of the person carried," he would depart from the synonymes he has brought from Suidas-oppose the letters he wishes to establish, which assert the martyr's willingness; and contradict covμevos, which expresses the reverse.

W. imagines that εκκομιδη and ανακομιδη were words commonly used, for going from and returning to the capital, especially on those public roads, which were made from Rome into the provinces. But he was "misled by trusting to the Latin translation of Valesius, which is, cum per Asiam ductaretur. This, in his zeal to find out an inconsistency, he thought could mean nothing else than an overland journey. If he had looked at the ancient translation by Rufinus, he would have found this very passage thus rendered, cum Asiam sub custodia navigaret."

66

per

P. I. concluding, what indeed is too true, that W. is a novice," sports with him; as if rolovμɛvos was navigaret, and an object, rny avazouidny, equivalent unto sub custodia, a circumstance. P. I. has been himself seduced, and as those who fall into bad company have a heart ready for it, so he has been too anxious to make this passage express sailing. If a thousand such critics as Philo-Ignatius and Rufinus should render την ανακομιδην ποιουμενος by ex custodia navigaret, there would be no defect of "modesty" in smiling at their acumen.

It is further observed by the author in the "Gospel Advocate;" "An examination of a map would show at once, why Eusebius used the expression di'Acias. Instead of going straight from Antioch through the Mediterranean to Italy, which would have been the most direct and ordinary course, the martyr was conveyed d'Arias, by the way of Asia Minor." "The Martyrology specifies that Ignatius went by water from Selucia to Neapolis, touching only at the several places mentioned in Asia Minor." "Learned" men sometimes presume too much upon the " "ignorance" of others. A great circle passing through Antioch to

the capital of the empire, varies little from the ancient Roman way, through what is now called Asia Minor, to Pergamus; and from the road from Neapolis by Thessalonica to the Adriatic, opposite Brundusium; and from the Appian way, which passed directly to the Amphitheatre. Any course by sea from Antioch to Rome will deviate from the line mentioned, by a perpendicular distance, not less than three or four times longer than any one from any part of the route through Asia, by Neapolis, Thessalonica, and Brundusium. If it were worth the effort to controvert the assertion, that sailing was then the "ordinary" mode, it can be evinced equally incorrect.

That the pious Ignatius was sent by Trajan to Rome in some manner, and died a martyr there, we will not dispute. That these forgeries existed when Eusebius wrote, is credible, but to what interpolations they were afterwards subjected, is not known. A suggestion of a possibility that the larger were those which Eusebius had seen, induced P. I. to exhibit comparisons of the three quotations in that versatile historian. The first he has judged unimportant. The second is five to one against him, upon his own showing. With regard to the third, it is enough to say: If Eusebius had the larger ones before him, he omitted only what was in the Scriptures, and sufficiently known. Also, it is not to be supposed, that if the smaller were last made, the abridger would have ventured to deviate from the then most public historian in the Christian world. The same reason also operates with equal force to show, that the larger were prior to Eusebius; at least in that passage, for a wary interpolator must have feared the variance.

Whether the Arian or Athanasian set, or the original forgeries, were seen by Constantine's historian, it is impossible to tell. P. I. thinks their genuineness "long ago settled by the judgment of the learned world." On the contrary, Dr. Priestly alleges, "that the genuineness of them is not only very much doubt

ed, but generally given up by the learned." Both have erred; for the history of the dispute will show, it is still sub judice. But an appeal to opinions is worse than vain; facts must decide.

The imbecility of W. should have saved him from the charge of enmity against episcopacy. If by that name, P. 1. intends a denomination, W. believes it a part of the body of Christ, and to continue till He comes;—it has his daily prayers: if a class of professing Christians, many of these are his best and most beloved friends, with whom he mixes before the throne of grace if the diocesan form of government, W. wishes every one to follow it who chooses, and promises to do so himself, if P. I. will show even probability for its existence in the New Testament, or the two first centuries.

The object of the writer of these numbers is to counteract an episcopacy industriously, but not always ingenuously, propagated in his own denomination; with which the letters of the pseudo-Ignatius have a closer affinity than with that which is diocesan; against the early existence of which they are a standing monu

ment.

n Schroeckh, the most distinguished of the modern ecclesiastical historians of Germany, not only asserts that the genuineness of the larger epistles of Ignatius has received very little support from the learned, but plainly intimates an opinion that the smaller, if not a forgery, have been interpolated. In his epitome, he says, “apparuit tandem, etiam breviores earum, nisi ab alio scriptas, at certe interpolatas esse in gratiam episcoporum."-Ed.

SECTION VII.

Expediency no justification for ordinations not prescribed by divine authority. -The work of Minucius Felex shows that Christians had no temples, altars, nor images, when he wrote, and that their worship was concealed.—The Statue of Hippolytus in the Vatican, is later than A.D. 600.—His tract against Nætus, proves that a presbytery in a church had the power to cite and depose a heretic.-Origen calls the angels of the seven churches in the Apocalypse #posolwles.—The Philocalia were collected long after his death; a passage in them has been misunderstood.—His censures of the ambition and ignorance of bishops and presbyters, and his interpretations of the Scriptures evince, that the church was still in the state of parochial episcopacy.

Ir a mode of government can be elicited from the New Testament, the maxim, "whatever is best administered is best," is more objectionable in ecclesiastical, than civil politics. Ambition has often perverted both; yet the essentials of the church of Christ exist in many denominations unto this day. Nevertheless, to affirm that expediency can vindicate ordinations not found in the word, is to assert, that the end can justify unlawful means. Pious breathings of heart are religion, yet zeal should associate attainable knowledge, correct motives, and other circumstances; and never substitute "for doctrines the commandments of men."

Minucius, Hippolytus, and Origen will now prove, that during the intermissions of the sufferings inflicted by Severus, Maximinus, and Decius, in the third century the scriptural ordinary officers ruled, and served the churches.

The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix appears to have been written, after the apology of Tertullian, and to contain passages transcribed by Cyprian. It is a vindication of Christianity perfectly in character for a Roman orator, as was the writer.

G

66

Cecilius presents the arguments of the day against, and Octavius defends, the "mad superstition;" Marcus is intrusted by the former to be umpire, and by him also saved from the trouble of a sentence. This pleasant little fiction offers to our subject nothing relevant, except an unbiassed representation, at its period, of the humble condition of the Christian church in the capital of the world. Cecilius, in his ardor asks; 'Why have they," the Christians, "neither altars, nor temples, nor any images, at least which are known? Why do they not speak, but in private holes, and corners, whither they repair by stealth, if this their religion be not infamous and criminal?" Octavius, who answers the objections of his opponent in succession, asks, "To what purpose should we make any form or representation of God, whose living image, man himself is? Or what temple should we raise to him, since the world, which he has formed, is not able to contain him? Were it not much better to dedicate our mind for his abode, and consecrate our heart for his altar? Nor ought we to be accused of prating in corners, if you be either ashamed or afraid to hear us in public." Cecilius had also said, "Their nocturnal ceremonies and concealed devotions sufficiently prove the things charged against them. And they who tell us, that they worship a man, who was crucified, and that the wood of a cross constitutes a great part of their devotion, do worthily attribute to them altars suitable to their crimes, adoring what they deserve." To these things Octavius replied; "We neither worship crosses, nor wish to be nailed to them. You yourselves are more likely to adore them, who worship wooden gods, that are made of the same matter." Cecilius had with acrimony asked; "shall we suffer men of an unlawful, infamous and desperate faction, without fear of punishment, to attempt against the gods-a confederacy, or rather a conspiracy, into which they are not initiated by any holy rites, but by impious crimes, practised in their night conventicles, solemn fasts, and horrid and inhuman feasts? These are the people that