terly refuses to comply with this objection, not apprehending that there was the least ground for it. 10. But to return from this digression, in answer to the exception of two of the most learned adversaries of this epistle, against the credit of it: though, as I have now shewn, St. Polycarp wrote not to the Philippians till after the death of St. Ignatius, and consequently this epistle in order of time ought to have been placed after those which the other wrote immediately before it; yet it was proper to give this the precedency in the following collection, both as containing a most proper introduction to the epistles of Ignatius, and as having in all probability been first sent in the same order by St. Polycarp to the Philippians. Epist. Num. lib. iii. cap. 11. For thus we find that holy man speaking to them in the close of his letter: the epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp which he wrote unto us, together with what others of xiii. his have come to our hands, we have sent unto you according to your order; which are subjoined to this epistle. So both Eusebius P transcribed it out of the origi-Eccles. nal Greek; and so we find it in our ancient Latin version, q which is all that remains of that part of this tle; from whence our learned Archbishop Usher great reason concludes, that St. Polycarp caused the cap. ii. copies of St. Ignatius' epistles to be immediately added at the end of his own, and sent them to the Philippians together with it. 36. epis ser. p. 24. Apud, Us with T Dissert. de Ignat. Epist. 12. And this perhaps may have been one great means of preserving this epistle of St. Polycarp, from the fate that has attended all the rest of his writings. For being often transcribed together with those of Ignatius, and commonly placed at the front of them, they mutual- • Photii ly helped to secure each other: whilst the rest of his Bibl. Tmem. writings, for the want of being thus collected together, De Script. have for a long time been so utterly lost to the world, Polycarp. that neither Photius, nor St. Hierome, nor Eusebius, u Hist. Eccles. cxxvi. p. 305. Eccles. in lib. iv. c. 15. ad Florin. Hist. Eccles. seem to have had any particular catalogue of them; nor hath Irenæus, the disciple of St. Polycarp, given us any. 13. Indeed concerning the last of these, I mean IreIren.Epist. næus; w he tells us that this great man did write sever apud Euseb. al epistles, not only to the neighbouring churches, to lib. v. c. 20. confirm them in the faith, but even to particular persons, for their instruction and admonition. But what they were, or to whom they were sent, neither does he say, nor does Eusebius, where he speaks of the writings of St. Polycarp, mention any more than that epistle to the Philippians, of which we are now discoursing. And 8. Maxi- though a few later authors pretend to give us the very in Dionys. titles of some other of his works; yet have we reason to das in Poly- doubt from this silence of those who lived the nearest to carp, &c. Vid. mus Prolog. Areop. Sui Usserii Dis- his time, that their authority is but small; nor can we sert. de p. 4, 5. Tent Script. Ignat. say that even the pieces which they name, are at preszel. Exerc. ent any where to be found. Select. de num. xxxvi. y Ad lib. iii. * Lond. 1647. p. 31. a Usserius Annot. loc. 545. 14. Nor shall I except here those fragments lately published by Fevardentius y out of Victor Capuanus, c. 3. Irenæi. and reprinted by Bishop Usher in his appendix to Ignatius; in which as there are some things which neither Father Halloix, a nor our learned Usher could apcit p. 72, 73. prove of, as written by St. Polycarp, so the distance of Victor Ca-himb who was the first collector of them from the time puanus, he lived anno of that blessed martyr, and the manifest proofs he has on other occasions given of his little care and judgment in distinguishing the works of the ancient Fathers who lived long before him; not to say any thing of the passaCave Hist. ges themselves ascribed to St. Polycarp, but little agreelyc. p. 28. le able to the Apostolic age: all these considerations have ad Var. Sacr. justly restrained learned men from giving much credit ercit. Select. to those fragments, or from receiving them as belonging n. xlix. Du in any wise to so ancient an author. liter. in Po Moyne Prol.. Tentzel. Ex iv. de Polyc. Pin. Bibl. Eccl. in Polycarp, &c. 15. But whatever becomes of these fragments, it is certain that the epistle which I have here subjoined, is the genuine work of this holy man, and worthy of that great character which antiquity has given of it. Even tis Ignatian. Var. Sacr. Monsieur Dailled himself confesses, that excepting only & De Scrip the close of it, against which it was necessary for him to cap. xxxii. declare himself, there is nothing in it that either ought to offend any, or that may be thought unworthy of Polycarp. But Le Moynee goes farther; he tells us Prol. ad that he does not see how any one can entertain the least tom. 1 in Posuspicion against it; that there is not perhaps any work extant that has a more certain evidence of being genuine, than this. In short, if it be lawful to doubt this, there will be no monument of antiquity left which we may not as well call in question, and reject as spuri ous. lycarp. Tentzel. de Polycarp. Dissert. iv. num. 41, p. 157. 16. Indeed so general is the reception which learned men f on all sides have given to this epistle, that I might, vid. apud well onit any farther discourse in confirmation of the credit and authority of it. But 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. to g Exercit. Select. Ex42, &c. 47. erc. iv. num. Dissert. de cap. vi. p. 33. 17. Now the first is that of Tentzelius, in his exercitation upon this epistle; who, though he allows it be undoubtedly genuine, yet supposes it to have been corrupted by the same hand that we confess did corrupt the epistles of Ignatius, b about six hundred years after Usserius Christ. But to this I reply, first, that it is allowed that Epist. Ignat. 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 consider more particularly hereafter. 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, sert. Usser. or that might not well have been written by St. Polycarp. But this was not the case with the epistles of St. Vid. Dis Ignatius, which not only laboured under many impere. x., xi. p. tinencies unbecoming the character of that great man, but were fraught with many things that were altogether fabulous: nay, if we may credit Archbishop Usher, * Ibid. c. xv, k had some passages in them that tended to corrupt the 63, &c. p. 103. This Dr Grabe has confirm very faith of Christ, in one of the most considerable ed, proving poin's of it. the interpo natius's an Arian. lator of g 18. But secondly, that the epistles of St. Ignatius had Epistles to been corrupted, was evident from the disagreement of Spicileg. pp. the copies which we usually had of them, from the quotations of the ancient Fathers, during the first five Usserius centuries from them. Now this was a most unquesna cap. ii. tionable demonstration of their having been changed 225, 226. Dissert. Ig p. 12. 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 of them that had before been extant. But neither does this exception appear against the present epistle, which agrees "Euseb. with what is quoted both by Eusebius m and others out b. iii. c. 36. of it, and thereby clearly shows our present copy to be Bibl. Tmem. sincere and uncorrupted. hist. Eccles. Photius. exxvi. p. 305. Vid Larroque ob 19. Seeing then there is nothing but a mere conjecture for the depravation of this epistle, and so just a reason to conclude that there is no good foundation for it; certainly none that will compare with the arguments we have against it: I think we may conclude that for any thing which yet appears to the contrary, we not only have the genuine epistle of St. Polycarp, but that epistle free from any designed corruptions, or deprava tions. 20. Nor is there any more, and I do not say there is serv. In vind. much less weight, in the conjecture of Monsieur Daille," continued and abetted by his learned defender Monsieur 66. 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 epistle generally ended at the Doxology which we meet with in the 12th chapter, and that what follows concerning the epistles of St. Ignatius, has been added to it by some latter author. But what proof do they of fer of this? what authority have they to support such a supposition? this they do not pretend. 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 plain contradiction to what went before; the close of the epistle, speaking of Ignatius, as being still alive, whom the true Polycarp had before set forth to the Philippians as having suffered, and gone to the place that was prepared for him. 21. Concerning 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 to which he was about to make so considerable an addition; 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 consequently would be sure to discover the fraud, and frustrate the design of it. 22. So little appearance of reason there is in this suggestion, which 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 |