"councils of the churches* ;" and it was declared to be apocryphal under Pope Gelafius, A. D. 494. It is, indeed, a work highly unworthy of the apoftolical age, the contents of it being weak and foolish in the extreme, to fay nothing of its pretended vifions, which looks as if the writer defigned to impose them upon the world for fomething else than his own inventions. Those who deny the authenticity of this work, generally ascribe it to another Hermas, or Hermes, brother of Pope Pius, about the year 146, which is after the time of Juftin Martyr.

The pre-existence of Chrift is certainly referred to in this work. For the writer, speaking of an old rock and a new gate, and being asked the reafon of it, fays, "reprefents the Son of God, who is older "than the creation, fo that he was prefent "with the Father when the world was "made+." He alfo fays, "the name of the

Ab omni concilio ecclefiarum inter apocrypha et falfa judicatur. De Pudicitia, cap. 10. p. 563.

Petra hæc, et porta quid funt? tra hæc, & porta, Filius Dei eft.

Audi, inquit: PeQuonam pacto, in

quam,

"Son of God is great and immenfe, and "the whole world is fuftained by it *." But this language might be figurative. However, the uncertainty, to fay the leaft, with respect to the age of this work, is fufficient to overthrow the authority of the evidence which it might furnish for the early date of doctrine of the pre-existence of Chrift, without having recourse to interpolation, which few writings of fo early an age have escaped.

The only writer besides these, that I have any occafion to mention, is IGNATIUS, bifhop of Antioch, who, on his journey to Rome, where he fuffered martyrdom under Trajan, wrote feveral epiftles; and many bearing his name are now extant. But of thefe, a great part are univerfally allowed to be spurious, and the rest are so much interpolated, that they cannot be quoted with safety for

quam, Domine, petra vetus eft, parta autem nova! Audi, inquit, infipiens, & intellige. Filius quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior eft, ita ut in confilio Patri fuo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam. Lib. 3. fect. 12. p. 115.

* Nomen Filii Dei, magnum & immenfum eft, & totus ab eo fuftentatur orbis. Lib. 3. fect. 14. p. 116:

any

1

any purpose. Dr. Lardner, who thinks that the smaller epiftles are in the main genuine, fays," if there be only fome few fenti"ments and expreffions which feem inconfiftent with the true age of Ignatius, it is "more reasonable to suppose them to be additions, than to reject the epiftles them"felves entirely; efpecially in this scarcity "of copies which we labour under. As the interpolations of the larger epiftles are plainly the work of fome Arian, fo even "the fmaller epiftles may have been tempered with by the Arians, or the orthodox, or both, though I do not affirm that "there are in them any confiderable cor"ruptions or alterations."

Salmafius, Blondel, and Daillé, are decided that all the epiftles are fpurious; and Le Sueur, after having given an account of the whole matter, fays, that the last of them, viz. Mr. Daillé, has clearly proved that the first, or fmall collection of Ignatius's epiftles was forged about the beginning of the fourth century, or two hun• Credibility, vol. I. p. 154.

dred

dred
years

after the death of Ignatius; and
that the second, or larger collection, was
made at the beginning of the sixth century.

Ignatius not being quoted by Eusebius, or the writer whose work he cites, among ancient authorities for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, is alone a sufficient proof that no pafiage favourable to it was to be found in the epistles of Ignatius in his time.

Jortin says, “ Though the short epistles “ are on many accounts preferable to the

larger, yet I will not affirm that they “ have undergone no alteration at all *.' Beausobre thinks that the purest of Ignatius's epistles have been interpolated t.

For my own part, I scruple not to say,
that there never were more evident marks
of interpolation in any writings than are to
be found in these genuine epiftles, as they are
called, of Ignatius: though I am willing
to allow, on re-considering them, that, ex-
clusive of manifest interpolation, there may
be a ground work of antiquity in them.

* Remarks on Ecclefiaftical History, vol. 1. p. 361.
+ Histoire de Manicheisme, vol. 1. p. 378.

The

The famous paffage in Jofephus concerning Chrift is not a more evident interpolation. in these epiftles of Ignatius.

than many A paffage in thefe epiftles on which much stress has been laid, as referring to the pre-existence of Chrift, is the following; "There is one phyfician, fleshly and

fpiritual, begotten and unbegotten, in the "flesh made God, in immortal life eternal, "both of Mary and of God, first suffering "and then impaffible *." Theodoret read the paffage, yewnl☞ et aɣewnls, begotten of "him that was unbegotten," and in other refpects this paffage is neither clear nor decifive.