this and of many other countries: that the commendation earned by the Bereans, Acts xvii. 11, may ever be the highest object of ambition for Christian teachers-that they may never shun the labour of acquiring a competent knowledge of the ancient and the oriental languages, having in view an object of so high importance, as is the right understanding of God's revealed word that they may become ever more and more familiar with the works of the Fathers, with the ancient versions, and with other critical sources—and that they may thus acquire and establish for themselves a doctrinal competence and authority to which neither heretics, nor fanatics, nor demagogical innovators can ever aspire. We feel persuaded, that wherever such a spirit is universal among the teachers of the Church, the Ecclesiastical Establishment must necessarily flourish and prosper; for, in such a case, the Establishment is in truth and in reality —οὐ λόγῳ οὐδὲ γλώττῃ, ἀλλ ̓ ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, an enlightened Christian Establishment.

EDINBURGH,

10th November, 1836.

TRANSLATOR.

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

AUTHENTICITY.

Ir Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, be neither spurious-and it cannot be proved that it is-nor interpolated-and that has not been proved hitherto— we have in that epistle a clear testimony establishing the existence of our epistle in the commencement of the second century; for Polycarp, in chap. vii. succinctly describing the antichristian heresies of his age, thus expresses himself respecting Doketism: Tãs γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν. No unprejudiced man can doubt that the passage, 1 John iv. 3, is latently contained in these words. It is true that Eusebius, who, generally speaking, is an accurate observer of quotations from the New Testament, in writings of the second century, only mentions the first Epistle of St. Peter as having been quoted in Polycarp's Epistle. But it is only incidentally that he speaks of the subject, and he has also left unnoticed, allusions to some of St. Paul's Epistles in the Epistle of Polycarp. The word ȧvrigoros too, is, in the New Testament, in

B

frequent use only with St. John in the patristic language of the second century it seems very rarely to occur. First again by Irenæus, a disciple of Polycarp, it is used more frequently; and, is it not likely that the use of it. in this passage, indicates that Polycarp had before him the first epistle of his apostolic master? This is indeed a mere subsidiary proof, and let us admit, it is one that is uncertain, since this phenomenon may be accounted for in a different

manner.

Dr. Bretschneider endeavours, by the vagueness of the quotation, to weaken the force of Polycarp's testimony. This is a vain endeavour. None of the apostolical fathers use to quote passages from the New Testament, with accuracy and precision; they do not even so quote passages from the Old Testament. Nor do we find any greater precision in the apologetical writers. But were we to go the full length with Dr. Bretschneider, and suppose, either that this antidoketic passage was derived from an earlier source, which was common to the author of the first Epistle of St. John and to Polycarp, or, that the later pseudo-John borrowed it from Polycarp, a more ancient writer; we would, in the first case, have to establish a mere fiction; and, in the second, we would entirely subvert the irrefragable critical maxim, according to which, the more perfect and more complete expression is generally considered as the original, and as the source of the more imperfect and abridged." Now, the passage of St. John is clearly more original than the passage in St. Polycarp.

The next author after Polycarp who supports, with

frequent use only with St. John; in the patristic language of the second century it seems very rarely to occur. First again by Irenæus, a disciple of Polycarp, it is used more frequently; and, is it not likely that the use of it, in this passage, indicates that Polycarp had before him the first epistle of his apostolic master? This is indeed a mere subsidiary proof, and let us admit, it is one that is uncertain, since this phenomenon may be accounted for in a different

manner.

Dr. Bretschneider endeavours, by the vagueness of the quotation, to weaken the force of Polycarp's testimony. This is a vain endeavour. None of the apostolical fathers use to quote passages from the New Testament, with accuracy and precision; they do not even so quote passages from the Old Testament. Nor do we find any greater precision in the apologetical writers. But were we to go the full length with Dr. Bretschneider, and suppose, either that this antidoketic passage was derived from an earlier source, which was common to the author of the first Epistle of St. John and to Polycarp, or, that the later pseudo-John borrowed it from Polycarp, a more ancient writer; we would, in the first case, have to establish a mere fiction; and, in the second, we would entirely subvert the irrefragable critical maxim, according to which, "the more perfect and more complete expression is generally considered as the original, and as the source of the more imperfect and abridged." Now, the passage of St. John is clearly more original than the passage in St. Polycarp.

The next author after Polycarp who supports, with