their expectation of Christ's coming in the flesh, which, says he, upon the testimony of our Savior himself they desired to s[illegible]e, and saw it not. But 1. I pray where does our Savior testifie this, that they desired to see it, and saw it not? I suppose in those words of Luke 10:24. For I tell you that many Proph[illegible] and Kings have desired to see those things which you see, and have n[illegible]t seen them. But will this justifie or maintain the [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the frustration of their hope, or at all prove, that they had such hope of seeing Christ come in the flesh? Men may desire that which they doe not hope, the goodness of the thing once apprehended, is enough to raise desire, but hope must be founded in some promise, or else it is but either wish, on one side, or on the other, presumption.

25. But then secondly, to justify Vedelius in his retaining of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] there is more necessary, namely, to consider the context as it lies in the epistle published by him, and then the whole passage will be found to be this, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]—If therefore they who conversed in the ancient writings came to a frustration of hope, expecting Christ (as the Lord teaches, saying, If you believed Moses, you would have believed me; for he wrote of me: and Abraham your Father was exceeding glad that he might see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced; for before Abraham was I am) how shall we—By this context 'tis now evident, 1. how impossible it is that the Vedelian reading of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] can stand; for Abraham, who is the instance, did not miss of his hope, what he hoped for he obtained, he had promise that he should see Christ's day, namely, see it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in the spirit, not carnally in the flesh, see it in destinatione divinâ, in God's destination: And that promise [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that he should see it, put him in an [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], an exultation of joy, and neither hope nor joy were frustrated; for it follows, he saw, and was glad. Secondly: how seasonably the testimony of Christ was here produced by this Prefacer, in these words of his [referring to their expectation of Christ's coming in the flesh, which, upon the testimony of our Savior himself they desired to see, and saw it not] I demand, Does the Vedelian Edition so refer to any such testimony of Christ, which ends with [saw it not?] Does it not quite contrariwise produce the testimony of Christ concerning Abraham, affirming of him that [he saw it?] which is competently distant from the Prefacer's text of, they saw it not. Again, are not these words of our Savior concerning Abraham's seeing (in spirit) and satisfying himself, and rejoicing at that sight, perfectly agreeable to the general purport of the Gospel? Is it not the doctrine thereof frequently expressed, that Christ was known by the Fathers of the former ages, by the title of [[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he that was to come] and that till the fullness of time was come, though they did (as the Vedelian Copy adds) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], expect to see Christ, yet not so as to see him come in the flesh, but lived by faith, as Abraham sojourned, assuring themselves, that he would be really exhibited to their posterity, being for themselves content to see him [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in the spirit, and by no other eye but that of faith? And then can it be said, that they were frustrated in their hope? That what they hoped, they received not: or hoped for that which they did not receive? Simeon indeed had it revealed to him, that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ (Luke 2:26), but this was about the time of the designed exhibition of him, and accordingly he did see him, and embraced him, and was not frustrated of his hope: But this promise was never made to Father Abraham, and those of the former ages, nor to those Prophets and Kings (Luke 10), and so having no promise of this, they entertained not themselves with hopes of it (though they might with desires, submitted to God's wiser choice) and consequently never came thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to the emptiness, or cassation, or frustration of hope. So that to maintain the Vedelian reading of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 'tis evident that the following words must be, not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he saw, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he saw not, the direct contradictory to the words as they were spoken by Christ. My Lord Primate tells us from a manuscript in Baliol-College Library, that rather than the scribe there would adventure (so near blasphemy, as) to write ad vacuam spem, the interpretation of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to avoid, or cassate hope, he chose to insert a [not] in that Latin copy, and wrote ad non vacuam spem, to a hope not void: This again shows how intolerable that reading is of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], whereas the other [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which our Laurentian Copy gives us (being retained, and not changed into [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]) is perfect clear sense, and elegantly agreeable to the context, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], says he, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]—the most divine Prophets lived according to Jesus Christ — and then soon follows, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]—If therefore they that conversed in those old things, that is, lived under the law of the Jews came, or advanced to the newness of hope (that is, as before, lived according to Christ, an evangelical, Christian life) &c. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], how shall we live without him, whose disciples in spirit the Prophets were, and expected him as their Master (but sure by so doing were not frustrated in their expectation.)

26. All this has been said to render it reasonable for my Monitor to be less severe to the writings of others, and from hence to observe, that one digression does unnecessarily, and unluckily sometimes, beget another, and therefore that 'tis the safest course to keep close to the matter we have before us, which yet I am not permitted to do, having still three parts of this branch of digression more, which I am obliged to give account of.

27. In the next place then, for the probability that my two adversaries Salmasius and Blondel, if they had not been one dead, the other almost blind, would have dealt not much more gently with me for my Parenthesis (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) then one of them did (calling me knave) for my terming him Grammarian, I am able also to give him some Answer, and an account, I thinke, satisfactory to that whole matter. 1 By assuring him that I knew how Salmasius had dealt with me in that passage to Heraldus, before my setting about the Dissertations, that this was so far from imbittering my stile against him, that I did the more carefully watch over my pen, not to say any reproachfull thing of him, but rather to commend his second thoughts in the matter of Presbyterie, which he was willing to testifie in some passages of his Defensio Regia, and truly this was it, which I shall not say I learnt from Ignatius, though I confesse it looks very lovely in his divine expressions, [in non-Latin alphabet]. To their anger do you return meekness, to their speaking big be you humble, to their fiercenesse be you tame, not desiring, or attempting to immitate them Epist. ad Ephes. Twas the lest that I thought my self obliged to do, in obedience to our Saviour's precept (Matthew 5:44) of blessing and praying for those that curse and despightfully use us, from where I must conclude, that contum[illegible]lies are our adminitions of duty, even that of taking those who powre them upon me, into my special intercessions.

28. Secondly: That my terming Salmasius formerly a Grammarian, with the addition of Learned, was in the sincerity of my heart meant as a title not of diminution, but of honor to him, he was a very learned man in severall parts of good literature, especially skill'd in Greek and Latine words, and phrases, and customes, and his Plinianae exercitationes had long since given me that notion of him, as equal thus far to any of his age, and fit to be named with Scaliger and Casanbon of the preceding. And knowing I that Grammaticus was antiently a title of [illegible] among learned men, witnesse Suetonius his Book de Illustribus Grammaticis; and 2. that of [in non-Latin alphabet] there are three parts, [in non-Latin alphabet], (the two later of which being peculiarly his ex[illegible]ies, were fully comprehended in the general title of Grammarian) and lastly, that being neither Divine nor Physitian, nor Lawyer by profession, I could not fitly make either of those his title, I thought it most agreeable to all these reasons to stile him learned Grammarian, especially having so little reason, as I then had, to commend his knowledge in Theologie. This it seems was so represented to him from England, that having no other reason (that I am conscious of) to quarrel with my behavior toward him, he was content to reproach me, upon that stile: And all that I shall say to it, is, that I had rather be in the so[illegible]lest manner reproacht without cause, then to be commended for ill doing, or to be justly censured by any.

29. Thirdly, when I said of him and Blondel (quibus illecebris adducti nescio) I doe not think my self to have wronged them, or used them contumeliously. Not wronged them, because I verily believe there were motives properly styled illecebrae (I mean not bribes from England) which brought them to doe what they did: And as I did not think fit then to expresse those motives, being 1 matters of fact, of which at this distance, I could not have perfect knowledge or evidence, and so could truly say [quibus nescio] and 2 being personal matters, which I love not to publish, farther than the matter it self reveales and declares them, so I shall not choose now out of season, and lesse pertinently to inlarge on that matter. I shall onely adde, that Salmasius lived, and Blondel saw, many moneths, some years, after the publishing of the Dissertations, and neither of them thought fit to fall into such passion so causelesly, nor, that I ever heard, sent the Author of these Animadversions their Letters of Attorney to doe it for them, so that I am to acknowledge what he has done in this, to be an act of his own inclinations, but have no manner of like return to make him for it.

30. How justly the many which he mentions have supposed that he was illecebris adductus, and from what evidence they name the bait, or with what truth it is suggested that hee had ever set up and establisht that faith which his Defensio Regia endeavoured to destroy, are things so far removed from the subject before us, the authority of Ignatius's Epistles, and so unlikely to be concluded by our disputes, that I thinke we may by consent let them alone. Otherwise the then present lownes, and improsperity of the cause, which he defended, would offer it self for a very competent argument to infer, the love of truth more than expectation of any temporal advantage, to have perswaded the writing of it.

31. The second incidental branch concerning Bishop Montague and Geneva has been as incidentally, but more largely discharged already.

32. The third concerning my interpretation of [in non-Latin alphabet] for the ordination of a young man, might surely have been spared, when it is by him confest, that rather than I could think fit to adhere to it, I chose to prefer Vedelius's Edition, which reads [in non-Latin alphabet], the appearing youth of their Bishop, before this reading of the Laurentian in that place, and that done by me in the first place, to remove all force of Salmasius's argument, there present before me, all that followed being ex abundati, more then needed, and not proposed, as the truth of the matter, but [in non-Latin alphabet] to supersed[illegible] all possible reply in it.

33 But my Monitor runs too hastily into ill language, which yet he dislikes so much in Bishop Montague (grosse figments is no very nice expression) else he might have seen enough produced by me, to have prevented, or allaied the storm of his displeasure.

Salmasius to take advantage from those Epistles, both against Episcopacy, and the Epistles themselves, finds in the Laurentian Copy [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], spoken of Damas's Episcopacy, hence he infers that Episcopacy was there styled a new order, and that the Epistles were written in a later age, then that of Ignatius, and so that Episcopacy was of that later institution. To this purpose, says he, the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] cannot belong to his age, and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] signifies new, and brings 2 Timothy 2:22, where [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which we truly render youthful lusts, signify, says he, novae aut novarum rerum cupiditates, new desires, or desires of new things. To this whole way of arguing I confess I could not afford the least degree of consent, and still think that that learned Grammarian did never more passionately [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], than in this heap of inconcludencies. To these therefore I answered by degrees proportioned to the several steps of his procedure: 1 That the Laurentian seemed not the right reading, but the Vedelian, not [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], however rendered, but [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], his appearing youth: This the whole course of the Epistle exacted, Damas then Bishop of the Magnesians being a young man, and Ignatius desiring his youth might not bring contempt upon him, and therefore advising expressly, not to despise the age of their Bishop, and this acknowledged by Salmasius himself to be the purport of the Epistle.

Secondly: That if the utmost that could be desired were granted, both that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], were the right reading, and that it were justly rendered a new order, yet what was instituted by the Apostles might pass for new in Ignatius's days, who died very few years after Saint John, and both of them in the reign of Trajan, or that however what was in Ignatius's days (and to that Rivet referred it, novellus ordo, sive [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], [⟨◊⟩] loquitur Ignatius, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]) even so new as to be but just then instituted, was yet pretty ancient, very little distant from Apostolical (Ignatius himself being styled an Apostolical person) and without controversy long before that famous Epocha of 140 years after Christ, to which Blondel affixes the rise of Episcopacy.

Thirdly: That (to avoid all the force of his argument) I was not obliged to affirm, that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] belonged to age, on one side, or that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] signified [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] on the other. For in case that were granted to be the right reading (not absolutely; for that was prevented, but ex hypothesi, if it were) yet [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] might more agreeably to the context, and the nature of the word, signify ordination; and for [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] in that place to Timothy by him cited, it evidently signified not new (for what could the Apostle mean in forewarning him to abstain from new lusts, were not ancient as dangerous?) It was much more reasonable to think young Timothy was advised to beware of such sins as are met with among young men (which was the reason that young men were not ordinarily made Bishops) and consequently, as to that again, both the context, referring to the [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], the age, that is, the youth of Damas their Bishop, and the nature of the word being a denominate from a young man, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] from [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], would persuade rather to render it so there also; and so [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] would be the ordination of a young man; and so I am sure the learned Primate renders it, juvenilem ordinationem, and Vossius, who retains the old barbarous Latin, yet in his notes has these words, Non debere eos conti, that is tanquam commodato accipere, & ad se pertrahere [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] illam juvenis istius Episcopi, which sure in his paraphrase of [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], & [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and punctually agrees with my interpretation also. And the analogy with the use of the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (being an [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] but once used) in Scripture would much better agree with this, than the rendering it a new order.

And now I shall be very well content to be told by the Reader, of what persuasion soever, what figment, or how gross it was that I endeavoured to impose upon him, when I began first with a profession, that I did not assent to that reading, and then only added, that I did as little assent to Salmasius's interpretation, but could not be deemed absolutely to like the interpretation produced by me, but only ex hypothesi, and in comparison with that of his affixed to Saint Paul's words to Timothy, where [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] was used; no, that rather than I would make use of my own, though backed with the concurrent judgment of such learned men, I chose to forsake the Laurentian Copy in that particular, which in others I generally adhered to.

38. There remains one part of the suggestion still, the doubtfulness which the [if] imports, whether I consult Authors any further than merely to serve my own turn. To which I answer 1. by professing that I seek truth from Authors, and no proofs, or confirmations of any thing, but what I verily believe to be such. 2 That I may well be believed in this profession, because I am of no party, which either has appeared to want such supports, or if it did, could probably tempt any man, with competent rewards, to undertake so vile an office, as is writing and consulting Authors to maintain that, which the conscience doubts of, or knows to be false. Lastly; That the particular, whereon this suggestion is founded, can be no just cause of this suggestion: For 1. not having Vedelius's Edition of Ignatius by me, when I wrote the Dissertations, I had yet the Lord Primate's first Edition of the Epistles, which is known to contain the Vedelian Text of the Epistles, but has not his Exercitations, where the Vir doctissimus was mentioned: And 2. the whole matter concerning that vir Doctissimus being already perfectly cleared, and that if that passage, and those arguings of the vir Doctissimus in Vedelius had actually occurred to my memory, it had not been in the least degree pertinent to the subject of my then present affirmation, it must now be as unseasonable for me farther to vindicate my integrity herein, as it will be uncharitable in any, without any new cause to doubt of it. This only I must observe for my own use, both from the beginning, and the end of this Animadversion, that my Monitor is one of them whom I am by obligation of Christian charity, bound to bless and pray for, and I shall do it, either in my own choice of words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or in any other form he shall prescribe me. And so much for this Section.

Sect. 2.

Answer to Testimonies of Mr. Calvin, the Centuriators, and Doctor Whittaker. Of Lent. [illegible] the occasions of Ignatius's Epistles. His journey from Antioch to Rome.

Numb. 1. But this Act is not yet at an end, there is, it seems, more of this Animadversion still behind, following in these words.

But yet a little farther: The first Edition of these Epistles in Latin, was Augustae Vindelicorum, An. 1529 in Greek at Basel 1566. Before which time I suppose the Doctor expects not that any opposition should be made to them, considering the heaps of filth and dung, that until about that time were owned for the offspring of the ancient Fathers.

Upon their first appearing in the world what is the entertainment they receive? One who was dead before either the Doctor, or either of his Antagonists were born, and whose renown among the people of God will live when they are all dead, gives them this welcome into the world; Ignatium quod obtendunt, si velint quicquam habere momenti, probent Apostolos legem tulisse de quadragessim[•] & similibus corruptelis, nihil naeniis istis quae sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt putid[•]us: Quo minus tolerabilis est [•o•]um impudentia, qui tal[•]bus larvis ad fallendum se in[•••]uunt. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 29.

Whatever be the judgment of our Doctor concerning this man (as some there are, of whom a learned Bishop in this Nation long ago complained, that they are still opening their mouths against Calvin, who helped them to mouths to speak with: Abbot. ad Then.) He will in the judgment of some be so far accounted some body, as to take off from them the confident assertion, that Salmasius and Blondellus were mortalium primi that rejected these Epistles.

The Centuriators of Magdenburg were esteemed to be some bodies in their days, and yet they make bold to call these Epistles into question, and to tender sundry arguments to the impairing their credit and authority. This then they Cent. 2. cap. 10. de Episc. Antioch. at primum de Ignatio.

Lectori pio & attento considerandum relinquimus quantum sit illis Epistolis tribuendum. Non enim dubitamus quin in lectione earum cuilibet ista in mentem veniant: primùm quod ferè in omnibus Epistolis, licèt satis copiosis, occasio scribendi preter[•]mittitur, nec vel divinare licet, quare potissimum ad hanc vel illam Ecclesiam literas voluerit mittere. Deinde ipsius poregrinationis ratio non parvum injicit scrupulum considerantibus quod multo rectiore & breviore itinere Roman potuerit navigare, ut testatur vel ipsius Pauli exemplum—Expende quam longum sit iter Antiochià ad litus Aegei pelagi se recipere, thique recta rursum versus septentrionem ascendere, & praecipuas civitates in litore [•]itas usque ad Troadem perlustrare, cum tamen Romanum iter sit destinatum versus occasum. Tertio res ejusmodi in istas literas inspersae sunt, ut ad eas propemodum obstupescat Lector, &c. Haec cum alias non somnolento Lectori incidant, nos existimaverimus, &c.

Thus they at the world's first awaking, as to the consideration of things of this kind.

To them add the learned Whittaker, contra prima de perfect. Script. Quest. sexta c. 12. Where after he has disputed against the credit of these Epistles; jointly, and severally, with sundry arguments, at length he concludes, Sed de his Epistolis satis multa, & de hoc Ignatio quid judicandum fit, satis [•]x iis constare potest quae diximus. Ista Papistae non audent t[•]eri—To whom sundry others might be added, convincing Salmasius and Blondellus, not to have been mortalium primi that called them into question.

2. What is here brought out of Calvin, the Centuriators, and Whitaker, must still be remembered to be by the Prefacer produced to prove the falseness, and ungrounded confidence of my assertion, that Salmasius and Blondel were mortalium omnium primi, the first of men that called them into question: And my answer must certainly be the same, which in the last Section it was, that it must be remembered what copy of the Epistles it was which Salmasius and Blondel rejected, and of which I spake when I affirmed them to be the first that did so, namely this Laurentian Manuscript copy, set out after by Vossius (agreeing with our two ancient barbarous translations, which the Lord Primate had met with in England, that very copy) which Blondel acknowledged to be the same which Eusebius 1300 years ago (and the other ancient Fathers) had used, and gave belief to, and by that means was forced to cast off the Fathers with a [Quid tum! What then!] to say that they were deceived, and imposed upon in that belief, and without doing so, had no possibility of doubting the genuineness of this copy.

3. So that the plain result and sum of my affirmation must evidently be this, that the Laurentian copy of these Epistles, according with all that the ancients cited from the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, and by Blondel's collating them found to do so, that is, in effect the Eusebian copy of Ignatius, and as such acknowledged by Blondel, was never rejected by any before Salmasius and Blondel rejected it.

4. This being the only true setting of the case between me, and my adversaries, I shall now need add no more but this one question, whether the author of these Animadversions can now think, that this was the copy of Epistles which either Mr. Calvin, or the Centuriators, or Doctor Whitaker rejected in the places by him transcribed from them? I might make my question a little more difficult to be answered by him, in the affirmative, whether in case such a purged copy of those Epistles had been brought to any of them, which they had been forced to acknowledge to be the same, or exactly agreeable to that, which the Fathers (all that could be consulted, and gave testimony in this matter) received as authentic Ignatius, whether, I say, on that supposition, they would in any probability have rejected it, with a nil naeniis istis putidius, and larvae, &c? But the question will be sooner at an end, if we consider the matter of fact, as it lies before us, and therefore in that form he must apply the answer (which he shall return either to me or to his own conscience) whether Mr. Calvin ever saw this copy, or any other the like, of which it may be said, what of this appears, in relation to Blondel, that he acknowledged it to be the same that Eusebius and the Fathers used and own'd, and if he never did see that, or any the like, whether he can be produced as an instance against my affirmation, an example of those that rejected these, before either I or my antagonists were born?

5. Another copy I acknowledge he rejected, and in compliance with that judgement of his, Vedelius, that long after followed him at Geneva, and trod in his footsteps, endeavoured to purge that volume of Epistles, meaning, I suppose, to make it such, as if Mr. Calvin had lived, he would not have rejected. To which purpose it may now be remembered, that Vedelius being pressed with Calvin's authority for the rejecting these Epistles, he answers, that they are mistaken, who think Calvin spoke against the Epistles, and cites Rivet's Critica sacra c. 1. to prove Calvinum non in Ignatium, sed in quisquillias & naenias depravatorum Ignatii invectum esse, that Calvin inveighed not against Ignatius, but against the trash that the depravers of Ignatius had imposed upon him. This I have recovered by consulting Vedelius about the vir doctissimus: and this, he that sent me there, might have seen if he had pleased. But beyond what Vedelius could attempt, the providence of God has favoured this age, and afforded it better commodity to reduce these Epistles to the ancient genuine form, and of that only it was that I spoke, and of that Mr. Calvin could not divine to speak, and so there is an end of that instance.

6. The same answer evidently absolves me from the other two instances of the Centuriators, and Doctor Whitaker: for 1. both those, as Vedelius says, do not reject, but only doubt of them. 2. They are again the corrupt copies (those that by me are acknowledged to be such) of which their doubt is made, namely the copies which were out in their days, long before Vedelius undertook to cleanse the Augean stable, and much longer, before Vossius, and the Lord Primate more dextrously, and successfully performed it. And so there is nothing behind, which may assume to make good the least part of the charge against me, whether of confidence or oscitancy, or what else was thought fit to be laid upon me; I may again be able to look scholars or sober men in the face, till I make forfeiture of my credit by some future miscarriage.

7. Yet because in the instances here produced, that of Calvin and of the Centuriators there are mentioned some exceptions to these Epistles, to which our present copy may still seem liable, I will not omit to make him my return (though ex abundanti, and extra orbitam) to those also.

8. And first for that of Calvin, that they which attribute any thing to Ignatius's authority, must first prove that the Apostles made any law for observing Lent: it is easily answered (without entering into any dispute concerning the antiquity of that Fast in the Church of Christ) by observing but these two things, that the place ordinarily produced to that purpose being out of the Epistle to the Philippians, in these words, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Dishonour not the Feasts, despise not the quadragessimal Fast, for it contains an imitation of Christ's conversation] 1. This Epistle is none of the seven certainly genuine, which we have from Polycarp's collection, or which we adhere to in our account or plea for Ignatius. 2. That the author of that Epistle whoever he was, does not make Lent to stand by any law, or institution of the Apostles, but only as an act of imitation of Christ, who fasted forty days in the wilderness.

9. No, when the Book of Constitutions, which is thought to bear such analogy with the Epistles affixed to Ignatius, speaks of the same matter, and adds [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Legislation [[⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], it contains a commemoration of Christ's conversation and law-giving] I do not believe that this at all refers to any command or institution of Christ or his Apostles in this matter of observing of Lent, but that as Christ's fasting in the wilderness (Matthew 4) was a preparative to his entering on his Prophetic office (Matthew 5), where, in that divine Sermon on the Mount, he gave Evangelical laws to his Disciples, the Holy Ghost, having formerly descended on him and consecrated him to it (Matthew 3), so the Quadragessimal Fast was observed in the Church to commemorate both these, the laws that he gave as well as the Fast that he prepared for them. And so no part of the suggestion from Mr. Calvin holds against our pretensions, the Epistle is not by us reckoned as Ignat. Epist. nor the institution of Lent said by that supposititious Epist. to be instituted by the Apostles, and so that is sufficient security to us from that first exception.

10. Next for those exceptions of the Centuriators, I shall take them in order as they lie. The first is, that almost in all the Epistles the occasion of writing them is omitted, nor can any man divine why he should send letters to this or that Church rather than any other.

11. To this I answer, that, to my understanding, the occasions of every of his Epistles are as evidently legible, and discernible in them, as in most of the Apostles' Epistles they are. In them they are not set down by way of syllabus, at the beginning, nor in any more visible gross way of transition, but are closely couched in the manner that the authors of them thought fittest, and are discernible to a careful observant reader, and so are they here also.

12. The first, that to the Church of Smyrna, is to confirm them in the faith against the infusions of the Gnostics, which by this time (as appears by Saint John's first Epistle) oppugned the reality of Christ's birth, and death, and resurrection, to whom he therefore confronts the true doctrine vindicated in every branch, and vehemently inculcates the [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet], truly, and in the flesh, against the [in non-Latin alphabet] the bare appearing to suffer, &c. which, says he, [in non-Latin alphabet], some unbelievers or unfaithful apostate Christians, evidently the Gnostic heretics affirmed and taught.

13. And here by the way appears more fully the injustice of that suspicion, which at the beginning of his view of antiquity, the author of this Preface was willing to infuse into the reader, as if heretical corrupt doctrine would be found to have crept into the writings of the first times, that remain to us, whereas the plain truth is, that those heresies, which so early were gotten into the Church, and began [in non-Latin alphabet] to oppose the truth, were by those first writers as punctually confuted, as [reality] and [in the flesh] can be thought to be opposed to the [in non-Latin alphabet], the bare appearance.

14. To the same head of discourse it pertains which so follows, that these heretics reject the Eucharist upon the same grounds, not believing the reality of Christ's death. And that the one compendious way of arming the orthodox against all their poisonous infusions, was to adhere to their bishop and officers of the Church under him, and not to do any thing in ecclesiastical matters without his direction or commission: it being certain that these heretics attempted to move the settled faith, and practices, and that the governors of the Church were by the Apostles instituted to preserve unity, and true doctrine, and had their rules and grounds of faith deposited with, and committed to them.

15. To this he adds things very particular both to him, and to that Church of Smyrna, that he took notice of their prayers for the Church of Syria, that he was now hastening to his martyrdom, being at the writing hereof at Troas on his journey to Rome; that in his coming from Antioch the whole tempest and rage of the persecutors having fallen upon him, the Churches of Syria had now obtained their [in non-Latin alphabet], a peaceable enjoyment of the Christian assemblies.

16. A thing particularly taken notice of in histories, that while Trajan now stayed at Antioch, to consult of his affairs, and war with the Parthians, upon the letter of Tiberianus president of the prime nation of Palestine, Trajan gave order to him, [in non-Latin alphabet], that he should leave off killing the Christians, so says Johannes Antiochenus, adding [in non-Latin alphabet], that he gave the same order to all the rest of the governors, and concluding, [in non-Latin alphabet], and the Christians had some truce from their persecutions. So Suidas in the word [in non-Latin alphabet]. Trajan gave the Christians some truce, cessation of punishment, dating it from the time of Tiberianus's letter (which was certainly at this time of Trajan's being at Antioch, and Ignatius on his journey toward Rome, though being already condemned, the mercy extended not to him) [in non-Latin alphabet], says he, from hence forth, [in non-Latin alphabet], Trajan forbad all under him to punish the Christians: so Zonaras in the story of that time takes notice of this cessation, produced by the suffering of many, [in non-Latin alphabet], &c. The Emperor hearing of the multitude of Christians that had been butchered, gave order for more mercy, [in non-Latin alphabet], and so the persecution became more moderate, which is further evident by Trajan's rescript to Pliny, and Tertullian's animadversions upon it, Apol c. 2.

17. And this they, which had prayed for them in time of their persecutions, were now in all reason to acknowledge to God, as an answer and gracious return to their prayers, and to perfect their Christian work toward them, he now advises them to send a solemn messenger with an epistle to congratulate with those Churches this blessed change, [in non-Latin alphabet], that together with them he might bless God for this tranquility, or fair weather, which he had now given them, [in non-Latin alphabet], and that by the benefit of their prayers those others were now landed safely at their desired haven.

18. Then he mentions the salutations of the Church at Troas, from where he wrote, and names Burrhus, whom they had sent along with him, which again is the yet more particular occasion of his writing to them at that time, at the return of their messenger and officer, whom he would not dismiss without a letter of kindness and Christian care to them, who had showed so much of both to him, and the Church committed to his charge: and then ends with as affectionate a salutation, and as large an enumeration of all the several relations to which he desired to be kindly mentioned, as any Christian heart could do at the time of his last farewell to them.

19. And so what could have been more exactly performed, than that which these objectors cannot take notice of to be done at all? What could be more express and visible, than the occasion and particular reasons of this address? And the like might be as largely, and as evidently deduced in reference to the rest of the Epistles, but truly that would be too long a work, and therefore let this serve [in non-Latin alphabet] for an instance of the no grounds of that exception.

20. The next exception is the ipsius peregrinationis ratio, the nature of his journey from Antioch to Rome, the stages whereof, as they are discoverable in these Epistles, are by the objectors observed to differ from Saint Paul's, and not to be the nearest way that might have been chosen there.

21. But to this the answer is obvious, 1. that what in the Epistles is discoverable concerning his journey, and the several stages of it, is directly agreeable to the relations of his martyrdom, recorded by the most ancient and punctual historians, that have written on that subject: the reader may consult the ancient piece called Martyrium Ignatii, and he will find this exactly true, without depending on the confidence of my affirmation.

22. Secondly: For many stages of this journey from Antioch toward Rome, they are here the very same to Ignatius, which we find in the Acts, in the relation of Saint Paul's voyage, first from Asia, then after to Rome; Saint Paul went from Troas to Neapolis, from Neapolis to Philippi (Acts 16:10). And so the Acts of Ignatius have it exactly, Illinc (that is, a Troade) ductus Neapolim, per Philippenses pertransivit Macedoniam pedes: From Troas he was carried to Neapolis, from there he went on foot by Phillippi through Macedonia. So when (Acts 28) Saint Paul comes to Regium, from there to Puteoli, from there to Rome (ver. 13, 14), 'tis in like manner manifest by the Acts of Ignatius, that he was carried the same way: And accordingly when he came in sight of Puteoli, 'tis said of him, that he went hastily out of the ship, secundùm vestigia ambulare volens Pauli Apostoli, desirous to tread in Saint Paul's steps: Mart. Ignat. pag. 44.

23. And for the variations in some part of the voyage, the account is easy also: For in the Acts of Ignatius set down by Simeon Metaphrastes, as there is an account given why Trajan sentenced him to that kind of death, to fight with, and to be torn asunder with wild beasts, because he looked on this as the severest sort of death (and so most proportionable to his rage against him, for his bold answers made to him at Antioch, telling him that the Gods he worshiped, were the Daemons of the nations) and in like manner also why this was not to be done at Antioch, but by sending him to Rome, lest it might more stir up the love and admiration of the people toward him, when they that knew him so well already, should now see him suffer for Christ's name so miserably, whereas at Rome he might die unknown, and unpitied and unremembered, so there is also as clear a reason given, why being carried by ten soldiers from Antioch to Rome, the next, or most direct way was not constantly chosen for him, namely that the journey might be the more tedious, and wearisome to him, and by that means possibly his constancy might be broken or lessened [in non-Latin alphabet], says he, mentioning it as the advice of Trajan's Council, that were then with him at Antioch, [in non-Latin alphabet], by the length of his journey he shall undergo the shrewder punishment: To which purpose also Saint Chrysostome mentions it as the artifice of the Devil (in his Encomium of Ignatius) that Bishops should not be butchered in their own Cities, but carried far off to gather their Martyrs Crown, [in non-Latin alphabet], at once endeavouring to deprive them of all conveniences, and withal hoping by this act, by the toil and lassitude of the journey to make them more weak, and unfit for their final combat, which if it were the policy and design of cruel persecutors (as in this particular 1. the narrations of the fact say it was, and 2. a special passage in the Epistles to the Smyrnaeans may be some indication of it, [in non-Latin alphabet], says he, [in non-Latin alphabet], All my journey from Syria to Rome I fight with wild beasts, expressing his meaning in the next words, [in non-Latin alphabet], by land and sea, night and day chained to ten Leopards: And 3. the Centuriators have no objection against it) then sure there is no cause of wondering, that the ten Leopards, the soldiers that guarded him did not choose out the shortest cut from Antioch to Rome, that their Map could have directed them to. Nay, Saint Chrysostome is yet more express in it, [in non-Latin alphabet], the Devil called him from Antioch to Rome, setting him a course to be run forward and backward (that is the meaning of [in non-Latin alphabet], as it is opposed to [in non-Latin alphabet], as the Scholiast on Pindar tells us) and that of a very tedious length, to this very end, says he, by the length of the way and the time, [in non-Latin alphabet], expecting to prostrate and subdue his resolution, or constancy of mind, to make him renounce the Faith of Christ, on which terms he was to be released by the decree of Trajan; so says Nicephorus, [in non-Latin alphabet], He sent him from Antioch to Rome to be cast to the Lions to be devoured, unless he would abjure the Faith of Christ.

24. Thus unreasonable is it in matters of fact, the occasions and motives whereof are not always visible to every man, placed at a distance from them, to fancy and conjecture, what is probable or improbable, and accordingly to reform the Records of Antiquity from our own guesses, many things being every day done, which are not the most probable, and many things being probable and credible enough, when all the causes and circumstances are known, which while we continue in the dark, or see them with prejudices, may appear to be in some degree, or in some other respect improbable.

25. A more particular account of the several stages of his long wearisome journey, perfectly agreeable to these [in non-Latin alphabet], and having now nothing of difficulty in it, and withal expressly vindicated from the contrary conjectures of the Centuriators, as also from the mistakes of Vedelius, the Reader may consult in the Lord Primate's Notes on Martyrium Ignatii, which makes it very impertinent for me farther to enlarge on it. Otherwise it were no hard task by setting down the whole passage in the Centuriators, of which only a part is here given us, to show the many misadventures those learned men were guilty of in their improvident pursuit of this matter, as when they say he could not have liberty long as ambages quaerere to go far out of his way in his journey, quia captivus ducebatur, because he was carried captive (whereas no man thinks that he chose this increase of his torment and toil for himself, yet might have it imposed on him quite contrary to his choice; by the severity of the Emperor's, or his Council's directions, as has been said) And again, that there is no mention of his following the Emperor's Army, nor relation in story that the Emperor fetched such a circuit in his journey from Antioch to Rome, whereas indeed the matter is clear, that he was committed to a guard of soldiers, commonly called by him the ten Leopards; and for Trajan, it is sure that he did not at all return to Rome after this, but died in Cilicia. But this ex abundanti again, more than needs to the vindicating of Ignatius, who may now be at rest for a while, till he be soon called out again to a fresh combat.