certain evidences of its being genuine, than this. In short, that if it shall be lawful to doubt of this, there will be no monument of antiquity left which we may not as well call in question, and reject as spurious.

16. Indeed so general is the reception which learned men(ƒ) on all sides have given to this Epistle, that I might well omit any farther discourse in confirmation of the credit and authority of it. But yet seeing there have been two things started by some of late, if not utterly to destroy, yet at least to lessen the reputation of this piece; I will consider, in short, what may fairly be replied to both their exceptions.

17. Now the first is that of Tentzelius, (g) in his exercitation upon this Epistle: who, though he allows it to be undoubtedly genuine, yet supposes it to have been corrupted by the same hand that we confess did corrupt the Epistles of Ignatius,(h) about six hundred years after Christ. But to this I reply, first, that it is allowed that there is nothing in this Epistle that may give any just grounds for the suspicion of any such fraud as this: it being acknowledged even by Monsieur Daille himself, one of the greatest adversaries of it, to be an Epistle in all respects worthy of St. Polycarp, excepting only in the close of it which I shall more particularly consider by and by. So that either we have this Epistle pure and uncorrupted as it was first written; or at least we have it so little prejudiced by any alterations that may have been made in it, that there is nothing in the Epistle, as it now is, dangerous in point either of faith or manners, or that might not have well enough been written by St. Polycarp. But this was not the case with the Epistles of St. Ignatius,() which not only laboured under many impertinencies unbecoming the character of that great man, but were fraught with many things that were

(ƒ) Vid. apud Tentzel. de Polycarp. Dissert. iv. num. 41. p. 157. (g) Exercit. Select. Exerc. iv. num. 42, &c. 47.

(h) Usserius Dissert. de Epist. Ignat. cap. vi. pag. 33. () Vid. Dissert. Usser. c. x, xi. p. 63, &c.

altogether fabulous: nay, if we may credit Archbishop Usher,(k) had some passages in them that tended to corrupt the very faith of Christ, in one of the most considerable points of it.

18. But secondly, that the Epistles of St. Ignatius had been corrupted, was evident from disagreement of the copies() which we usually had of them, from the quotations of the antient Fathers of the first five centuries out of them. Now this was a most unquestionable demonstration of their having been changed from what they were in those first ages in which those Fathers lived; and accordingly proved to be so, when the old Latin version of Bishop Usher first, and then the Florentine Greek edition of the learned Isaac Vossius, came to be compared with those editions that had before been extant of them. But neither does this exception appear against the - present Epistle, which agrees with what is quoted both by Eusebius(m) and others out of it, and thereby clearly shews our present copy to be sincere and uncorrupted.

19. Seeing then there is nothing but a mere conjecture for the depravation of this Epistle, and such just reason to conclude that there is no good foundation for it; to be sure none that may compare with the arguments we have against it: I think we may conclude that for any thing yet appears to the contrary, we not only have the genuine Epistle of St. Polycarp, but that Epistle free from any designed corruptions, or depravations of it.

20. Nor is there any more, that I do not say there is much less weight, in the other supposal of Monsieur Daille, (2) continued and abetted by his learned de

(k) Ibid. c. xv. p. 103. This Dr. Grabe has confirmed, proving the interpolator of Ignatius's Epistles to have been an Arian. Spicileg. pp. Sec. ii. pag. 225, 226.

(1) Usserius Dissert. Ignat. cap. iii. p. 12.

(m) Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 36. Photius Bibl. Tmem. cxxvi. p. 305.

(n) Vid. Larroque observ. in vind. Pears. p. 65, 66.

fender Monsieur Larroque, though without any other, or greater proof, than what had been before fully answered by our most learned and judicious Bishop Pearson; namely, that this Epiştle originally ended at the Doxology which we meet with, chapter the 12th, and that what follows concerning the Epistles of St. Ignatius, has been added to it by some latter hand. But now, what proof do they offer of this? what authority have they to support such a supposition? this they pretend not to. All they have to say is, that the Doxology which we find there, seems to imply that the Epistle originally went no farther: and that in what follows there is a flat contradiction to what went before; the close of the Epistle speaking of Ignatius, as if he were still alive, whom the true Polycarp had before set forth to the Philippians as having suffered, and been gone to the place that was prepared for him.

21. As for what concerns the latter of these suggestions, I have already shewn how vain and groundless it is. Nor can we reasonably suppose that any one who designed to serve a turn by corrupting such an Epistle as this, would have been either so negligent as not once to read over the piece he was about to make so considerable an addition to; or having read it, would have been so foolish as to have, without any need, subjoined a request to the Philippians, directly contrary to what the true Polycarp had told them before, and which by consequence would be sure to discover the fraud, and frustrate the design of it.

22. So little appearance of reason is there in this suggestion, which yet these learned men insist upon, as their main argument against the latter part of this Epistle. As for the other objection which they bring against it, viz. that St. Polycarp must have concluded at the 12th chapter, because of the vow which he there makes for those to whom he wrote; I reply, first, that this is at the best but a very uncertain

guess; seeing it is notorious to all that have ever read the Epistles, either of the Apostles, or those that followed after, that nothing is more common than to meet with such kind of conclusions, not only in the end, but in the beginning,(o) and middle ;(p) in short, in all the parts of their Epistles. To look no farther than the Epistle with which we have begun this col- ́ lection, of St. Clement to the Corinthians; how many of these sort of stops may we find in the progress of it? I am sure there are not less than seven or eight of them. But I suppose he would be thought very ridiculous, who should therefore reject all that followed the first of these, as none of St. Clements, but pieced on to the end of his Epistle by some other hand, merely because the Doxology seemed to imply his having concluded there.

23. But to lay aside conjectures, and proceed to that which will put a final end to this difficulty; I observe, 2dly,, that this passage which these men deny to be St. Polycarp's, and suppose to have been added to it by some latter hand, is expressly quoted by Eusebius(q) in his Ecclesiastical History, as a part of this Epistle. If therefore it be the addition of some other hand, it is evident it was made to it before Eusebius's time, that is to say, within two hundred years after the time of St. Polycarp's writing of it; and whether this be probable we will now more particularly inquire.

24. For the better clearing of which, I must observe, that this Epistle of St. Polycarp, like that of St. Clement, foregoing, was for several hundreds of years wont to be publicly read in the Churches of Asia; so St. Jerome(r) informs us; or as his interpreter Sophronius renders him, in the Synod or Conven

(0) See 1 Tim. i. 17.

(1) Ephes. iii. 20. Rom. xv. 33. Dr. Hammond Annot. in Rom. xiv. e.

(q) Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 36. (r) Hieron. de Script. in Polycarp.

tion of Asia by which a learned man(s) supposes we are to understand some common meetings of the Christians in those parts, answerable to the like assemblies of the Gentiles there; and that in these, this Epistle was wont to be read to them.

25. Hence Irenæus(t) speaks of it as an Epistle that was in every bodies' hand; and obvious to be read by any, for the benefit of their faith and manners. Which being so, it can hardly be supposed but that so inquisitive a searcher into antiquity as Eusebius was, must needs have been very well acquainted with it; and doubtless have had a true and genuine copy of it. Seeing then he produces this passage as a part of that Epistle which was generally received as authentic in his days; and that the Epistle itself being spread into all hands, and publicly read in the Eastern Churches immediately after the death of its great author, could not have been corrupted or altered but the cheat must needs have been discovered; (of which yet we have not the least intimation in all antiquity:) Ithink it cannot be doubted but that this, as well as the rest of that Epistle, was written by St. Polycarp himself; and not added to his Epistle by some latter hand, as is suggested, not only without all ground, but against such plain and unanswerable evidence to the contrary.

26. Having said thus much in vindication of this Epistle, and to clear it from those prejudices that have of late been raised against it, it remains only for me to observe, that though the following translation was truly made from the Greek and Latin copies of it, set out by Bishop Usher first, and since reprinted by Cotelerius in his collection of the Apostolical Fathers; yet is not this the first time that this Epistle has appeared in our language. For our most diligent and learned countryman, Dr. Cave, (u) having a just res

(8) Le Moyne Prolegom. ad var. Sacr.

(t) Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 14.

(u) Dr. Cave's lives of the Apostolical Fathers, in St. Poly

carp.