A View of Antiquity Presented, Afterword
Mantissa.
THis Treatise which hath lain dormant by me for several years, was dispatch'd and put out of hand, before Mr. Dallee's book of the Writings of Dyonisius Areopagitae and Ignatius Antiochenus saw the light, and had it then passed the press (as it was very near to have done) I had been saved this labour, and no contest had happened between the very learn'd Dallee and my self. But coming to a view of it, when mine was adventuring into the world, I thought my self concerned to say somewhat (and much it shall not be) in vindication of the Epistles of that holy Martyr Ignatius, as being at least in part genuine, and not wholly supposititious; though it cannot be denied that both he and they have been not a little abused by bold and dis-inngenuous persons.
Having therefore perused what the perspicacious Mr. Dallee hath done upon this subject, I find that therein he hath given sufficient proof of his singular learning, judgment and industry: And had his great pains been confin'd to and level'd at, the further discovery of the vile injury that hath bern offered to the worthy monuments of that famous Martyr and primitive Pishop, and not the utter extinction of them, his undertaking might have proved much more acceptable and successful. He herein follows his Coaetanian Countrymen Salmasius and Blondel; and of the more ancient, (who yet were Eight hundred years after Christ) Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, and Anastasius the Library keeper at Rome, and these are the principal whom he names to have been of the same mind with himself herein, though the greatest part of learned men go a contrary way unto him.
The method he proceeds in is this: 1. He endeavours to make out the imposture (as he apprehends it to be) by no less than sixty six Arguments, drawn from the Ancients making no mention of these Epistles, especially such as preceded Eusebius: as also from divers expressions and passages found in them, which we cannot imagine should ever drop from the Pen of Ignatius. 2. He undertakes to answer the arguments and objections against it, made by those that dissent from him herein.
In answer to the first Argument drawn from the silence of the Ancients making no mention of them: Besides what the learned Dr. Hammond hath said, viz. That he is clearly destitute of positives, whoever would make use of Negatives, and saith Bellarmine, arguments negatively drawn from authority conclude nothing: both these sayings Mr. Dalle sets down, Chap. 5. I would offer to consideration.
1. That it is more than probable that Ignatius did write Epistles: this Mr. Dallee seems to grant: 'tis not question'd (saith he) whether Ignatius wrote Epistles, (for who is so foolish to deny that he writ some) but whether he wrote those that are carried about. p. 450. Again, why do we not follow that which is most likely, to wit, that the impostor having learned that some Epistles were of old written by Ignatius, and perceiving that they were now wanting, took counsel from thence to feign and put forth his own under the same name. p. 454. To which he subjoyns these words of the learned Petavius, I verily deny not that the Epistles of Ignatius, have been interpolated and changed by the addition of certain things, and depraved; and that some are supposititious: But that no Epistles at all were written by Ignatius, I verily think to be too rashly affirmed. p. 230. Now if he did write Epistles, we cannot but suppose that those of his time who had him in so high esteem, would with utmost care preserve them, and not suffer through their negligence so precious a foreign to be lost: And if so, what hinders why these now remaining should not (at least in part) be some of them?
2. 'Tis known that the Ancients do but seldom make use of the writings of those that went before them, and when they do so they do it many times without naming the Author from whom the passages are borrowed. So Irenaeus is wont (saith Mr. Dallee) to bring and recite the sayings and sentences of eminent men more ancient than himself, delivered by them, whether written or by lively voice, without naming the Authors. p. 266. Again, Mr. Dallee in his treatise of the right use of the Fathers, lib. 1. Chap. 6. p. 103. If the Fathers (saith he) would have but taken the pains to have given us notice every time, who the Author was whose opinion they alledged, this manner of commenting upon the Scriptures, would have been much more beneficial to us and less troublesome. But this they very seldom do, as you may observe out of the expositions of Hilary, Ambrose and others who robbing poor Origen without any mercy, do not yet do him the honour so much as to name him scarcely. From the Ancients not mentioning the Epistles of Ignatius therefore, to infer that they are none of his, is very inconsequent, seeing this was a practice very usual with them.
3. We find that Polycarp who lived at the same time with Ignatius, as also Irenaeus and Origen, (who were all before Eusebius) do make use of some passages in those Epistles: And the double testimony (saith Mr. Dallee p. 458.) of Polycarp and Irenaeus prevail'd with Eusebius so far, that he doubted not but that it was Ignatius his work. It is true that the Arguments drawn from hence by the most reverend Vsser, and learned Dr. Hammond, Mr. Dallee labours to enervate as of no sorce: but of what strength his solutions are we shall make some tryal by and by: And thus much for his first argument drawn from the Ancients not mentioning, as he pretends, the Epistles of Ignatius.
2. As to his second Argument fetched from the expressions and passages found in them, which cannot be conceived to have come from Ignatius, but have been inserted by some latter hand: To this it may be answered, that many of these (and too many of them have crept into Ignatius his epistles) have been observed and made mention of by others: though the diligent and quicksighted Mr. Dallee hath taken notice of and discovered many more. The first discoverers of the imposture from thence concluded (as well they might) that …oul hands had been tampering with and defiling them: (and who of the most eminent Ancients have not been so dealt with by wretched men; that so those worthies might seem to own some errors, which by this means these hucksters seek to impose upon the world, and would fain that they should be entertained by unwary Readers) but yet did not conceive this to be a sufficient ground altogether to disclaim and reject them, as not written by Ignatius: Et gradus non alterat speciem. And had Mr. Dallee proceeded no further upon his more narrow inspection into, and espyal of the fraud of those interpolators, good might have been done by his laudable pains, and the mischief of the deceit more fully prevented. But Mr. Dallee seems to have been too much swayed by Nicephorus P. C. and Anastasius the Roman Library keeper, whom he follows herein, who upon this only account (as Vsser thinks) because they were interpolated and corrupted, did rank these Epistles in the number of Apochryphals: as Mr. Dallee tells us p. 251. Though the instances produced by Mr. Dallee (too many here to be repeated) be looked on and yielded to have been since added by unworthy interpolators, yet may there be so much found remaining, as may make up those Epistles as they came out of the hands of Ignatius; those Epistles of his reckoned to be genuine, being much shorter in the time of Eusebius than they are at this day. The interpolations therefore are no sufficient warrant for their utter rejection. Petav. p. 229.
The second branch of this discourse consists of his answer made to the Arguments of dissenters, wherein they shew that the Ancients before Eusebius, did make use of divers passages from Ignatius, and therefore is his pretence of their silence in this regard of no sorce to annul the Epistles of Ignatius.
Their first argument is drawn from the testimony of Polycarp his contemporary, which is found in his Epistle to the Philippians.
To which Mr. Dallee returns this solution. 1. That that Epistle to the Philippians is apochryphal. Answ. Those whose judgment this is, are the aforesaid Nicephorus P. C. and Anastasius Bibli. R. who follows Nicephorus herein as Mr. Dallee owns, p. 250. f. so that upon the matter it amounts to no more than one single testimony; against which we may well oppose the contrary judgment of Eusebius, much more ancient than they who mention that passage of Polycarp, (viz. that he had sent them as many Epistles of Ignatius as he had by him) as contained in his Epistle to the Philippians, without any hesitation of its being his. hist. lib. 3. cap. 32. and quotes Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. as owning it to be his: Thus, there is (saith he) extant an Epistle of Polycarp unto the Philippians, very profitable &c. hist. lib. 4. cap. 14.
Solut. 2. The Author (saith Mr. Dallee) of that particle in Polycarps epistle, (viz. of Ignatius himself, and those that are with him, signifie what ye know for certain) intimates that when he writ it Ignatius was living, but the Author of the Epistle most plainly affirms, (using the word foreign) that he was dead: Therefore wa… it inserted into the Epistle by some other.
Answ. 1. Were it so; yet this makes not the whole Epistle Apocryphal but only corrupted, as those of Ignatius have also been, for which cause Nicephorus and Anastasius reject them: and upon the same reason, as Mr. Dallee imagines, do they conclude that the Epistle of Polycarp also is Apocryphal, p. 429. m. but how weakly, judge. And for this particle inserted Mr. Dallee, ibid. thinks it no crime to say, that those Epistles, viz. of Ignatius, which in this Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, are said to be collected by him, were not collected by Polycarp, a conjecture but slenderly bottom'd. Yea Mr. Dallee grants that if those words put in by the impostor be left out, all the rest of the Epistle agrees with the judgment of Photius one of the Successors of Anastasius in the Patriarchship who saith: There was read the Epistle of Polycarp unto the Philippians, full of many admonitions, with plainness and simplicity. p. 429. m. It seems by this that Photius (a most learned Writer as Mr. Dallee there stiles him) did not account that Epistle to be Apocryphal, nor did the judgment of his predecessor sway him herein, which therefore he did not look on as of so much weight as Mr. Dallee esteems it to be.
And whereas Mr. Dallee tells us that it is apparent that the particle contained in this Epistle (wherein is mentioned that a collection of Ignatius his epistles was made by Polycarp) was inserted by the impostor, whence he concludes that the collection was not made by him: It seems not to be so apparent, for admit that particle not to be be so coherent with the preceding clause, as Mr. Dallee conceives, yet we know how usual it is in the close of Epistles, to add somewhat beside the main intendment of them occasionally. Besides, all that he gathers from the seeming incoherence is only this; that those words seem to have been rashly and beside the mind of the Author sown on by some other hand: and if any thing were added, saith he, by the Author beside the above mentioned words, I should believe that those last words which follow after the place objected against, (viz. Scripsistis mihi et vos & Ignatius, &c. where he speaks of the collection of the Epistles of Ignatius made by him) were the words that were added. p. 4…7. So, saith he, expunging all that which is said of Ignatius and his Epistles, the whole clause of the Epistle would run decently. Thus he p. 427. And what amounts all this conjecture unto, but only this that from the seeming incoherence of that particle with the foregoing words, it seems to him and he believes, and p. 429. 'Tis his opinion concerning the objected place in Polycarp's Epistle, that that particle was added by the impostor. Let the Reader now judge whether these conjectural apprehensions of his be sufficient to invalidate Polycarps testimony of the Epistles of Ignatius.
But what can be imagined that the impostor should have in his eye, in adding this particle to Polycarp's Epistle? seeing it hath nothing in it, beside a commendation of Ignatius his Epistles, but some particular affairs: what advantage could he gain by such an abuse? Oh much, saith Mr. Dallee: the impostor (whom I think we need not look far for) is even he without doubt, whom we have hitherto demonstrated by many and manifest proofs to have substituted, feigning the name of Ignatius, Epistles framed by himself to the holy Martyr. This is indeed said by Mr. Dallee, but how doth it appear that he is the man? and if he framed Ignatius his Epistles, then all or only some of them: All he could not, for some were extant before Eusebius his time, who mentions divers of them. lib. 3. cap. 33. and he lived. an. 326. And the second collection being six in number, was made (as the Reverend Vsser conjectures) Ann. 580. or, as the publisher of the Constantinopolitan Chronicle thinks, ann. 630. So the space of time between those mentioned by Eusebius, if collected but in his time, and the second collection is by the former computation. 254. years, and by the latter 304. years, a time too long to imagine the impostor to have lived. If he were the forger but of some only, 'tis demanded of which? and of this I suppose it will be found somewhat a knotty difficulty to determine. Besides, if some only be the impostors, then the remainder must be of some other, and if so why not of Ignatius, being the commonly reputed father of them.
2. That the Author of the Epistle saith plainly that Ignatius was then dead, is not so plainly to be found therein. For those expressions, viz. That he was foreign and had finished the least act of his conflict, do not necessarily imply so much, but might be made use of upon this account, because he had been condemned, and was under the sentence of death, being now also in the way to his execution: for such are dead in law and looked on as in that state: as that Phrase holds out, Psal. 79. 11. According to the greatness of thy power, preserve thou those that are appointed to dye, or as the Margin reads, the children of death.
2. The second Argument or objection made by the dissenters, is drawn from the testimony of Irenaeus; who in his fifth book against heresies, towards the end hath these words: As one of our own, who for the testimony of God, was adjudged to the beasts; said, I am the Wheat of God, &c.
Solut. Irenaeus saith not that he wrote those words, but only that he spake so: Then it cannot be gathered that he saw any writing of Ignatius.
Answ. 1. The word foreign denotes indifferently both the thing uttered by the voice, and those delivered in writing also: so Tit. 1. 12. foreign: one of themselves even a prophet of their own, said, this was written by Epimenides the Poet. So then notwithstanding the expression foreign, he might have that sentence from some writing of Ignatius. 2. Ierom and others report, that those words were uttered by him, when he was adjudged to the beasts, which was no small while before he encountred them. For after his sentence pronounced, he was led from Syria to Rome, a long journey, wherein he writ his genuine Epistles, of which that to the Romans was one, containing the words pronounced by him: So that probable it is that he spake those words more than once, between the time of his being sentenced aud executed; and therefore may well be conceived to have made mention of them in an Epistle.
2. Mr. Dallee concludes that Irenaeus never saw or knew of any Epistle of Ignatius. 1. Because he brings the Authority of such as were Elders before him, and disciples of the Apoles against the error of Florinus and of Polycarp by name; but mentions not Ignatius. Answ. 1. His not mentioning of Ignatius, is but a slender argument to prove that he saw not any Epistle of his, he might have some reason unknown to us of this his silence. 2. Ignatius is no less contained in the word Elders, than Polycarp: for he saith in general that Florinus never had his doctrine delivered to him from those Elders, the disciples of the Apostles: which expression (Elders) comprehends and may be understood of Ignatius as well as Polycrap, who were both the Disciples of the Apostle Iohn. 3. In that fragment of his Epistle to Florinus, he saith this only of Polycarp: I, saith he, saw thee Florinus, when I was yet a boy with Polycarp in the lesser Asia, &c. and then adds, if that holy and Apostolick Elder had heard any such thing, he would streight have stopp'd his ears.
This therefore is but a weak Proof that he never saw any of Ignatius his epistles: but rather the contrary, he being as well as Polycarp comprehended in the name Elders.
2. Because where he mentions the difference between Anicetus, Bishop of Rome and Polycarp, about the observation of Easter, he speaks not a word of Ignatius; especially considering that peremptory saying of his (in his Epistle to the Philippians) that if any one observed Easter with the Iews, he is partaker with those that slew the Lord and his Apostles: Anicetus might well have objected this to Polycarp. p. 270. Answ. You have little reason to say that the Epistle to the Philippians, was altogether unknown to Irenaeus, because he made not use of this passage to Anicetus: for 'tis conceived that those words fell not from the Pen of Ignatius, but were since foisted in by some one that corrupted that Epistle: we grant that Irenaeus never read those words there, nor could he well, seeing they were not at that time there to be found: Yet might he see that Epistle as it came out of the hands of Ignatius, which had no such blemish in it.
3. Because he is of a contrary mind unto Ignatius, about the time of Christs abode upon earth: Ignatius rightly conceiving that being baptized about the thirtieth year of his Age, he remained on earth but three Passovers after that time: whereas Irenaeus thinks that he taught to his fortieth or fiftieth year. Answ. 1. Irenaeus was not bound to follow Ignatius in every thing, if he had a peculiar apprehension of his own in this matter, what eminent men have not in some things had the like, wherein yet sometimes they have been in the wrong? 2. Irenaeus erring herein, thought he had reason for his opinion. Mr. Parker. lib. 4. §. 13. de descensu. speaks in his behalf. This tradition, saith he, of Irenaeus carried in it a certain shew of truth, and seems to have a foundation from the Scriptures: He, i. e. Christ was called Master, and had the perfect age of a Master; he came to save every Age, therefore he passed through every one: thou art not yet fifty year old, Ioh. 8. 65. therefore was he forty or upward: for the Jews lyed not, or missed, twenty years. Also Irenaeus brings in men of great name for Authors, namely the Elders which had lived with Iohn in Asia. He quotes for this Iren. lib. 2. cap. 39. 40. No marvel then that he was mistaken, and his dissent from Ignatius herein, is but of little strength to prove, that he was altogether unacquainted with Ignatius his Epistles. I may here make use of Mr. Dallee's words, cap. 9. p. 282. where speaking of the disagreement of Clemens Alexandrinus from Ignatius, about the time of Christs preaching after his baptism, (whereas Ignatius saith it was three years, Clemens saith it was but one) he hath this passage: If Clemens had known the judgment of so great a man as Ignatius, without doubt he either for his piety would have followed it, or for his learning he would certainly have brought reasons and confirm'd it, why he thought not that to be followed: thus he. And this we find Irenaeus to have done viz. To have produced reasons.
3. The third Argument or objection made by the dissenters, is drawn from the testimony of Origen, in whom are to be seen two passages of Ignatius that are found in his Epistles: the former in bom. in Luc. cap. 6. where naming Ignatius, I, saith he, found written in an epistle of his, that the virginity of Mary was hidden from the Prince of this world, epist. ad Ephes. The latter out of his prologue to his commentary on the Canticles: where he thus speaks. I remember that one of the Saints spake thus of Christ; My love was crucified. So▪ Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans.
Solut. The latter of these passages, he saith, that he spake but not that he writ so. Answ. 1. The word foreign signifies speaking either with the voice, or by writing: As doth also the word foreign of the same import: as Act. 17. 28. As some of your own Poets have said foreign: instancing in a saying of Aratus, in his Poem entituled Phaenomena. 2. He might both speak & write so too, see his answer to his Solution of the first argument from the testimony of Irenaeus. 2. Solut. Each place, saith he, alledged out of Origen, is of uncertain and doubtful Authority.
Answ. 1. If those places be dubious, then the passages of Ignatius might be reported by Origen as well as not: And the Authority is of equal strength for the Affirmative or Negative; nothing certain can be concluded from them. 2. Erasmus his censure (which you produce who thinks it none of his) is not infallible: and Merlin (to whose pains we are beholding for one edition of Origen, who therefore should be acquainted with his works) is very confident that these commentaries are Origen's 3. The reason for which they are judged to be the work of some Latine Author, seems not to be so cogent, viz. because some Greek words are interpreted by Latine: For this he might do for the help of those that might not so well understand some Greek words; which therefore needed explication. Besides it is known that for Origen's works, although he wrote them in Greek, yet have we scarcely any of them at this day, but only in Latine; except his excellent answer to Celsus in eight books. Therefore these interpretations of divers Greek words by Latine; and the saying that such a Latine word or expression is rendred so or so in the Greek, may be done by the Translators of his works, which is most likely: from whence therefore it cannot be inferred that those Commentaries are none of Origen's. 4. For his homilies on Luke they are not mentioned by either Cook or Rivet among the Tracts falsely ascribed to Origen; which doubtless they would, and (in such a work, their censure) they ought to have done, had they judged them not to be Origens. 5. Ierom the interpreter of these Homilies on Luke thinks them to be Origens, but a birth of his younger years, and not so elaborate, for some errors sprinkled amongst them. Sixt. Senens. in Biblioth. which errors, as Merlin imagines, were inserted by those that envied him. So that notwithstanding what is said by Mr. Dallee, those sayings of Ignatius may have been related by Origen, which he might be acquainted with from his Epistles.
4. The fourth Argument or objection made by the dissenters, is drawn from the testimony of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, who in his Ecclesiatical History, lib. 3. cap. 32. mentions six Epistles of Ignatius: So the Reverend Vsser accounts them, making that to the Church of Smyrna, and to Polycarp their Bishop to be the same, but others reckon seven, judging that to Smyrna, and that to Polycarp to be two distinct Epistles: These six or seven (saith Mr. Dallee p. 442.) we confess that Eusebius acknowledgeth and holds them to be truly the Epistles of Ignatius. To these Mr. Dallee's Solutions are.
1. Solut. His testimony is of no force being of a man that was two hundred years later than Ignatius. Answ. 1. The Epistles of Ignatius might well be preserved unto that time: many mens writings have remained many hundred years longer. 2. If so, then might Eusebius well come to the sight of them though others not; being a man so inquisitive after books, and Pamphilus his intimate companion, most studious and diligent in erecting the Library at Cesarea, and searching after books: So Ierom. Iulius Africanus began a well furnished Library in the University of Caesarea, (saith Middendorp of Academyes lib. 2.) which Pamphilus and Eusebius so enriched, that there is not a more famous one in the whole Earth. Being then so intimately acquainted with Pamphilus (as that he added his name to his own, being called Eusebius Pamphili) and assistant with him (who was very curious to find out the writings of those that went before him) in compleating his Library; questionless they would not omit so precious a treasure as the epistle of Ignatius; which (saith Polycarp. epist. ad Philip.) are such, that from them you may reap great profit, for they contain faith, patience, and all edification pertaining to our Lord. Here then Eusebius might come to see and peruse them, if he had them not among his own store. 3. The work he undertook and accomplished, (viz. The compiling of an Ecclesiastical History, wherein no one had gone before him) required that he should be supplyed with fitting furniture for such an enterprise: who therefore being most inquisitive after the chief monuments of antiquity, doubtless would not neglect so choice a relique as those epistles, that might contribute not a little to his intended design. So that if Ignatius writ any epistles, (and, saith Mr. Dallee it were a foolish part in any to deny that he did, p. 450.) who was more likely to obtain them (reserved with utmost care by those that lived with him, as Polycarp and the Churches to whom he sent them) than Eusebius, so conducing to his purpose?
2 Solut. He leans, saith Mr. Dallee upon a broken Reed, viz. the two passages in Polycarp and Irenaeus, which are falsly said to be found in them, as hath been made to appear. Answ. But we have shewed before that the allegations from them are a ground sufficient to prove that for which they were produced, and therefore I refer you to what hath been said hereof already.
3 Solut. He evidently overthrows this his opinion by somewhat laid down by himself elsewhere, (which Mr. Dallee stiles his Golden Rule) which is this, that no books inscribed with the names of the Ancients, are to be accounted for true, but only those whose testimonies were made use of by men, either of the same or certainly of the next memory or Age, Euseb. lib. 3. c. 34. Answ. Eusebius his words are these: speaking of the second Epistle of Clement Bishop of Rome to the Corinthians) we have to learn, saith he, that there is a second epistle of Clement which was not so received and approved of as the former,Dallee page 444. seeing we find not that the Elders (or Ancients) did use it. Now the question may be what use of it Eusebius means? Not that which Mr. Dallee intends, viz. their alledging of it in their writings; but the publick reading of it in the Churches: for so Eusebius records of his first epistle. One undoubted Epistle, saith he, of his there is extant, both worthy and notable, which he wrote from Rome unto Corinth, when sedition was raised among the Corinthians: the same epistle we have known to have been read publickly in many Churches both of old and amongst us also, hist. l. 3. c. 14. Again, saith he, Dionysius Bishop of Corinth writing an epistle to the Romans, viz. unto Soter their Bishop, remembreth the Epistle of Clement thus: we have, saith he, this day solemniz'd the holy Sunday, in which we have read your Epistle and always will for instructions sake, even as we do the former of Clement written unto us, hist, l. 4. c. 22, So that Eusebius his golyen rule (as your term it) being thus misunderstood by you, proves in its right sence, as no way advantageous unto you, so no whit at all prejudicial unto him.
Thus have I spoken a word in the behalf of Ignatius's his epistles, which notwithstanding what hath been said by the learned Mr. Dallee do not appear to be altogether supposititious: and that, though they have been basely abused by unworthy persons with their corrupt interpolations, yet have we to this day found among us some remains of the monuments of that eminent and glorious Martyr.
FINIS.
End of the text · Jonathan Hanmer, A View of Antiquity Presented (1677)