' " Unicum D. BlondcUum aut alterum fortasse inter omnes mortales Walonem Mes- salinum, cap. xxv. sect. 3."
30 A PREFACE TO THE READER.
" Nuper quidom etiam nebulo in Anglia, Capellanus ut audio rej^is, Ham- mondus nomine, libro qucm edidit de potestate clavium Salmasio iratus quod aliam quam ipse sententiam ]>robet ac defendat, baud potuit majus convicium, quod ei dieerit, invenire, quam si grammaticum appellaret") for his terming him a grammarian ; yet., indeed, of him (such was the hard entei'tainment he found on all hands), it is by many supposed that he was " illecebrls adduetus" (and they stick not to name the bait he was caught Avithal), wrought over in a manner to destroy the faith of that which he had before set up and established.
For the thing itself affirmed by the doctor. I cannot enough admire with what oscitancy or contempt he considers his readers (of which manner of proceeding this is very far from being the only instance), that he should confidently impose such things upon them. He that hath written so much about Ignatius, and doth so triumph in his authority, ought doubtless to have considered those concernments of his author which are obvious to every ordinary inquirer, Vedelius' edition of Ignatius, at Geneva, came forth with his notes in the year 1G23, long before either Salraasius or Blondellus had written any thing about the supposititiousness of these epistles ; in the apology for Ignatius, thereto prefixed, he is forced to labour and sweat in the answer of one, whom he deservedly styles Virum doctissimum, arguing (not contemptibly) that Ignatius never wrote any such epistles, and that all those Avhich were carried about in his name were false and counterfeit.
But perhaps the doctor had taken caution of one of the fathers of his church, that " a Genevensibus istis typographis prater fraudes, et fucos, etpra?stigias non est quodquicquam expectemus" (Montacu. Appar. 1, lib. V. sect. 47, p. ID), and so thought not fit to look into any thing that comes from them.
Especially may this be supposed to have had some influence upon him, considering the gentle censure added in the next words by that reverend father of his church concerning the endeavour of Vedelius in his notes on that edition : — " Neque audax illc et importunus Ignatii censor, quicquam attulit ad paginas suas implendas prajter inscitiam, et incuriam, et impu- dentiam singularem (nee sa)vi magne sacerdos) dum ad suum Genevatismura antiquitatem detorquet invitissimam, non autem quod oportuit, Calvinis- mum amussitat ad antiquitatem." And what, I pray, is the reason of his episcopal censure? — that he should deal with poor Vedelius in that lan- guage wherewith men of his order and authority were wont to deal with preaching ministers at their visitations? Why, this poor man, in that passage which you have in the Epistle to the Magnesians (in that eilition, p. 56), when treating of the ancient fathers' expectations of the coming of' Christ, retains the common reading of sig zsvorr^ra sX-~idog -^XOov, re- ferring the word to their expectation of seeing him come in the flesh, (whicli, iqwn the testimony of our Saviour himself, they desired to see, and saw it not,) not correcting it by a change of xivorrjTa into xo/voVjjra iX-ri8oc, so referring it to their faith in Christ and salvation by him, as, in his judg- ment, he ought to have done, — 'ibov dXi'yov tj^, r,X'ixriV 'JXrji/ avd'z'Tii. A little thing would provoke the indignation of a prelate against any thing that came from Geneva.
I say, I would sujipose that this might divert our doctor from casting his eye upon Vedelius, whose defensative would have informed him that these epistles hail been opposed as false and counterfeit before ever Sal- niasius or Blondellus had taken them into consideration, but that I find him sometimes insisting on that Geneva edition.
A PREFACE TO THE READER. 31
For whereas (Dissert, ii. cap. ii. sect. 11) he tells you that he intends to abide only upon the edition of Isaac Yossius, in Greek, published from the archives of the library of Lorenzo de Medici, and the Latin edition published by bishop Usher, out of our library here at Oxford; yet, cap. viii., being pressed with the testimony of the writer of the Epistle to the Magnesians, in that edition, calling episcopacy viun^izriv rd^iv, plainly in- timating a comparative novelty in that order to others in the churches, and fearing (as well he might) that his translation of vsuTsgiKri rd^ig into " the ordination of a young man," would scarce be received by the men of his own prejudice (for surely he never supposed that he should impose on *ny other by such gross figments), he prefers the Vedelian edition, where these words are not so used, before it, and informs us that " sic legendum" (as it is in the Geneva edition) " suadet tota epistola) series." Now, this truly is marvellous to me (if the doctor consulteth authors any farther than merely to serve his present turn), how he could ever advise with that edition of Vedelius, and yet so confidently affirm that Salmasius and Blon- dellus were the first that rejected these epistles as feigned and counter- feited.
But yet a little farther : The first edition of these epistles in Latin was Augustfe Yindelicorum, anno 1529; in Greek, at Basil, 1566: before which time, I suppose, the doctor expects not that any opposition should be made to them, considering the heaps of filth and dung that, until about that time, were owned for the oflspring of the ancient fathers.