Title: The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot
Author: Killen, W. D. (William Dool), 1806-1902
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot" ***


THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.

A Reply to The Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham.

By W. D. Killen, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Principal
of the Presbyterian Theological Faculty, Ireland.


    "As the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius may be justly
     suspected, so, too, the letters which presuppose the correctness
     of this suspicious legend do not wear at all a stamp of a distinct
     individuality of character, and of a man of these times addressing
     his last words to the Churches."
     --AUGUSTUS NEANDER.


EDINBURGH


1886.



PREFACE.


This little volume is respectfully submitted to the candid consideration
of all who take an interest in theological inquiries, under the
impression that it will throw some additional light on a subject which
has long created much discussion. It has been called forth by the
appearance of a treatise entitled, "_The Apostolic Fathers_, Part II.
S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes,
Dissertations, and Translations, by J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D,
Bishop of Durham." In this voluminous production the Right Reverend
Author has maintained, not only that all the seven letters attributed by
Eusebius to Ignatius are genuine, but also that "no Christian writings
of the second century, and very few writings of antiquity, whether
Christian or pagan, are so well authenticated." These positions,
advocated with the utmost confidence by the learned prelate, are sure to
be received with implicit confidence by a wide circle of readers; and I
have felt impelled here openly to protest against them, inasmuch as I
am satisfied that they cannot be accepted without overturning all the
legitimate landmarks of historical criticism. I freely acknowledge
the eminent services which Dr. Lightfoot has rendered to the Christian
Church by his labours as a Commentator on Scripture, and it is
therefore all the more important that the serious errors of a writer so
distinguished should not be permitted to pass unchallenged. All who love
the faith once delivered to the saints, may be expected to regard
with deference the letters of a martyr who lived on the borders of the
apostolic age; but these Ignatian Epistles betray indications of a very
different original, for they reveal a spirit of which no enlightened
Christian can approve, and promulgate principles which would sanction
the boldest assumptions of ecclesiastical despotism. In a work published
by me many years ago, I have pointed out the marks of their imposture;
and I have since seen no cause to change my views. Regarding all these
letters as forgeries from beginning to end, I have endeavoured, in the
following pages, to expose the fallacy of the arguments by which Dr.
Lightfoot has attempted their vindication.

ASSEMBLY COLLEGE, BELFAST,

July 1886.



CONTENTS.


CHAPTER I.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

The critical spirit stimulated by the Reformation--The Ignatian Epistles
as regarded by Calvin, Ussher, Vossius, Daillé, Pearson, Wake, and
Cureton--Dr. Lightfoot as a scholar and a commentator--The valuable
information supplied in his recent work--His estimate of the parties who
have pronounced judgment on the question of the Ignatian Epistles--His
verdict unfair--His introduction of Lucian as a witness in his
favour--The story of Peregrinus--Dr. Lightfoot's cardinal mistake in his
treatment of this question.


CHAPTER II.

THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.

Dr. Lightfoot makes a most unguarded statement as to the Ignatian
Epistles--The letter of Polycarp better authenticated--The date assigned
for the martyrdom of Ignatius--The date of Polycarp's Epistle--Written
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius--Not written in the reign of Trajan--The
Epistle of Polycarp has no reference to Ignatius of Antioch--It refers
to another Ignatius of another age and country--It was written at a
time of persecution--The postscript to the letter of Polycarp quite
misunderstood--What is meant by letters being carried to Syria--Psyria
and Syria, two islands in the Aegaean Sea--The errors of transcribers of
the postscript--The true meaning of the postscript--What has led to
the mistake as to the claims of the Ignatian Epistles--The continued
popularity of these Epistles among High Churchmen.


CHAPTER III.

THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.

Dr. Lightfoot's strange reasoning on this subject--The testimony of
Eusebius, Jerome, and others--Eusebius and Jerome highly competent
witnesses--Dr. Döllinger's estimate of Jerome--The basis on which
Dr. Lightfoot rests the whole weight of his chronological
argument--Aristides and his _Sacred Discourses_--Statius Quadratus, the
consuls and proconsuls--Ummidius Quadratus--Polycarp martyred in the
reign of Marcus Aurelius--His visit to Rome in the time of Anicetus--Put
to death when there was only one emperor--Age of Polycarp at the time of
his martyrdom--The importance of the chronological argument.


CHAPTER IV.

THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.

The testimony of Irenaeus quite misunderstood--Refers to the dying
words of one of the martyrs of Lyons--The internal evidence against the
genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles--The contrast between the Epistle
of Polycarp and the Ignatian Epistles as exhibited by Dr. Lightfoot
himself--Additional points of contrast--Dr. Lightfoot quite mistaken
as to the origin of Prelacy--It did not originate in the East, or Asia
Minor, but in Rome--The argument from the cases of Timothy and Titus
untenable--Jerome's account of the origin of Prelacy--James not the
first bishop of Jerusalem--In the early part of the second century
the Churches of Rome, Corinth, and Smyrna were Presbyterian--Irenaeus
conceals the origin of Prelacy--Coins the doctrine of the apostolical
succession--The succession cannot be determined even in Rome--Testimony
of Stillingfleet--In what sense Polycarp may have been constituted a
bishop by the apostles.


CHAPTER V.

THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.

We have no positive historical information as to the origin of the
Ignatian Epistles--First saw the light in the early part of the third
century--Such forgeries then common--What was then thought by many as to
pious frauds--Callistus of Rome probably concerned in the fabrication of
the Ignatian Epistles--His remarkable history--The Epistle to the
Romans first forged--It embodies the credentials of the rest--Montanism
stimulated the desire for martyrdom--The prevalence of this mania early
in the third century--The Ignatian Epistles present it in its most
outrageous form--The Epistle to the Romans must have been very popular
at Rome--Doubtful whether Ignatius was martyred at Rome--The Ignatian
Epistles intended to advance the claims of Prelacy--Well fitted to do
so at the time of their appearance--The account of Callistus given
by Hippolytus--The Ignatian letters point to Callistus as their
author--Cannot have been written in the beginning of the second
century--Their doctrine that of the Papacy.


APPENDIX

I.--Letter of Dr. Cureton.

II.--The Ignatian Epistle to the Romans.


ENDNOTES



THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.



CHAPTER I.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.


The question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius
of Antioch has continued to awaken interest ever since the period of the
Reformation. That great religious revolution gave an immense impetus
to the critical spirit; and when brought under the light of its
examination, not a few documents, the claims of which had long passed
unchallenged, were summarily pronounced spurious. Eusebius, writing in
the fourth century, names only seven letters as attributed to Ignatius;
but long before the days of Luther, more than double that number were in
circulation. Many of these were speedily condemned by the critics of the
sixteenth century. Even the seven recognised by Eusebius were regarded
with grave suspicion; and Calvin--who then stood at the head of
Protestant theologians--did not hesitate to denounce the whole of them
as forgeries. The work, long employed as a text-book in Cambridge and
Oxford, was the _Institutes_ of the Reformer of Geneva; [Endnote 2:1]
and as his views on this subject are there proclaimed very emphatically,
[2:2] we may presume that the entire body of the Ignatian literature
was at that time viewed with distrust by the leaders of thought in
the English universities. But when the doctrine of the Divine Right
of Episcopacy began to be promulgated, the seven letters rose in the
estimation of the advocates of the hierarchy; and an extreme desire was
manifested to establish their pretensions. So great was the importance
attached to their evidence, that in 1644--in the very midst of the
din and confusion of the civil war between Charles I. and his
Parliament--the pious and erudite Archbishop Ussher presented the
literary world with a new edition of these memorials. Two years later
the renowned Isaac Vossius produced a kindred publication. Some time
afterwards, Daillé, a learned French Protestant minister, attacked them
with great ability; and proved, to the satisfaction of many readers,
that they are utterly unworthy of credit. Pearson, subsequently Bishop
of Chester, now entered the arena, and in a work of much talent and
research--the fruit of six years' labour--attempted to restore their
reputation. This vindication was not permitted to pass without an
answer; but, meanwhile, the dark prospects of the Reformed faith
in England and the Continent directed attention to matters of more
absorbing interest, and the controversy was discontinued. From time to
time, however, these Epistles were kept before the eyes of the public by
Archbishop Wake and other editors; and more recently the appearance of a
Syriac copy of three of them--printed under the supervision of the late
Rev. Dr. Cureton--reopened the discussion. Dr. Cureton maintained
that his three Epistles are the only genuine remains of the pastor
of Antioch. In a still later publication, [3:1] Bishop Lightfoot
controverts the views of Dr. Cureton, and makes a vigorous effort to
uphold the credit of the seven letters quoted by Eusebius and supported
by Pearson. Dr. Lightfoot has already acquired a high and deserved
reputation as a scholar and a commentator, and the present work
furnishes abundant evidence of his linguistic attainments and his
perseverance; but it is somewhat doubtful whether it will add to
his fame as a critic and a theologian. In these three portly octavo
volumes--extending to upwards of 1800 pages of closely printed
matter--he tries to convince his readers that a number of the silliest
productions to be found among the records of antiquity, are the remains
of an apostolic Father. He tells us, in his preface, that the subject
has been before him "for nearly thirty years;" and that, during this
period, it has "engaged his attention off and on in the intervals of
other literary pursuits and official duties." Many, we apprehend, will
feel that the result is not equal to such a vast expenditure of time
and labour; and will concur with friends who, as he informs us, have
complained to him that he has thus "allowed himself to be diverted from
the more congenial task of commenting on S. Paul's Epistles." There is
not, we presume, an evangelical minister in Christendom who would not
protest against the folly exhibited in these Ignatian letters; and yet
it appears that the good Bishop of Durham has spent a large portion of
his life in an attempt to accomplish their vindication.

To Dr. Lightfoot may be justly awarded the praise of having here made
the reading public acquainted with the various manuscripts and versions
of these Ignatian letters, as well as with the arguments which may be
urged in their favour; and he has thus rendered good service to the
cause of historical criticism. Professor Harnack, in a late number of
the _Expositor_ [4:1], states no more than the truth when he affirms
that "this work is the most learned and careful Patristic Monograph
which has appeared in the nineteenth century." To any one who wishes to
study the Ignatian controversy, it supplies a large amount of valuable
evidence, not otherwise easily accessible. Some, indeed, may think that,
without any detriment to ecclesiastical literature, some of the matter
which has helped to swell the dimensions of these volumes might have
been omitted. Everything in any way associated with the name of Ignatius
seems to have a wonderful fascination for the learned prelate. Not
content with publishing and commending what he considers the genuine
productions of the apostolic Father, he here edits and annotates letters
which have long since been discredited by scholars of all classes, and
which he himself confesses to be apocryphal. The _Acts of Martyrdom of
Ignatius_--which he also acknowledges to be a mere bundle of fables--he
treats with the same tender regard. Nor is this all. He gives these
acts, or large portions of them, in Latin and Greek, as well as
in Coptic and Syriac; and annotates them in addition. He supplies,
likewise, English translations. It may be argued, that the publication
of such a mass of legendary rubbish is necessary to enable the student
to form a correct judgment on the merits of the subject in debate; but
surely the question might be settled without the aid of some of these
auxiliaries.

Dr. Lightfoot has long been known as one of the most candid and
painstaking of scriptural commentators; but it must always be remembered
that he is an Episcopalian, and the ruler of an English diocese. He
would be something almost more than human, were he to hold up the scales
of testimony with strict impartiality when weighing the claims of his
own order. It strikes us that, in the work before us, his prejudices and
predilections reveal their influence more conspicuously than in any of
his other publications. He can see support for his views in words and
phrases where an ordinary observer can discover nothing of the kind;
and he can close his eyes against evidence which others may deem very
satisfactory. Even when appraising the writers who have taken part in
this controversy, he has presented a very one-sided estimate. He
speaks of those who reject the claims of these Epistles as forming
"a considerable list of _second and third rate_ names;" [6:1] and he
mentions Ussher and Bentley among those who espouse his sentiments.
According to our author, there cannot be a "shadow of doubt" that the
seven Vossian Epistles "represent the genuine Ignatius." [6:2] "No
Christian writings of the second century," says he, "and very few
writings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well
authenticated." [6:3] He surely cannot imagine that Ussher would have
endorsed such statements; for he knows well that the Primate of Armagh
condemned the Epistle to Polycarp as a forgery. He has still less reason
to claim Bentley as on his side. On authority which Bishop Monk, the
biographer of Bentley, deemed well worthy of acceptance, it is stated
that in 1718, "on occasion of a Divinity Act," the Master of Trinity
College, Cambridge, "made a speech _condemning_ the Epistles of S.
Ignatius." His address created a "great ferment" in the university.
[7:1] It is further reported that Bentley "refused to hear the
Respondent who attempted to reply." We might have expected such a
deliverance from the prince of British critics; for, with the intuition
of genius, he saw the absurdity of recognising these productions as
proceeding from a Christian minister who had been carefully instructed
by the apostles. Bentley's refusal to hear the Respondent who attempted
to reply to him, was exactly in keeping with his well-known dictatorial
temper. Does Dr. Lightfoot bring forward any evidence to contradict this
piece of collegiate history? None whatever. He merely treats us to a few
of his own _conjectures_, which simply prove his anxiety to depreciate
its significance. And yet he ventures to parade the name of Bentley
among those of the scholars who contend for the genuineness of these
letters! He deals after the same fashion with the celebrated Porson.
In a letter to the author of this review [7:2], Dr. Cureton states that
Porson "rejected" these letters "in the form in which they were
put forth by Ussher and Vossius;" and declares that this piece of
information was conveyed to himself by no less competent an authority
than Bishop Kaye. Dr. Lightfoot meets this evidence by saying that "the
_obiter dictum_ even of a Porson," in the circumstances in which it was
given, might be "of little value." [7:3] It was given, however, exactly
in the circumstances in which the speaker was best prepared to deliver a
sound verdict, for it was pronounced after the great critic had read the
_Vindiciae_ of Pearson.

It would be hopeless to attempt to settle a disputed question of
criticism by enumerating authorities on different sides, as, after all,
the value of these authorities would be variously discounted. We
must seek to arrive at truth, not by quoting names, but by weighing
arguments. Not a few, however, whose opinion may be entitled to some
respect, will not be prepared to agree with Bishop Lightfoot when he
affirms that those who reject these Ignatian letters are, with few
exceptions, only to be found in the "list of second and third rate
names" in literature. [8:1] We have seen that Bentley and Porson
disagree with him--and he can point to no more eminent critics in the
whole range of modern scholarship. If Daillé must be placed in the
second rank, surely Pearson may well be relegated to the same position;
for there is most respectable proof that his _Vindiciae_, in reply to
the treatise of the French divine, was pronounced by Porson to be
a "very unsatisfactory" performance. [8:2] "The most elaborate
and ingenious portion of the work" is, as Bishop Lightfoot himself
confesses, "the least satisfactory." [8:3] Dr. Lightfoot, we believe,
will hardly pretend to say that Vossius, Bull, and Waterland stand
higher in the literary world than Salmasius, John Milton, and Augustus
Neander; and he will greatly astonish those who are acquainted with the
history and writings of one of the fathers of the Reformation, if he
will contend that John Calvin must be placed only in the second or third
class of Protestant theologians. In the presence of the great doctor of
Geneva, Hammond, Grotius, Zahn, and others whom Dr. Lightfoot has named
as his supporters, may well hide their diminished heads.

In the work before us the Bishop of Durham has pretty closely followed
Pearson, quoting his explanations and repeating his arguments. Some
of these are sufficiently nebulous. Professor Harnack--who has already
reviewed his pages in the _Expositor_, and who, to a great extent,
adheres to the views which they propound--admits, notwithstanding, that
he has "overstrained" his case, and has adduced as witnesses writers of
the second and third centuries of whom it is impossible to prove that
they knew anything of the letters attributed to Ignatius. [9:1] As a
specimen of the depositions which Dr. Lightfoot has pressed into his
service, we may refer to the case of Lucian. That author wrote about
sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and his
Lordship imagines that in one of his works he can trace allusions to the
pastor of Antioch under the fictitious name of Peregrinus. "Writing,"
says he "soon after A.D. 165," Lucian "caricatures the progress of
Ignatius through Asia Minor in his death of Peregrinus." [9:2] This
Peregrinus was certainly an odd character. Early in life he had murdered
his own father, and for this he was obliged to make his escape from his
country. Wandering about from place to place, he identified himself with
the Christians, gained their confidence, and became, as is alleged, a
distinguished member of their community. His zeal in their cause
soon exposed him to persecution, and he was thrown into prison. His
incarceration added greatly to his fame. His co-religionists, including
women and children, were seen from morning to night lingering about the
place of his confinement; he was abundantly supplied with food; and
the large sums of money, given to him as presents, provided him with
an ample revenue. After his release he forfeited the favour of his
Christian friends, and became a Cynic philosopher; but he could not
be at peace. He at length resolved to immortalize himself by voluntary
martyrdom. Meanwhile he despatched letters to many famous cities,
containing laws and ordinances; and appointed certain of his
companions--under the name of death-messengers--to scatter abroad these
missives. Finally, at the close of the Olympian games he erected a
funeral pile; and when it was all ablaze, he threw himself into it, and
perished in the flames. "There is very strong reason for believing" says
Dr. Lightfoot, "that Lucian has drawn his picture, at least in part,
from the known circumstances of Ignatius' history." [10:1] The bishop
returns again and again to the parallelism between Ignatius and
Peregrinus, and appears to think it furnishes an argument of singular
potency in favour of the disputed Epistles. "Second only," says he,
to certain other vouchers, which he produces, "stands this testimony."
[11:1] From such a sample the judicious reader may form some idea of the
conclusiveness of the bishop's reasoning. Peregrinus begins life as a
parricide, and dies like a madman; and yet we are asked to believe that
Lucian has thus sketched the history of an apostolic Father! When Lucian
wrote, Ignatius had been dead about sixty years; but the pagan satirist
sought to amuse the public by sketching the career of an individual whom
he had himself heard and seen, [11:2] and who must have been well known
to many of his readers. About the middle of the second century the
Church was sorely troubled by false teachers, especially of the Gnostic
type; and it may have been that some adventurer, of popular gifts and
professing great zeal in the Christian cause, contrived to gather around
him a number of deluded followers, who, for a time, adhered to him with
wonderful enthusiasm. It may be that it is this charlatan to whom Lucian
points, and whose history he perhaps exaggerates. But there is nothing
in the life of Peregrinus which can fairly be recognised even as a
caricature of the career of one of the most distinguished of the early
Christian martyrs. Were we to maintain that the pagan satirist was
referring to the Apostle John, we might be able to show almost as many
points of resemblance. The beloved disciple travelled about through
various countries; acquired a high reputation among the Christians; was
imprisoned in the Isle of Patmos; wrote letters to the seven Churches of
Asia; and was visited in his place of exile by angels or messengers, who
probably did not repair to him empty-handed. John died only a few years
before Ignatius, and was connected with the same quarter of the globe.
We have, however, never yet heard that Lucian was suspected of alluding
to the author of the Apocalypse. If Bishop Lightfoot thinks that he can
convince sensible men of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles by
bringing forward such witnesses as Lucian and his hero Peregrinus, we
believe he is very much mistaken. The argument is not original, for
it is pressed with great confidence by his predecessor Pearson, and
by others more recently. But its weakness is transparent. Professor
Harnack, whilst admitting the weight of much of the evidence adduced in
these volumes, scornfully refuses to acknowledge its relevancy. "Above
all," says he, "Lucian should be struck out. I confess I cannot imagine
how writers go on citing Lucian as a witness for the Epistles." [12:1]
There is, however, an old adage, "Any port in a storm:" and before the
close of this discussion it may perhaps be found that Lucian is as good
a harbour of refuge as can be furnished for the credit of the Ignatian
Epistles in the whole of the second century.

It is obvious that, even according to his own account of the history of
his present work, Dr. Lightfoot has not entered on its preparation under
circumstances likely to result in a safe and unprejudiced verdict. "_I
never once doubted_," says he in the preface, [13:1] "that we possessed
in one form or another the genuine letters of Ignatius." This is,
however, the very first point to be proved; and the bishop has been
labouring throughout to make good a foregone conclusion. No wonder
that the result should be unsatisfactory. If he has built on a false
foundation, nothing else could be expected. There is not, we are
satisfied, a particle of solid evidence to show that Ignatius of Antioch
left behind him any writings whatever. This may be deemed a very bold
statement, but it is deliberately advanced. I hope, in a subsequent
chapter, to demonstrate that it is not made without due consideration.



CHAPTER II.

THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.


The Bishop of Durham affirms, in a passage already quoted, that "no
Christian writings of the second century, and very few writings of
antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so _well authenticated_" as
the Epistles attributed to Ignatius. This assuredly is an astounding
announcement, made deliberately by a distinguished author, whose
attention, for nearly thirty years, has been directed to the subject.
The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians is a writing of the second
century, and it is by far the most important witness in support of the
Ignatian letters; but we must infer, from the words just quoted, that
it is not "so well authenticated" as they are. It is difficult to
understand by what process of logic his Lordship has arrived at this
conclusion. In an ordinary court of law, the witness who deposes to
character is expected to stand on at least as high a moral platform in
public estimation as the individual in whose favour he bears testimony;
but if the letter of Polycarp is not "so well authenticated" as these
Ignatian letters, how can it be brought forward to establish their
reputation? Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance connected with
this discussion. There was a time when, according to his own statement
in the present work, Dr. Lightfoot "accepted the Curetonian letters
as representing the genuine Ignatius;" [15:1] and, of course, when he
regarded as forgeries the four others which he now acknowledges. In
the volumes before us, as if to make compensation for the unfavourable
opinion which he once cherished, he advances the whole seven of the
larger edition to a position of especial honour. The letter of Polycarp,
the works of Justin Martyr, the treatise of Irenaeus _Against Heresies_,
and other writings of the second century, have long sustained an honest
character; but now they must all take rank below the Ignatian Epistles.
According to the Bishop of Durham, they are not "so well authenticated."

In his eagerness to exalt the credit of these Ignatian letters, Dr.
Lightfoot, in his present publication, has obviously expressed himself
most incautiously. In point of fact, the letter of Polycarp, as a
genuine production of the second century, occupies an incomparably
higher position than the Ignatian Epistles. The internal evidence in
its favour is most satisfactory. It is exactly such a piece of
correspondence as we might expect from a pious and sensible Christian
minister, well acquainted with the Scriptures, and living on the
confines of the apostolic age. It has, besides, all the external
confirmation we could desire. Irenaeus, who was personally well known to
the author, and who has left behind him the treatise _Against Heresies_
already mentioned, speaks therein of this letter in terms of high
approval. "There is," says he, "a very sufficient Epistle of Polycarp
written to the Philippians, from which those who desire it, and who care
for their own salvation, can learn both the character of his faith
and the message of the truth." [16:1] Could such a voucher as this be
produced for the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and were the external
evidence equally satisfactory, it would be absurd to doubt their
genuineness. But whilst the internal evidence testifies against them,
they are not noticed by any writer for considerably more than a century
after they are said to have appeared.

The date commonly assigned for the martyrdom of Ignatius, and
consequently for the writing of the letters ascribed to him, is
the ninth year of Trajan, corresponding to A.D. 107. This date, Dr.
Lightfoot tells us, is "the one fixed element in the common tradition."
[16:2] It is to be found in the _Chronicon Paschale_, and in the
Antiochene and the Roman "Acts," as well as elsewhere. [16:3] This
same date is assigned by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles for the
writing of Polycarp's letter. "Only a few months at the outside," says
Dr. Lightfoot, "probably only a few weeks, after these Ignatian Epistles
purport to have been written, the Bishop of Smyrna himself addresses a
letter to the Philippians." [17:1] In due course it will be shown that
Polycarp was at this time only about four-and-twenty years of age; and
any intelligent reader who pursues his Epistle can judge for himself
whether it can be reasonably accepted as the production of so very
youthful an author. It appears that it was dictated in answer to a
communication from the Church at Philippi, in which he was requested
to interpose his influence with a view to the settlement of some grave
scandals which disturbed that ancient Christian community. Is it likely
that a minister of so little experience would have been invited to
undertake such a service? The communication is rather such an outpouring
of friendly counsel as befitted an aged patriarch. In a fatherly style
he here addresses himself to wives and widows, to young men and maidens,
to parents and children, to deacons and presbyters. [17:2]

There are other indications in this letter that it cannot have been
written at the date ascribed to it by the advocates of the Ignatian
Epistles. It contains an admonition to "pray for _kings_ (or _the_
kings), _authorities_, and _princes_." [18:1] We are not at liberty to
assume that these three names are precisely synonymous. By kings,
or _the_ kings, we may apparently understand the imperial rulers; by
authorities, consuls, proconsuls, praetors, and other magistrates; and
by princes, those petty sovereigns and others of royal rank to be found
here and there throughout the Roman dominions. [18:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
indeed, argues that the translation adopted by some--"_the_ kings"--is
inadmissible, as, according to his ideas, "we have very good ground
for believing that the definite article had no place in the original."
[18:3] He has, however, assigned no adequate reason why the article may
not be prefixed. His contention, that the expression "pray for kings"
has not "anything more than a general reference," [18:4] cannot be
well maintained. In a case such as this, we must be, to a great extent,
guided in our interpretation by the context; and if so, we may fairly
admit the article, for immediately afterwards Polycarp exhorts the
Philippians to pray for their persecutors and their enemies,--an
admonition which obviously has something more than "a general
reference." Such an advice would be inappropriate when persecution was
asleep, and when no enemy was giving disturbance. But, at the date
when Ignatius is alleged to have been martyred, Polycarp could not have
exhorted the Philippians to pray for "the kings," as there was then only
_one_ sovereign ruling over the empire.

That this letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written at a time
when persecution was rife, is apparent from its tenor throughout. If we
except the case of Ignatius of Antioch--many of the tales relating
to which Dr. Lightfoot himself rejects as fabulous [19:1]--we have no
evidence that in A.D. 107 the Christians were treated with severity.
The Roman world was then under the mild government of Trajan, and the
troubles which afflicted the disciples in Bithynia, under Pliny, had not
yet commenced. The emperor, so far as we have trustworthy information,
had hitherto in no way interfered with the infant Church. But in A.D.
161 two sovereigns were in power, and a reign of terror was inaugurated.
We can therefore well understand why Polycarp, after exhorting his
correspondents to pray for "the kings," immediately follows up this
advice by urging them to pray for their persecutors and their enemies.
If by "kings" we here understand emperors, as distinguished from
"princes" or inferior potentates, it must be obvious that Polycarp here
refers to the two reigning sovereigns. It so happened that, when two
kings began to reign, persecution at once commenced; and the language of
the Epistle exactly befits such a crisis.

The whole strain of this letter points, not to the reign of Trajan,
but to that of Marcus Aurelius. Polycarp exhorts the Philippians "to
practise all endurance" (§ 9) in the service of Christ. "If," says he,
"we should suffer for His name's sake, let us glorify Him" (§ 8).
He speaks of men "encircled in saintly bonds;" (§ 1) and praises the
Philippians for the courage which they had manifested in sympathizing
with these confessors. He reminds them how, "with their own eyes," they
had seen their sufferings (§ 9). All these statements suggest times of
tribulation. A careful examination of this letter may convince us that
it contains no reference to the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of
Antioch. Of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius, four are said to
have been written from _Smyrna_ and three from _Troas_. But the letters
of which Polycarp speaks were written from neither of these places, but
from _Philippi_. In the letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the
martyr describes himself as a solitary sufferer, hurried along by ten
rough soldiers from city to city on his way to Rome; in the letter
of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ignatius is only one among a crowd
of victims, of whose ultimate destination the writer was ignorant. A
considerable time after the party had left Philippi, Polycarp begs the
brethren there to tell him what had become of them. "Concerning Ignatius
himself, and those _who are with him_, if," says he, "ye have any
sure tidings, certify us." [21:1] In the Ignatian Epistle addressed to
Polycarp, he is directed to "write to the Churches," to "call together
a godly council," and "to elect" a messenger to be sent to Syria (§7).
Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, takes no notice of these
instructions. He had obviously never heard of them. It is indeed plain
that the letter of the Philippians to Polycarp had only a partial
reference to the case of Ignatius and his companions. It was largely
occupied with other matters; and to these Polycarp addresses himself in
his reply.

The simple solution of all these difficulties is to be found in the fact
that the Ignatius mentioned by Polycarp was a totally different person
from the pastor of Antioch. He lived in another age and in another
country. Ignatius or Egnatius--for the name is thus variously
written--was not a very rare designation; [21:3] and in the
neighbourhood of Philippi it seems to have been common. The famous
_Egnatian_ road, [21:4] which passed through the place, probably derived
its title originally from some distinguished member of the family.
We learn from the letter of Polycarp that _his_ Ignatius was a man of
Philippi. Addressing his brethren there, he says, "I exhort you all,
therefore, to be obedient unto the word of righteousness, and to
practise all endurance, which also ye saw with your own eyes in the
blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, and IN OTHERS ALSO AMONG
YOURSELVES" (Sec. 9). These words surely mean that the individuals
here named were men of Philippi. It is admitted that two of them,
viz. Zosimus and Rufus, answered to this description; and in the Latin
Martyrologies, as Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges, [22:2] they are
said to have been natives of the town. It will require the introduction
of some novel canon of criticism to enable us to avoid the conclusion
that Ignatius, their companion, is not to be classed in the same
category.

It is well known that when Marcus Aurelius became emperor he inaugurated
a new system of persecution. Instead of at once consigning to death
those who boldly made a profession of Christianity, as had heretofore
been customary in times of trial, he employed various expedients to
extort from them a recantation. He threw them into confinement, bound
them with chains, kept them in lingering suspense, and subjected them
to sufferings of different kinds, in the hope of overcoming their
constancy. It would seem that Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, and their
companions were dealt with after this fashion. They were made prisoners,
put in bonds, plied with torture under the eyes of the Philippians, and
taken away from the city, they knew not whither. It may be that they
were removed to Thessalonica, the residence of the Roman governor,
that they might be immured in a dungeon, to await there the Imperial
pleasure. It is pretty clear that they did not expect instant execution.
When Polycarp wrote, he speaks of them as still living; and he is
anxious to know what may yet betide them.

Let us now call attention to another passage in this letter of Polycarp
to the Philippians. Towards its close the following sentence appears
somewhat in the form of a postscript. "Ye wrote to me, both ye
yourselves and Ignatius, asking that if any one should go to Syria, he
_might_ carry thither the letters _from you_." We have here the reading,
and translation adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but it so happens that there
is another reading perhaps, on the whole, quite as well supported by
the authority of versions and manuscripts. It may be thus rendered: "Ye
wrote to me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, suggesting that if any one
is going to Syria, he might carry thither _my letters to you_." [23:1]
The sentence, as interpreted by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles,
wears a strange and suspicious aspect. If Ignatius and the Philippians
wished their letters to be carried to _Antioch_, why did they not say
so? Syria was an extensive province,--much larger than all Ireland,--and
many a traveller might have been going there who would have found it
quite impracticable to deliver letters in its metropolis. When there was
no penny postage, and when letters of friendship were often carried by
private hands, if an individual residing in the north or south of
the Emerald Isle had requested a correspondent in Bristol to send his
letters by "any one" going over to Ireland, it would not have been
extraordinary if the Englishman had received the message with amazement.
Could "any one" passing over to Ireland be expected to deliver letters
in Cork or Londonderry? There were many places of note in Syria far
distant from Antioch; and it was preposterous to propose that "any one"
travelling to that province should carry letters to its capital city. No
one can pretend to say that the whole, or even any considerable part of
Syria, was under the ecclesiastical supervision of Ignatius; for, long
after this period, the jurisdiction of a bishop did not extend beyond
the walls of the town in which he dwelt. If Ignatius meant to have his
letters taken to _Antioch_, why vaguely say that they were to be carried
to Syria? [24:1] Why not distinctly name the place of their destination?
It had long been the scene of his pastoral labours; and it might have
been expected that its very designation would have been repeated by him
with peculiar interest. No good reason can be given why he should speak
of Syria, and not of Antioch, as the place to which his letters were to
be transmitted. Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance associated
with the request mentioned in the postscript to this letter. If the
Philippians, or Ignatius, had sent letters to Polycarp addressed to the
Church of Antioch, was it necessary for them to say to him that they
should be forwarded? Would not his own common sense have directed him
what to do? He was not surely such a dotard that he required to be told
how to dispose of these Epistles.

If we are to be guided by the statements in the Ignatian Epistles, we
must infer that the letters to be sent to Antioch were to be forwarded
with the utmost expedition. A council was to be called forthwith, and by
it a messenger "fit to bear the name of God's courier" [25:1] was to be
chosen to carry them to the Syrian metropolis. There are no such signs
of haste or urgency indicated in the postscript to Polycarp's Epistle.
The letters of which he speaks could afford to wait until some one
happened to be travelling to Syria; and then, it is suggested, he
_might_ take them along with him. If we adopt the reading to be found in
the Latin version, and which, from internal evidence, we may judge to
be a true rendering of the original, we are, according to the
interpretation which must be given to it by the advocates of the
Ignatian Epistles, involved in hopeless bewilderment. If by Syria we
understand the eastern province, what possibly can be the meaning of the
words addressed by Polycarp to the Philippians, "If any one is going
to Syria, he might _carry thither my letters to you_"? [26:1] Any one
passing from Smyrna to Philippi turns his face to the north-west, but
a traveller from Smyrna to Syria proceeds south-east, or in the exactly
opposite direction. How could Polycarp hope to keep up a correspondence
with his brethren of Philippi, if he sent his letters to the distant
East by any one who might be going there?

It is pretty evident that the Latin version has preserved the true
original of this postscript, and that the current reading, adopted by
Dr. Lightfoot and others, must be traced to the misapprehensions of
transcribers. Puzzled by the statement that letters from Polycarp to
the Philippians were to be sent to Syria, they have tried to correct the
text by changing [Greek: par haemon] into [Greek: par humon]--implying
that the letters were to be transmitted, not from Polycarp to the
Philippians, but from the Philippians to Antioch. A very simple
explanation may, however, remove this whole difficulty. If by Syria
we understand, not the great eastern province so called, but a little
island of similar name in the Aegaean Sea, the real bearing of the
request is at once apparent. Psyria [27:1]--in the course of time
contracted into Psyra--lies a few miles west of Chios, [27:2] and is
almost directly on the way between Smyrna and Neapolis, the port-town
of Philippi. A letter from Smyrna left there would be carried a
considerable distance on its journey to Philippi. Some friendly hand
might convey it from thence to its destination. Psyria and Syria are
words so akin in sound that a transcriber of Polycarp's letter, copying
from dictation, might readily mistake the one for the other; and thus
an error creeping into an early manuscript may have led to all this
perplexity. Letters in those days could commonly be sent only by special
messengers, or friends traveling abroad; and the Philippians had made
a suggestion to Polycarp as to the best mode of keeping up their
correspondence. They had probably some co-religionists in Psyria; and
a letter sent there to one or other of them, could, at the earliest
opportunity, be forwarded. But another explanation, perhaps quite as
worthy of acceptance, may solve this mystery. Syria was the ancient name
of another island in the Aegaean Sea, and one of the Cyclades. Though
it is not so much as Psyria in the direct course between Smyrna and
Philippi, it is a place of greater celebrity and of more commercial
importance. Like Psyria, in the course of ages its name has been
contracted, and it is now known as Syra. Between it and Smyrna there has
been much intercourse from time immemorial. It has been famous since
the days of Homer, [28:1] and it was anciently the seat of a bishop,
[28:2]--an evidence that it must soon have had a Christian population.
It is at the present day the centre of an active trade; and a late
distinguished traveller has told us how, not many years ago, in an
afternoon, he and his party "left Syra, and next morning anchored
in front of the town of Smyrna." [28:3] Syria is not, as has been
intimated, in the direct route to Philippi; but the shortest way is not
always either the best or the most convenient. At present this place is
the principal port of the Greek archipelago; [29:1] and probably, in the
days of Polycarp, vessels were continually leaving its harbour for towns
on the opposite coasts of the Aegaean. A Christian merchant resident
in Syria would thus have facilities for sending letters left with him
either to Smyrna or Philippi. Ignatius or his friends may have heard of
an offer from such a quarter to take charge of their correspondence,
and may have accordingly made the suggestion noticed at the close of
Polycarp's letter. As the island of Syria was well known to them all,
the Smyrnaeans could not have misunderstood the intimation.

This explanation throws light on another part of this postscript which
has long been embarrassing to many readers. After adverting to the
request of Ignatius and the Philippians relative to the conveyance of
the letters, Polycarp adds, "which request I will attend to if I get a
fit opportunity, either personally, or by one whom I shall depute to
act likewise on your behalf." [29:2] According to the current
interpretation, Polycarp here suggests the probability of a personal
visit to the eastern capital, if he could find no one else to undertake
the service. The occasion evidently called for no such piece of
self-sacrifice on the part of this apostolic Father. The Church of
Antioch, after the removal of its pastor Ignatius, was, we are assured,
delivered from farther trouble, and was now at peace. [30:1] The
presence of the minister of Smyrna there was utterly unnecessary; [30:2]
the place was very far distant; and why then should he be called on to
undertake a wearisome and expensive journey to Antioch and back again?
Polycarp admits that his visit was not essential, and that a messenger
might do all that was required quite as well. But if by Syria we
understand one of the Sporades or Cyclades, we are furnished with a
ready solution of this enigma. The little island of Psyria was distant
from Smyrna only a few hours' sail; and as it was perhaps the residence
of some of his co-religionists, Polycarp might soon require to repair
to it in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties. He could then take
along with him, so far, the letters intended for Philippi. Or if by
Syria we here understand the little island anciently so called, near
the centre of the Cyclades, the explanation is equally satisfactory. The
letter of Polycarp was written, not as Dr. Lightfoot contends, in A.D.
107 but, as we have seen, about A.D. 161, when, as the whole strain of
the Epistle indicates, he was far advanced in life. There is reason to
believe that about this very juncture he was contemplating a journey to
Rome, that he might have a personal conference with its chief pastor,
Anicetus. His appearance in the seat of Empire on that occasion created
a great sensation, and seems to have produced very important results.
If he now went there, any one who looks at the map may see that he must
pass Syria on the way. He could thus take the opportunity of leaving
there any letters for Philippi of which he might be the bearer. At a
subsequent stage of our discussion, this visit of Polycarp to Rome must
again occupy our attention.

The facts brought under the notice of the reader in this chapter may
help him to understand how it has happened that so many have been
befooled by the claims of these Ignatian Epistles. A mistake as to
two of the names mentioned in the letter of Polycarp, created, as will
subsequently appear, by the crafty contrivance of a manufacturer
of spurious documents, has led to a vast amount of blundering and
misapprehension. Ignatius, a man of Philippi, has been supposed to be
Ignatius, the pastor of Antioch; and Syria, the eastern province of the
Roman Empire, has been confounded with Psyria or Syria--either of these
names representing an island in the Aegean Sea not far from Smyrna.
Ignatius, the confessor of Philippi, when in bonds wrote, as we find,
a number of letters which were deemed worthy of preservation, but which
have long since perished; and some time afterwards an adroit forger,
with a view to the advancement of a favourite ecclesiastical system,
concocted a series of letters which he fathered upon Ignatius of
Antioch. In an uncritical age the cheat succeeded; the letters were
quite to the taste of many readers; and ever since they have been the
delight of High Churchmen. Popes and Protestant prelates alike have
perused them with devout enthusiasm; and no wonder that Archbishop Laud,
Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Hall, and Archbishop Wake, have quoted
Ignatius with applause. The letters ascribed to him are the title-deeds
of their order. Even the worthy Bishop of Durham, who has never
permitted himself to doubt that we possess in some form the letters of
the pastor of Antioch, has been the victim of his own credulity; and has
been striving "off and on" for "nearly thirty years" to establish the
credit of Epistles which teach, in the most barefaced language the
gospel of sacerdotal pretension and passive obedience.



CHAPTER III.

THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.


To many it may appear that there can be no connection between the date
of the martyrdom of Polycarp and the claims of the Ignatian Epistles.
All conversant with the history of this controversy must, however,
be aware that the question of chronology has entered largely into
the discussion. If we defer to the authority of the earliest and best
witnesses to whom we can appeal for guidance, it is impossible to remove
the cloud of suspicion which at once settles down on these letters.
Their advocates are aware of the chronological objection, and they have
accordingly expended immense pains in trying to prove that Eusebius,
Jerome, and other writers of the highest repute have been mistaken. In
his recent work, the Bishop of Durham has exhausted the resources of his
ability and erudition in attempting to demonstrate that the only parties
from whom we can fairly expect anything like evidence have all been
misinformed. He has secured a verdict in his favour from a number of
reviewers, who have apparently at once given way before the formidable
array of learned lore brought together in these volumes; [34:1] but,
withal, the intelligent reader who cautiously peruses and ponders the
elaborate chapter in which he deals with this question, will feel rather
mystified than enlightened by his argumentation. It may therefore be
proper to state the testimony of the ancient Christian writers, and to
describe the line of reasoning pursued by Dr. Lightfoot.

"The main source of opinion," says the bishop, "respecting the year of
Polycarp's death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been the
_Chronicon_ of Eusebius ... After the seventh year of M. Aurelius,
he appends the notice, 'A persecution overtaking the Church, Polycarp
underwent martyrdom.' ... Eusebius is here assumed to date Polycarp's
martyrdom in the seventh year of M. Aurelius, _i.e._ A.D. 167."
[34:2] Dr. Lightfoot then proceeds to observe that "this inference is
unwarrantable," inasmuch as "the notice is not placed opposite to, but
_after this year_." He adds that it "is associated with the persecutions
in Vienne and Lyons, which we know to have happened A.D. 177." [34:3]
So far the statement of the bishop is unobjectionable, and, according
to his own showing, we might conclude that Polycarp suffered some time
after the seventh year of M. Aurelius. But this plain logical deduction
would be totally ruinous to the system of chronology which he advocates;
and he is obliged to resort to a most outlandish assumption that he may
get over the difficulty. He contends that Eusebius did not know at what
precise period these martyrdoms occurred. "We can," says the bishop,
"only infer with safety that Eusebius _supposed_ Polycarp's martyrdom to
have happened _during the reign_ of M. Aurelius." "As a matter of fact,
the Gallican persecutions took place some ten years later [than A.D.
167], and therefore, so far as this notice goes, the martyrdom of
Polycarp might have taken place _as many years earlier_." [35:1]

These extracts may give the reader some idea of the manner in which
Dr. Lightfoot proceeds to build up his chronological edifice. Eusebius
places the martyrdom of Polycarp and the martyrdoms of Vienne and
Lyons after the seventh year of M. Aurelius; and therefore, argues Dr.
Lightfoot, he did not know when they occurred! Because the martyrdoms
of Vienne and Lyons took place ten years after A.D. 167, therefore the
martyrdom at Smyrna may, for anything that the father of ecclesiastical
history could tell, have been consummated in A.D. 157! Dr. Lightfoot
himself supplies proof that such an inference is inadmissible; for he
acknowledges that, according to Eusebius, the pastor of Smyrna finished
his career in the reign of M. Aurelius. But, in A.D. 157, M. Aurelius
was not emperor. Such are the contradictions to which this writer
commits himself in attempting to change the times and the seasons.

It is quite clear that Eusebius laboured under no such uncertainty, as
Dr. Lightfoot would fondly persuade himself, relative to the date of
the martyrdom of Polycarp. He directs attention to the subject in his
_History_ as well as in his _Chronicon_, and in both his testimony is to
the same effect. In both it is alleged that Polycarp was martyred in the
reign of Marcus Aurelius. It must be remembered, too, that Eusebius was
born only about a century after the event; that from his youth he had
devoted himself to ecclesiastical studies; that he enjoyed the privilege
of access to the best theological libraries in existence in his day;
that, from his position in the Church as bishop of the metropolis of
Palestine, and as the confidential counselor of the Emperor Constantine,
he had opportunities of coming into personal contact with persons of
distinction from all countries, who must have been well acquainted with
the traditions of their respective Churches; and that he was a man of
rare prudence, intelligence, and discernment. He was certainly not a
philosophical historian, and in his great work he has omitted to notice
many things of much moment; but it must be conceded that, generally
speaking, he is an accurate recorder of facts; and, in the case before
us, he was under no temptation whatever to make a misleading statement.
We must also recollect that his testimony is corroborated by Jerome, who
lived in the same century; who, at least in two places in his writings,
reports the martyrdom; and who affirms that it occurred in the seventh
year of M. Aurelius. [37:1] Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, asserts that Jerome
"derived his knowledge from Eusebius," [37:2] and that, "though well
versed in works of Biblical exegesis, ... he was otherwise _extremely
ignorant_ of early Christian literature." [37:3] We have here unhappily
another of those rash utterances in which the Bishop of Durham indulges
throughout these volumes; for assuredly it is the very extravagance
of folly to tax Jerome with "extreme ignorance of early Christian
literature." Those who are acquainted with his writings will decline to
subscribe any such depreciatory certificate. He was undoubtedly bigoted
and narrow-minded, but he had a most capacious memory; he had travelled
in various countries; he had gathered a prodigious stock of information;
he was the best Christian scholar of his generation; he has preserved
for us the knowledge of not a few important facts which Eusebius has
not registered; and he at one time contemplated undertaking himself the
composition of an ecclesiastical history. [37:4] We cannot, therefore,
regard him as the mere copyist of the Bishop of Caesarea. "Every one
acquainted with the literature of the primitive Church," says Dr.
Döllinger, "knows that it is precisely in Jerome that we find _a more
exact knowledge of the more ancient teachers_ of the Church, and that
we are indebted to him for more information about their teaching and
writings, than to any other of the Latin Fathers." [38:1] Dr. Döllinger
is a Church historian whom even the Bishop of Durham cannot afford to
ignore,--as, in his own field of study, he has, perhaps, no peer in
existence,--and yet he here states explicitly, not certainly that Jerome
was extremely ignorant of early Christian literature, but that, in this
very department, he was specially well informed. The learned monk of
Bethlehem must have felt a deep interest in Polycarp as an apostolic
Father: he was quite capable of testing the worth of the evidence
relative to the time of the martyrdom; and his endorsement of the
statement of Eusebius must be accepted as a testimony entitled to very
grave consideration. Some succeeding writers assign even a later period
to the death of Polycarp. It is a weighty fact that no Christian author
for the first eight centuries of our era places it before the reign
of M. Aurelius. The first writer who attaches to it an earlier date
is Georgius Hamartolus, who flourished about the middle of the ninth
century. Dr. Lightfoot confesses that what he says cannot be received as
based on "any historical tradition or critical investigation." [38:2] It
is, in fact, utterly worthless.

The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array of evidence
opposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does not attempt to
show that it is improbable in itself, or that there are any rebutting
depositions. He leaves it in its undiminished strength; but he raises
such a cloud of learned dust around it, that the reader may well lose
his head, and be unable, for a time, to see the old chronological
landmarks. [39:1] He rests his case chiefly on a statement to be found
in a postscript, of admittedly doubtful authority, appended to the
letter of the Smyrnaeans relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He
argues as if the authority for this statement were unimpeachable; and,
evidently regarding it as the very key of the position, he endeavours,
by means of it, to upset the chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, the
_Chronicon Paschale_, and other witnesses. As the reader peruses his
chapter on "The Date of the Martyrdom," he cannot but feel that the
evidence presented to him is bewildering, indecisive, and obscure;
and it may occur to him that the author is very like an individual who
proposes to determine the value of two or three unknown quantities from
one simple algebraic equation. His principal witness, Aristides, were he
now living and brought up in presence of a jury, would find himself
in rather an odd predicament. He is expected to settle the date of the
death of Polycarp, and yet he knows nothing either of the pastor of
Smyrna or of his tragic end. It does not appear that he had ever heard
of the worthy apostolic Father. Aristides was a rhetorician who has left
behind him certain orations, entitled _Sacred Discourses_, written in
praise of the god Aesculapius. It might be thought that such a writer
is but poorly qualified to decide a disputed question of chronology. Our
readers may have heard of Papias,--one of the early Fathers, noted
for the imbecility of his intellect. Aristides, it seems, was quite as
liable to imposition. "The credulity of a Papias," says Dr. Lightfoot,
"is more than matched by the credulity of an Aristides." [40:1] Such
is the bishop's leading witness. Aristides was an invalid and a
hypochondriac; and, in the discourses he has left behind him, he
describes the course of a long illness, with an account of his pains,
aches, purgations, dreams, and visions--interspersed, from time to time,
with what Dr. Lightfoot estimates as "valuable chronological notices!"
[40:2]

The reader may be at a loss to understand how it happens that this
eccentric character has been brought forward as a witness to the date
of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He has been introduced under the following
circumstances. In the postscript to the Smyrnaean letter--an appendage
of very doubtful authority--we are told that the martyrdom occurred
when Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia. From certain incidental
allusions made by Aristides in his discourses, the bishop labours hard
to prove that this Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia somewhere
about A.D. 155. The evidence is not very clear or well authenticated;
and we have reason to fear that very little reliance can be placed on
the declarations of this afflicted rhetorician. His sickness is said
to have lasted seventeen years; and it is possible that, meanwhile, his
memory as to dates may have been somewhat impaired. Dr. Lightfoot cannot
exactly tell when his sickness commenced or when it terminated. But
he has ascertained that this Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and, by
weighing probabilities as to the length of the interval which may have
elapsed before he became proconsul, he has arrived at the conclusion
that it might have amounted to twelve or thirteen years. Nothing,
however, can be more unsatisfactory than the process by which he has
reached this result. According to the usual routine, an individual
advanced to the consulate became, in a number of years afterwards, a
proconsul; and yet, as everything depended on the will of the emperor,
it was impossible to tell how long he might have to wait for the
appointment. He might obtain it in five years, or perhaps sooner, if "an
exceptionally able man;" [41:1] or he might be kept in expectancy for
eighteen or nineteen years. The proconsulship commonly terminated in a
year; but an individual might be retained in the office for five or six
years. [41:2] He might become consul a second time, and then possibly
he might again be made proconsul. Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, has
proved that Statius Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and then, by the
aid of the dreamer Aristides, he has tried to show that he probably
became proconsul of Asia about A.D. 154 or A.D. 155. His calculations
are obviously mere guesswork. Even admitting their correctness, it would
by no means follow that Polycarp was then consigned to martyrdom. The
postscript of the Smyrnaean letter is, as we have seen, justly suspected
as no part of the original document. Dr. Lightfoot himself tells us,
that it is "_generally_ treated as a later addition to the letter, and
as coming from a different hand;" [42:1] and, whilst disposed to uphold
its claims as of high authority, he admits that, when tested as to
"external evidence," the supplementary paragraphs, of which this is one,
"do not stand on the same ground" [42:2] as the rest of the Epistle. And
yet his whole chronology rests on the supposition that the name of the
proconsul is correctly given in this probably apocryphal addition to the
Smyrnaean letter. Were we even to grant that this postscript belonged
originally to the document, it would supply no conclusive evidence that
Polycarp was martyred in A.D. 155. It is far more probable that the
writer has been slightly inaccurate as to the exact designation of the
proconsul of Asia about the time of the martyrdom. [43:1] He was called
Quadratus--not perhaps _Statius_, but possibly _Ummidius Quadratus_.
[43:2] There is nothing more common among ourselves than to make such
a mistake as to a name. How often may we find John put for James, or
Robert for Andrew? Quadratus was a patrician name, well known all
over the empire; and if Statius Quadratus had, not long before,
been proconsul of Asia, it is quite possible that the writer of this
postscript may have taken it for granted that the proconsul about the
time of Polycarp's death was the same individual. The author, whoever
he may have been, was probably not very well acquainted with these
Roman dignitaries, and may thus have readily fallen into the error. Dr.
Lightfoot has himself recorded a case in which a similar mistake has
been made--not in an ordinary communication such its this, but in an
Imperial ordinance. In a Rescript of the Emperor Hadrian, _Licinius_
Granianus, the proconsul, is styled _Serenus_ Granianus. [43:3] If such
a blunder could be perpetrated in an official State document, need
we wonder if the penman of the postscript of the Smyrnaean letter has
written Statius Quadratus for Ummidius Quadratus? And yet, if we admit
this very likely oversight, the whole chronological edifice which the
Bishop of Durham has been at such vast pains to construct, vanishes
like the dreams and visions of his leading witness, the hypochondriac
Aristides. [44:1]

Archbishop Ussher and others, who have carefully investigated the
subject, have placed in A.D. 169 the martyrdom of Polycarp. The
following reasons may be assigned why this date is decidedly preferable
to that contended for by Dr. Lightfoot.

1. All the surrounding circumstances point to the reign of Marcus
Aurelius as the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius has preserved an edict,
said to have been issued by Antoninus Pius, in which he announces
that he had written to the governors of provinces "not to trouble the
Christians at all, unless they appeared to make attempts against the
Roman government." [44:2] Doubts--it may be, well founded--have been
entertained as to the genuineness of this ordinance; but it has been
pretty generally acknowledged that it fairly indicates the policy of
Antoninus Pius. "Though certainly spurious," says Dr. Lightfoot, "it
represents the conception of him entertained by Christians in the
generations next succeeding his own." [45:1] In his reign, the disciples
of our Lord, according to the declarations of their own apologists, were
treated with special indulgence. Melito, for example, who wrote not
long after the middle of the second century, bears this testimony.
Capitolinus, an author who flourished about the close of the third
century, reports that Antoninus Pius lived "without bloodshed, either
of citizen or foe," during his reign of twenty-two years. [45:2] Dr.
Lightfoot strives again and again to evade the force of this evidence,
and absurdly quotes the sufferings of Polycarp and his companions as
furnishing a contradiction; but he thus only takes for granted what he
has elsewhere failed to prove. He admits, at the same time, that this
case stands alone. "_The only recorded martyrdoms_," says he, "in
Proconsular Asia during his reign [that of Antoninus Pius] are those of
Polycarp and his companions." [45:3] It must, however, be obvious
that he cannot establish even this exception. We have seen that the
chronology supported by the Bishop of Durham is at variance with the
express statements of all the early Christian writers; and certain facts
mentioned in the letter of the Smyrnaeans concur to demonstrate its
inaccuracy. The description there given of the sufferings endured by
those of whom it speaks, supplies abundant evidence that the martyrdoms
must have happened in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Dr. Lightfoot himself
attests that "persecutions extended throughout this reign;" that they
were "fierce and deliberate;" and that they were "_aggravated by cruel
tortures_." [46:1] Such precisely were the barbarities reported in this
Epistle. It states that the martyrs "were so torn by lashes that the
mechanism of their flesh was visible, even as far as the inward veins
and arteries;" that, notwithstanding, they were enabled to "endure the
fire;" and that those who were finally "condemned to the wild beasts"
meanwhile "suffered fearful punishments, _being made to lie on sharp
shells, and buffeted with other forms of manifold tortures._" [46:2]
These words attest that, before the Christians were put to death,
various expedients were employed to extort from them a recantation. Such
was the mode of treatment recommended by Marcus Aurelius. In an edict
issued against those who professed the gospel by this emperor, we have
the following directions: "Let them be arrested, and unless they offer
to the gods, _let them be punished with divers tortures._" [46:3]
"Various means," says Neander, "were employed to constrain them to a
renunciation of their faith; and only in the last extremity, when
they could not be forced to submit, was the punishment of death to be
inflicted." [46:4] This, undoubtedly, was the inauguration of a new
system of persecution. In former times, the Christians who refused
to apostatize were summarily consigned to execution. Now, they were
horribly tormented in various ways, with a view to compel them to
abandon their religion. This new policy is characteristic of the
reign of Marcus Aurelius. Nothing akin to it, sanctioned by Imperial
authority, can be found in the time of any preceding emperor. Its
employment now in the case of Polycarp and his companions fixes the date
of the martyrdom to this reign.

2. We have distinct proof that the visit of Polycarp to Rome took place
_after_ the date assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to his martyrdom! Eusebius
tells us that, in the _first_ year of the reign of Antoninus Pius,
[47:1] Telesphorus of Rome died, and was succeeded in his charge by
Hyginus. [47:2] He subsequently informs us that Hyginus dying "_after
the fourth year of his office,_" was succeeded by Pius; and he then adds
that Pius dying at Rome, "in the _fifteenth_ year of his episcopate,"
was succeeded by Anicetus. [47:3] It was in the time of this chief
pastor that Polycarp paid his visit to the Imperial city. It is apparent
from the foregoing statements that Anicetus could not have entered
on his office until at least nineteen, or perhaps twenty years, after
Antoninus Pius became emperor, that is, until A.D. 157, or possibly
until A.D. 158. This, however, is two or three years after the date
assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for the martyrdom. Surely the Bishop of Durham
would not have us to believe that Polycarp reappeared in Rome two or
three years after he expired on the funeral pile; and yet it is only by
some such desperate supposition that he can make his chronology square
with the history of the apostolic Father.

It is not at all probable that Polycarp arrived in Rome immediately
after the appointment of Anicetus as chief pastor. The account of his
visit, as given by Irenaeus, rather suggests that a considerable time
must meanwhile have elapsed before he made his appearance there. It
would seem that he had been disturbed by reports which had reached him
relative to innovations with which Anicetus was identified; and that,
apprehending mischief to the whole Christian community from anything
going amiss in a Church of such importance, he was prompted, at his
advanced age, to undertake so formidable a journey, in the hope that, by
the weight of his personal influence with his brethren in the Imperial
city, he might be able to arrest the movement. It is not necessary now
to inquire more particularly what led the venerable Asiatic presbyter at
this period to travel all the way from Smyrna to the seat of empire.
It is enough for us to know, as regards the question before us, that
it took place sometime during the pastorate of Anicetus; that Polycarp
effected much good by his dealings with errorists when in Rome; and that
its chief Christian minister, by his tact and discretion, succeeded in
quieting the fears of the aged stranger. That the visit occurred long
after the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for his martyrdom, may now be
evident; and in a former chapter proof has been adduced to show that it
must be dated, not, as the Bishop of Durham argues, about A.D. 154, but
in A.D. 161. Neither is there any evidence whatever that Polycarp was
put to death immediately after his return to Smyrna. This supposition is
absolutely necessary to give even an appearance of plausibility to the
bishop's chronology; but he has not been able to furnish so much as a
solitary reason for its adoption.

3. We have good grounds for believing that the martyrdom of Polycarp
occurred not earlier than A.D. 169. This date fulfils better than
any other the conditions enumerated in the letter of the Smyrnaeans.
Archbishop Ussher has been at pains to show that the month and day
there mentioned precisely correspond to and verify this reckoning. It is
unnecessary here to repeat his calculations; but it is right to notice
another item spoken of in the Smyrnaean Epistle, supplying an additional
confirmatory proof which the Bishop of Durham cannot well ignore. When
Polycarp was pressed to apostatize by the officials who had him in
custody, they pleaded with him as if anxious to save his life--"Why,
what harm is there in saying _Caesar is Lord_, and offering incense?"
and they urged him to "_swear by the genius of Caesar_" [50:1] These
words suggest that, at the time of this transaction, the Roman world had
only one emperor. In January A.D. 169, L. Verus died. After recording
this event in his _Imperial Fasti_, Dr. Lightfoot adds, "M. Aurelius is
now _sole emperor_." [50:2] When he is contending for A.D. 155 as the
date of the martyrdom, he lays much stress on the fact that "throughout
this Smyrnaean letter _the singular_ is used of the emperor."
"Polycarp," he says, "is urged to declare 'Caesar is Lord;' he is
bidden, and he refuses to swear by the 'genius of Caesar.'" "It is,"
he adds, "at least a matter of surprise that these forms should
be persistently used, if the event had happened _during a divided
sovereignty_." [50:3] The bishop cannot, at this stage of the
discussion, decently refuse to recognise the potency of his own
argument.

The three reasons just enumerated show conclusively that A.D. 155, for
which the Bishop of Durham contends so strenuously, cannot be accepted
as the date of the martyrdom. For some years after this, Anicetus was
not placed at the head of the Church of the Imperial city; and he must
have been for a considerable time in that position, when Polycarp paid
his visit to Rome. We have seen that the aged pastor of Smyrna suffered
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and that A.D. 169 is the earliest
period to which we can refer the martyrdom, inasmuch as that was the
first year in which Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor. All the reliable
chronological indications point to this as the more correct reckoning.

It has now, we believe, been demonstrated by a series of solid and
concurring testimonies, that Archbishop Ussher made no mistake when
he fixed on A.D. 169 as the proper date of Polycarp's martyrdom. The
bearing of this conclusion on the question of the Ignatian Epistles must
at once be apparent. Polycarp was eighty-six years of age at the time
of his death; and it follows that in A.D. 107,--or sixty-two years
before,--when the Ignatian letters are alleged to have been dictated, he
was only four-and-twenty. The absurdity of believing that at such an
age he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, or that another apostolic
Father would then have addressed him in the style employed in the
Ignatian correspondence, must be plain to every reader of ordinary
intelligence. No wonder that the advocates of the genuineness of
these Epistles have called into requisition such an enormous amount of
ingenuity and erudition to pervert the chronology. Pearson, as we have
seen, spent six years in this service; and the learned Bishop of Durham
has been engaged "off and on" for nearly thirty in the same labour. At
the close of his long task he seems to have persuaded himself that he
has been quite successful; and speaking of the theory of Dr. Cureton,
he adopts a tone of triumph, and exclaims: "I venture to hope that the
discussion which follows will extinguish the last sparks of its waning
life." [51:1] It remains for the candid reader to ponder the statements
submitted to him in this chapter, and to determine how many sparks of
life now remain in the bishop's chronology.



CHAPTER IV.

THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS, AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.


1. _The Testimony of Irenaeus._

The only two vouchers of the second century produced in support of
the claims of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, are the letter of
Polycarp to the Philippians and a sentence from the treatise of Irenaeus
_Against Heresies_. The evidence from Polycarp's Epistle has been
discussed in a preceding chapter. When examined, it has completely
broken down, as it is based on an entire misconception of the meaning
of the writer. The words of Irenaeus can be adduced with still less
plausibility to uphold the credit of these letters. The following is
the passage in which they are supposed to be authenticated: "_One of our
people said_, when condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony
towards God--'As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of
beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.'" [53:1] It is worse
than a mere begging of the question to assert that Irenaeus here gives
us a quotation from one of the letters of Ignatius. In the extensive
treatise from which the words are an extract, he never once mentions
the name of the pastor of Antioch. Had he been aware of the existence
of these Epistles, he would undoubtedly have availed himself of their
assistance when contending against the heretics--as they would have
furnished him with many passages exactly suited for their refutation.
The words of a man taught by the apostles, occupying one of the highest
positions in the Christian Church, and finishing his career by a
glorious martyrdom in the very beginning of the second century, would
have been by far the weightiest evidence he could have produced, next
to the teaching of inspiration. But though he brings forward Clemens
Romanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, [54:1] and others to confront
the errorists, he ignores a witness whose antiquity and weight of
character would have imparted peculiar significance to his testimony. To
say that though he never names him elsewhere, he points to him in this
place as "one of our people," is to make a very bold and improbable
statement. Even the Apostle Paul himself would not have ventured to
describe the evangelist John in this way. He would have alluded to
him more respectfully. Neither would the pastor of a comparatively
uninfluential church in the south of Gaul have expressed himself after
this fashion when speaking of a minister who had been one of the most
famous of the spiritual heroes of the Church. Not many years before, a
terrific persecution had raged in his own city of Lyons; many had been
put in prison, and some had been thrown to wild beasts; [55:1] and it is
obviously to one of these anonymous sufferers that Irenaeus here directs
attention. The "one of our people" is not certainly an apostolic Father;
but some citizen of Lyons, moving in a different sphere, whose name the
author does not deem it necessary to enrol in the record of history.
Neither is it to a _written_ correspondence, but to the _dying words_
of the unknown martyr, to which he adverts when we read,--"One of our
people _said_, As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth
of beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God."

The two witnesses of the second century who are supposed to uphold the
claims of the Ignatian Epistles have now been examined, and it must be
apparent that their testimony amounts to nothing. Thus far, then, there
is no external evidence whatever in favour of these letters. The result
of this investigation warrants the suspicion that they are forgeries.
[55:2] The internal evidence abundantly confirms this impression. Any
one who carefully peruses them, and then reads over the Epistle of
Clemens Romanus, the Teaching of the Apostles, the writings of Justin
Martyr, and the Epistle of Polycarp, may see that the works just named
are the productions of quite another period. The Ignatian letters
describe a state of things which they totally ignore. Dr. Lightfoot
himself has been at pains to point out the wonderful difference between
the Ignatian correspondence and the Epistle of Polycarp. "In
whatever way," says he, "we test the documents, the contrast is very
striking,--more striking, indeed, than we should have expected to
find between two Christian writers who lived at the same time and were
personally acquainted with each other." [56:1] He then proceeds to
mention some of the points of contrast. Whilst the so-called Ignatius
lays stress on Episcopacy "as the key-stone of the ecclesiastical
order," Polycarp, in his Epistle, from first to last makes "no mention
of the Episcopate," and "the bishop is entirely ignored." In regard to
doctrinal statement the same contrariety is apparent. Ignatius speaks of
"the blood of God" and "the passion of my God," whilst no such language
is used by Polycarp. Again, in the letter of the pastor of Smyrna, there
is "an entire absence of that sacramental language which confronts us
again and again in the most startling forms in Ignatius." [57:1]
"Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's
Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous as
well as more precise than in the former." In the Ignatian letters, of
"quotations from the New Testament, strictly speaking, there is none."
[57:2] "Of all the Fathers of the Church, early or later, no one is more
incisive or more persistent in advocating the claims of the threefold
ministry to allegiance than Ignatius." [57:3] Polycarp, on the
other hand, has written a letter "which has proved a stronghold of
Presbyterianism." [57:4] And yet Dr. Lightfoot would have us to believe
that these various letters were written by two ministers living at
the same time, taught by the same instructors, holding the closest
intercourse with each other, professing the same doctrines, and adhering
to the same ecclesiastical arrangements!

The features of distinction between the teaching of the Ignatian
letters and the teaching of Polycarp, which have been pointed out by Dr.
Lightfoot himself, are sufficiently striking; but his Lordship has not
exhibited nearly the full amount of the contrast. Ignatius is described
as offering himself voluntarily that he may suffer as a martyr, and
as telling those to whom he writes that his supreme desire is to be
devoured by the lions at Rome. "I desire," says he, "to fight with wild
beasts." [57:5] "May I have joy of the beasts that have been prepared
for me ... I will entice them that they may devour me promptly." [58:1]
"Though I desire to suffer, yet I know not whether I am worthy." [58:2]
"I delivered myself over to death." [58:3] "I bid all men know that
of my own free will I die for God." [58:4] The Church, instructed by
Polycarp, condemns this insane ambition for martyrdom. "We praise not
those," say the Smyrnaeans, "who deliver themselves up, _since the
gospel does not so teach us_." [58:5] In these letters Ignatius speaks
as a vain babbler, drunken with fanaticism; Polycarp, in his Epistle,
expresses himself like an humble-minded Presbyterian minister in his
sober senses. Ignatius is made to address Polycarp as if he were a
full-blown prelate, and tells the people under his care, "He that
honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doth aught against
the knowledge of the bishop, rendereth service to the devil" [58:6]
Polycarp, on the other hand, describes himself as one of the elders, and
exhorts the Philippians to "submit to the presbyters and deacons," and
to be "all subject one to another." [58:7] When their Church had got
into a state of confusion, and when they applied to him for advice,
he recommended them "to walk in the commandment of the Lord," and
admonished their "presbyters to be compassionate and merciful towards
all men," [58:8]--never hinting that the appointment of a bishop would
help to keep them in order; whereas, when Ignatius addresses various
Churches,--that of the Smyrnaeans included,--he assumes a tone of High
Churchmanship which Archbishop Laud himself would have been afraid,
and perhaps ashamed, to emulate. "As many as are of God and of Jesus
Christ," says he, "they are with the bishop." "It is good to recognise
God and the bishop!" "Give ye heed to the bishop, that God may also give
heed to you." [59:1]

The internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles seals their
condemnation. I do not intend, however, at present to pursue this
subject. In a work published by me six and twenty years ago, [59:2]
I have called attention to various circumstances which betray the
imposture; and neither Dr. Lightfoot, Zahn, nor any one else, so far as
I am aware, has ever yet ventured to deal with my arguments. I might now
add new evidences of their fabrication, but I deem this unnecessary. I
cannot, however, pass from this department of the question in debate,
without protesting against the view presented by the Bishop of Durham of
the origin of Prelacy. "It is shown," says he, referring to his _Essay
on the Christian Ministry_, [59:3] "that though the New Testament
itself contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized
episcopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable
episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet
there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years
of the apostolic age, ... and that, in the early years of the second
century, the episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more
especially in Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its
extension in the regions east of the Aegaean at this epoch be resisted,
_I am at a loss to understand what single fact relating to the history
of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can
be regarded as established_." [60:1]

In this statement, as well as in not a few others already submitted
to the reader, Dr. Lightfoot has expressed himself with an amount of
confidence which may well excite astonishment. It would not be difficult
to show that his speculations as to the development of Episcopacy
in Asia Minor and Syria in the early years of the second century, as
presented in the Essay to which he refers, are the merest moonshine.
On what grounds can he maintain that Timothy exercised what he calls a
"moveable episcopate" in Ephesus? Paul besought him to abide there for a
time that he might withstand errorists, and he gave him instructions as
to how he was to behave himself in the house of God; [60:2] but it did
not therefore follow that he was either a bishop or an archbishop. He
was an able man, sound in the faith, wise and energetic; and, as he
was thus a host in himself, Paul expected that meanwhile he would be
eminently useful in helping the less gifted ministers who were in the
place to repress error and keep the Church in order. That Paul intended
to establish neither a moveable nor an immoveable episcopate in Ephesus,
is obvious from his own testimony; for when he addresses its elders,--as
he believed for the last time,--he ignored their submission to
any ecclesiastical superior, and committed the Church to their own
supervision. [61:1] And if he left Titus in Crete to take charge of the
organization of the Church there, he certainly did not intend that the
evangelist was to act alone. In those days there was no occasion for the
services of a diocesan bishop, inasmuch as the Christian community
was governed by the common council of the elders, and ordination was
performed "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." [61:2]
Titus was a master builder, and Paul believed that, proceeding in
concert with the ministers in Crete, he would render effectual aid in
carrying forward the erection of the ecclesiastical edifice. And what
proof has Dr. Lightfoot produced to show that "the episcopate was widely
spread in Asia Minor and in Syria" in "the early years of the second
century"? If the Ignatian Epistles be discredited, he has none at all.
But there is very decisive evidence to the contrary. The Teaching of the
Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Polycarp prove
the very reverse. And yet Dr. Lightfoot is at a loss to understand what
single fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the
first half of the second century can be regarded as established, if we
reject his baseless assertion!


2. _The Genesis of Prelacy._

Jerome gives us the true explanation of the origin of the episcopate,
when he tells us that it was set up with a view to prevent divisions in
the Church. [62:1] These divisions were created chiefly by the Gnostics,
who swarmed in some of the great cities of the empire towards the middle
of the second century. About that time the president of the Presbytery
was in a few places armed with additional authority, in the hope that
he would thus be the better able to repress schism. The new system was
inaugurated in Rome, and its Church has ever since maintained the proud
boast that it is the centre of ecclesiastical unity. From the Imperial
city Episcopacy gradually radiated over all Christendom. The position
assumed by Dr. Lightfoot--that it commenced in Jerusalem--is without any
solid foundation. To support it, he is obliged to adopt the fable that
James was the first bishop of the mother Church. The New Testament
ignores this story, and tells us explicitly that James was only one of
the "pillars," or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewish
capital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employed to
establish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greater
plausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoot himself
acknowledges that, about the close of the first century, we cannot find
a trace of the episcopate in either of the two great Christian Churches
of Rome and Corinth. [63:1] "At the close of the first century," says
he, "Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning of the second
century Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter Epistle, so in the
former, there is no allusion to the episcopal office." [63:2] He might
have said that, even after the middle of the second century, it did not
exist either in Smyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that "as late as the
close of the second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as
distinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery." [63:3] "The
first bishop of Alexandria," says he, "of whom any distinct incident is
recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen," [63:4]
who flourished in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the
same place, that "at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently
ordained by the twelve presbyters out of their own number." [63:5]
Instead of asserting, as has been done, that no single fact relating to
the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second
century can be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate
was widely spread in the early years of the second century in Asia Minor
and elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at the date here
mentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it was established
ANYWHERE.

Irenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy, for
he lived throughout the period of its original development; but he
has taken care not to lift the veil which covers its mysterious
commencement. He could have told what prompted Polycarp to undertake a
journey to Rome when burthened with the weight of years; but he has
left us to our own surmises. It is, however, significant that the
presbyterian system was kept up in Smyrna long after the death of its
aged martyr. [64:1] Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that "Irenaeus
was probably the most learned Christian of his time;" [64:2] and it is
pretty clear that he contributed much to promote the acceptance of the
episcopal theory. When arguing with the heretics, he coined the doctrine
of the apostolical succession, and maintained that the true faith was
propagated to his own age through an unbroken line of bishops from the
days of the apostles. To make out his case, he was necessitated to speak
of the presidents of the presbyteries as bishops, [64:3] and to ignore
the change which had meanwhile taken place in the ecclesiastical
Constitution. Subsequent writers followed in his wake, and thus it
is that the beginnings of Episcopacy have been enveloped in so much
obscurity. Even in Rome, the seat of the most prominent Church in
Christendom, it is impossible to settle the order in which its early
presiding pastors were arranged. "Come we to Rome," says Stillingfleet,
"and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here
Tertullian, Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next to Peter.
Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus,
both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus, with others, make
Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find
to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?" [65:1] The different
lists preserved attest that there was no such continuous and homogeneous
line of bishops as the doctrine of the apostolical succession implies.
When Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp as having "received his appointment in
Asia from apostles as bishop in the Church of Smyrna," [65:2] he makes
a statement which, literally understood, even Dr. Lightfoot hesitates to
endorse. [65:3] The Apostle John may have seen Polycarp in his
boyhood, and may have predicted his future eminence as a Christian
minister,--just as Timothy was pointed out by prophecy [66:1] as
destined to be a champion of the faith. When Episcopacy was introduced,
its abettors tried to manufacture a little literary capital out of some
such incident; but the allegation that Polycarp was ordained to the
episcopal office by the apostles, is a fable that does not require
refutation. Almost all of them were dead before he was born. [66:2]



CHAPTER V.

THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.


If, as there is every reason to believe, the Ignatian Epistles are
forgeries from beginning to end, various questions arise as to the
time of their appearance, and the circumstances which prompted their
fabrication. Their origin, like that of many other writings of the same
description, cannot be satisfactorily explored; and we must in vain
attempt a solution of all the objections which may be urged against
almost any hypothesis framed to elucidate their history. It is, however,
pretty clear that, in their original form, they first saw the light in
the early part of the third century. About that time there was evidently
something like a mania for the composition of such works,--as various
spurious writings, attributed to Clemens Romanus and others, abundantly
testify. Their authors do not seem to have been aware of the impropriety
of committing these pious frauds, and may even have imagined that they
were thus doing God service. [67:1] Several circumstances suggest that
Callistus--who became Bishop of Rome about A.D. 219--may, before his
advancement to the episcopal chair, have had a hand in the preparation
of these Ignatian Epistles. His history is remarkable. He was originally
a slave, and in early life he is reported to have been the child of
misfortune. He had at one time the care of a bank, in the management
of which he did not prosper. He was at length banished to Sardinia, to
labour there as a convict in the mines; and when released from servitude
in that unhealthy island, he was brought under the notice of Victor, the
Roman bishop. To his bounty he was, about this time, indebted for
his support. [68:1] On the death of Victor, Callistus became a prime
favourite with Zephyrinus, the succeeding bishop. By him he was put in
charge of the cemetery of the Christians connected with the Catacombs;
and he soon attained the most influential position among the Roman
clergy. So great was his popularity, that, on the demise of his patron,
he was himself unanimously chosen to the episcopal office in the chief
city of the empire. Callistus was no ordinary man. He was a kind of
original in his way. He possessed a considerable amount of literary
culture. He took a prominent part in the current theological
controversies,--and yet, if we are to believe Hippolytus, he could
accommodate himself to the views of different schools of doctrine. He
had great versatility of talent, restless activity, deep cunning, and
much force of character. Hippolytus tells us that he was sadly given to
intrigue, and so slippery in his movements that it was no easy matter
to entangle him in a dilemma. It may have occurred to him that, in the
peculiar position of the Church, the concoction of a series of letters,
written in the name of an apostolic Father, and vigorously asserting the
claims of the bishops, would help much to strengthen the hands of the
hierarchy. He might thus manage at the same time quietly to commend
certain favourite views of doctrine, and aid the pretensions of the
Roman chief pastor. But the business must be kept a profound secret;
and the letters must, if possible, be so framed as not at once to awaken
suspicion. If we carefully examine them, we shall find that they were
well fitted to escape detection at the time when they were written.

The internal evidence warrants the conclusion that the Epistle to the
Romans was the first produced. It came forth alone; and, if it crept
into circulation originally in the Imperial city, it was not likely to
provoke there any hostile criticism. It is occupied chiefly with giving
expression to the personal feelings of the supposed writer in
the prospect of martyrdom. It scarcely touches on the question of
ecclesiastical regimen; and it closes by soliciting the prayers of the
Roman brethren for "the Church which is in Syria." [69:1] "If," says
Dr. Lightfoot, "Ignatius had not incidentally mentioned himself as
the Bishop 'of' or 'from Syria,' the letter to the Romans would have
contained no indication of the existence of the episcopal office" [70:1]
Whilst observing this studied silence on the subject which above all
others occupied his thoughts, the writer was craftily preparing the way
for the more ready reception of the letters which were to follow. The
Epistle to the Romans tacitly embodies their credentials. It slyly takes
advantage of the connection of the name of Ignatius with Syria in the
letter of Polycarp to the Philippians; assumes that Syria is the eastern
province; and represents Ignatius as a bishop from that part of the
empire on his way to die at Rome. It does not venture to say that
the Western capital had then a bishop of its own,--for the Epistle
of Clemens, which was probably in many hands, and which ignored the
episcopal office there--might thus have suggested doubts as to its
genuineness; but it tells the sensational story of the journey of
Ignatius in chains, from east to west, in the custody of what are called
"ten leopards." This tale at the time was likely to be exceedingly
popular. Ever since the rise of Montanism--which made its appearance
about the time of the death of Polycarp--there had been an increasing
tendency all over the Church to exaggerate the merits of martyrdom. This
tendency reached its fullest development in the early part of the third
century. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans exhibits it in the height
of its folly. Ignatius proclaims his most earnest desire to be torn
to pieces by the lions, and entreats the Romans not to interfere and
deprive him of a privilege which he coveted so ardently. The words
reported by Irenaeus as uttered by one of the martyrs of Lyons are
adroitly appropriated by the pseudo-Ignatius as if spoken by himself;
and, in an uncritical age, when the subject-matter of the communication
was otherwise so much to the taste of the reader, the quotation helped
to establish the credit of the Ignatian correspondence. Another portion
of the letter was sure to be extremely acceptable to the Church
of Rome--for here the writer is most lavish in his complimentary
acknowledgements. That Church is described as "having the presidency in
the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy
of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success,
worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, filled with the
grace of God, without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign
stain."

"The Epistle to the Romans," says Dr. Lightfoot, "had a wider popularity
than the other letters of Ignatius, both early and late. It appears to
have been circulated apart from them, sometimes alone." [71:1] It was
put forth as a feeler, to discover how the public would be disposed
to entertain such a correspondence; and, in case of its favourable
reception, it was intended to open the way for additional Epistles.
It was cleverly contrived. It employed the Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians as a kind of voucher for its authenticity, inasmuch as it
is there stated that Ignatius had written a number of letters; and it
contained little or nothing which any one in that age would have been
disposed to controvert. The Christians of Rome had long enjoyed the
reputation of a community ennobled by the blood of martyrs, and they
would be quite willing to believe that Ignatius had contributed to
their celebrity by dying for the faith within their borders. It is
very doubtful whether he really finished his career there: some ancient
authorities attest that he suffered at Antioch; [72:1] and the fact
that, in the fourth century, his grave was pointed out in that locality,
apparently supports their testimony. [72:2] The account of his hurried
removal as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome, in the custody of ten fierce
soldiers--whilst he was permitted, as he passed along, to hold something
like a levee of his co-religionists at every stage of his journey--wears
very much the appearance of an ill-constructed fiction. But the
disciples at Rome about this period were willing to be credulous in such
matters; and thus it was that this tale of martyrdom was permitted
to pass unchallenged. In due time the author of the letters, as
they appeared one after another, accomplished the design of their
composition. The question of the constitution of the Church had recently
awakened much attention; and the threat of Victor to excommunicate the
Christians of Asia Minor, because they ventured to differ from him as
to the mode of celebrating the Paschal festival, had, no doubt, led to
discussions relative to the claims of episcopal authority which, at Rome
especially, were felt to be very inconvenient and uncomfortable. No one
could well maintain that it had a scriptural warrant. The few who
were acquainted with its history were aware that it was only a human
arrangement of comparatively recent introduction; and yet a bishop
who threatened with excommunication such as refused to submit to his
mandates, could scarcely be expected to make such a confession.
Irenaeus had sanctioned its establishment; but, when Victor became so
overbearing, he took the alarm, and told him plainly that those who
presided over the Church of Rome before him were nothing but presbyters.
[73:1] This was rather an awkward disclosure; and it was felt by the
friends of the new order that some voucher was required to help it in
its hour of need, and to fortify its pretensions. The letters of an
apostolic Father strongly asserting its claims could not fail to give it
encouragement. We can thus understand how at this crisis these Epistles
were forthcoming. They were admirably calculated to quiet the public
mind. They were comparatively short, so that they could be easily read;
and they were quite to the point, for they taught that we are to
"regard the bishop as the Lord Himself," and that "he presides after the
likeness of God." [74:1] Who after all this could doubt the claims of
Episcopacy? Should not the words of an apostolic Father put an end to
all farther questionings?

Hippolytus, who was his contemporary, has given us much information in
relation to Callistus. He writes, indeed, in an unfriendly spirit; but
he speaks, notwithstanding, as an honest man; and we cannot well reject
his statements as destitute of foundation. His account of the general
facts in the career of this Roman bishop obviously rest on a substratum
of truth. As we read these Ignatian letters, it may occur to us that
the real author sometimes betrays his identity. Callistus had been
originally a slave, and he here represents Ignatius as saying of
himself, "I am a slave." [74:2] Callistus had been a convict, and more
than once this Ignatius declares, "I am a convict." [74:3] May he not
thus intend to remind his co-religionists at Rome that an illustrious
bishop and martyr had once been a slave and a convict like himself?
Callistus, when labouring in the mines of Sardinia, must have been
well acquainted with ropes and hoists; and here Ignatius describes the
Ephesians as "hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus
Christ," having faith as their "windlass," and as "using for a rope the
Holy Spirit." [74:4] Callistus had at one time been in charge of a bank;
and Ignatius, in one of these Epistles, is made to say, "Let your works
be your _deposits_, that you may receive your _assets_ due to you."
[75:1] Callistus also had charge of the Christian cemetery in the Roman
Catacombs; and Ignatius here expresses himself as one familiar with
graves and funerals. He speaks of a heretic as "being himself a bearer
of a corpse," and of those inclined to Judaism "as tombstones and graves
of the dead." [75:2] It is rather singular that, in these few short
letters, we find so many expressions which point to Callistus as the
writer. There are, however, other matters which warrant equally strong
suspicions. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus was a Patripassian. "The
Father," said he, "having taken human nature, deified it by uniting it
to Himself, ... and so he said that the Father had suffered with the
Son." [75:3] Hence Ignatius, in these Epistles, startles us by such
expressions as "the blood of God," [75:4] and "the passion of my God."
[75:5] Callistus is accused by Hippolytus as a trimmer prepared, as
occasion served, to conciliate different parties in the Church by
appearing to adopt their views. Sometimes he sided with Hippolytus,
and sometimes with those opposed to him; hence it is that the theology
taught in these letters is of a very equivocal character. Dr. Lightfoot
has seized upon this fact as a reason that they are never quoted by
Irenaeus. "The language approaching dangerously near to heresy
might," says he, "have led him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal
teaching." [76:1] A much better reason was that he had never heard
of these letters; and yet their theology is exactly such a piebald
production as might have been expected from Callistus.

It is not easy to understand how Dr. Lightfoot has brought himself to
believe that these Ignatian Epistles were written in the beginning
of the second century. "_Throughout the whole range of Christian
literature_," says he, "no more uncompromising advocacy of the
episcopate can be found than appears in these writings ... It is when
asserting the claims of the episcopal office to obedience and respect
that the language is _strained to the utmost_. The bishops established
_in the farthest part of the world_ are in the counsels of Jesus
Christ." [76:2] It is simply incredible that such a state of things
could have existed six or seven years after the death of the Apostle
John. All the extant writings for sixty years after the alleged date
of the martyrdom of Ignatius demonstrate the utter falsehood of these
letters. It is certain that they employ a terminology, and develop
Church principles unknown before the beginning of the third century, and
which were not current even then. The forger, whoever he may have been,
has displayed no little art and address in their fabrication. From all
that we know of Callistus, he was quite equal to the task. Like the
false Decretals, these letters exerted much influence on the subsequent
history of the Church. Cyprian, though he never mentions them, [77:1]
speedily caught their spirit. His assertion of episcopal authority
is quite in the same style. Origen visited Rome shortly after they
appeared; he is the first writer who recognises them; and it is worthy
of note that, of the three quotations from them found in his works,
two are from the Epistle to the Romans. It is quite within the range
of possibility that evidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that they
emanated from one of the early popes. They are worthy of such an origin.
They recommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiastical
dictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever since
inculcated. "It need hardly be remarked," says Dr. Lightfoot, "how
subversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negation
of individual freedom and the consequent suppression of direct
responsibility to God in Christ, is the _crushing despotism_ with which"
the language of these letters, "if taken literally, would invest the
episcopal office." [77:2] And yet, having devoted nearly thirty
years off and on to the study of these Epistles, the Bishop of Durham
maintains that we have here the genuine writings of an apostolic Father
who was instructed by the inspired founders of the Christian Church!!

In this Review no notice is taken of the various forms of these
Epistles. If they are all forgeries, it is not worth while to spend time
in discussing the merits of the several editions.



APPENDICES.



I.

LETTER OF THE LATE DR. CURETON.


Immediately after the appearance of the second edition of _The Ancient
Church_, a copy of it was sent to the late Rev. W. Cureton, D.D., Canon
of Westminster--the well-known author of various publications
relating to the Ignatian Epistles. It was considered only due to that
distinguished scholar to call his attention to a work in which he was
so prominently noticed, and in which various arguments were adduced
to prove that all the letters he had edited are utterly spurious. In a
short time that gentleman acknowledged the presentation of the volume in
a most kind and courteous communication, which will be read with special
interest by all who have studied the Ignatian controversy. I give the
letter entire--just as it reached me. It was published several years
ago, appended to my _Old Catholic Church_.


DEANS YARD, WESTMINSTER, _Sept._ 24, 1861.

DEAR SIR,--I beg to thank you very much for your kindness in sending
me a valuable contribution to Ecclesiastical History in your book, _The
Ancient Church_, which I found here upon my return to London two or
three days ago. How much would it contribute to the promotion of charity
and the advancement of the truth were all who combated the opinions and
views of another to give him the means of seeing what was written fairly
and openly, and not to endeavour to overthrow his arguments without his
knowledge. This will indeed ever be the case when truth is sought for
itself, and no personal feelings enter into the matter.

I have read your chapters on Ignatius, and you will perhaps hardly
expect that I should subscribe to your views. It is now about twenty
years since I first undertook this inquiry, and constantly have I
been endeavouring to add some new light ever since. I once answered an
opponent in my present brother canon, Dr. Wordsworth, but since that
time I have never replied to any adverse views--but have only looked
to see if I could find anything either to show that I was wrong or to
strengthen my convictions that I was right. And I have found the
wisdom of this, and have had the satisfaction of knowing that my ablest
opponents, after having had more time to inquire and to make greater
research, have of their own accord conformed to my views and written in
their support.

I attach no very great importance to the Epistles of Ignatius. I shall
not draw from them any dogma. I only look upon them as evidence of the
time to certain facts, which indeed were amply established even without
such evidence. I think that in such cases, we must look chiefly to the
historical testimony of facts; and you will forgive me for saying that
I think your arguments are based upon presumptive evidence, negative
evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness--all of which, however
valuable, must tumble to the ground before one single fact. You notice
that Archbishop Ussher doubted the Epistle to Polycarp. But why? simply
because its style (not having been altered by the forger) was different
from the rest. But you know he says there was more _historical_ evidence
in its favour than for any of the rest. It thus becomes an argument in
support of the Syriac text instead of against it. Can you explain how
it happens that the Syriac text, found in the very language of Ignatius
himself, and transcribed many hundreds of years before the Ignatian
controversy was thought of, now it is discovered, should contain only
the _three Epistles_ of the existence of which there is any historical
evidence before the time of Eusebius, and that, although it may contain
some things which you do not approve, still has rejected all the
passages which the critics of the Ignatian controversy protested
against? You go too far to say that Bentley rejected the Ignatian
Epistles--he only rejected them in the form in which they were put forth
by Ussher and Vossius, and not in the form of the Syriac. So did Porson,
as Bishop Kaye informed me--but he never denied that Ignatius had
written letters--indeed, the very forgeries were a proof of true
patterns which were falsified.

A great many of the ablest scholars in Europe, who had refused to accept
the Greek letters, are convinced of the genuineness of the Syriac. But
time will open. Believe me, yours faithfully,

WILLIAM CURETON.



THE REV. DR. KILLEN.

Some time after this letter was written, ecclesiastical literature
sustained a severe loss in the death of its amiable and accomplished
author. Though Dr. Cureton here expressed himself with due caution, his
language is certainly not calculated to reassure the advocates of the
Ignatian Epistles. One of their most learned editors in recent times--so
far from speaking in a tone of confidence respecting them--here admits
that he attached to them "no very great importance." Though he had spent
twenty years chiefly in their illustration, he acknowledges that he was
constantly endeavouring "to add some new light" for his guidance.
To him, therefore, the subject must have been still involved in much
mystery.

It is noteworthy that, in the preceding letter, he has not been able
to point out a solitary error in the statement of the claims of these
Epistles as presented in _The Ancient Church_. He alleges, indeed, that
the arguments employed are "based upon presumptive evidence, negative
evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness;" he confesses that
these proofs are "valuable;" but, though he contends that they must all
"tumble to the around before one single fact," he has failed to produce
the one single fact required for their overthrow.

Dr. Cureton had obviously not been previously aware that Dr. Bentley,
the highest authority among British critics, had rejected the Ignatian
Epistles. Had he been cognisant of that fact when he wrote the _Corpus
Ignatianum_, he would have candidly announced it to his readers. The
manner in which he here attempts to dispose of it is certainly not very
satisfactory. He pleads that, though Bentley condemned as spurious the
letters edited by Ussher and Vossius, he would not have pronounced the
same decision on the Syriac version recently discovered. Why not? This
Syriac version is an edition of _the same Epistles_ in an abbreviated
form. If Bentley denounced _the whole_ as a forgery, it seems to follow,
by logical inference, that he would have pronounced the same verdict on
the half or the third part. Dr. Cureton is mistaken when he affirms in
the preceding communication that his Syriac version has rejected "all
the passages" against which "the critics of the Ignatian controversy"
had protested. The very contrary has been demonstrated in _The Ancient
Church_. A large number of the sentences which had provoked the most
unsparing criticism are retained in the Curetonian edition. It is
right to add that Archbishop Ussher more than "doubted" the Epistle to
Polycarp. He discarded it altogether. Without hesitation he set it aside
as spurious. Whilst he disliked its style, he felt that it wanted other
marks of genuineness. When writing _The Ancient Church_--now nearly
thirty years ago--I was disposed to think that the Ignatian Epistles had
been manufactured at Antioch; but more mature consideration has led me
to adopt the conclusion that they were concocted at Rome. They bear a
strong resemblance to several other spurious works which appeared
there; and the servile submission to episcopal authority which they so
strenuously inculcate was first most offensively challenged by the chief
pastor of the great Western bishopric. These Epistles tended much to
promote the progress of ecclesiastical despotism.

Any one who studies the two chapters on the Ignatian Epistles in _The
Ancient Church_, must see that what is there urged against them is
something more than "presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the
evidence of appropriateness." It is shown that their anachronisms,
historical blundering, and false doctrine clearly convict them of
forgery.



II.

It has been deemed right to subjoin here a copy of the Ignatian Epistle
to the Romans, as some readers may not have it at hand for consultation.
Various translations of this Epistle have been published. The following
adheres pretty closely to that given by the Bishop of Durham:--

"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to her that has obtained mercy
through the might of the Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ His only
Son, to the Church which is beloved and enlightened through the will
of Him who willeth all things that are according to the love of Jesus
Christ our God, to her that has the presidency in the country of the
region of the Romans; being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of
felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and
having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ, and bearing
the Father's name, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the
Son of the Father, to those that are united both according to the flesh
and spirit to every one of His commandments, being filled inseparably
with the grace of God, and filtered clear from every foreign stain;
abundance of happiness unblameably in Jesus Christ our God.

"1. Through prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeing your
most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested, for
I hope as a prisoner in Jesus Christ to salute you, if indeed it be the
will of God that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the
beginning has been well ordered, if so be I shall attain unto the goal,
that I may receive my inheritance without hindrance. For I am afraid of
your love, lest it should be to me an injury; for it is easy for you to
accomplish what you please, but it is difficult for me to attain to God,
if ye spare me.

"2. For I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to please God, as
ye do please Him. For neither shall I ever have such an opportunity of
attaining to God, nor can ye, if ye be silent, ever be entitled to the
honour of a better work. For if ye are silent concerning me, I shall
become God's; but if ye love my body, I shall have my course again to
run. Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than
that I be poured out a libation to God, while there is still an altar
ready; that being gathered together in love ye may sing praise to the
Father through Jesus Christ, that God has deemed me, the bishop of
Syria, worthy to be sent for from the east to the west. It is good to
set from the world to God, that I may rise again to Him.

"3. Ye have never envied any one. Ye have taught others, and my desire
is that those lessons shall hold good, which as teachers ye enjoin. Only
request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, so that I may
not only say it, but also desire it; that I may not only be called a
Christian, but really be found one. For if I shall be found so, then
can I also be called one, and be faithful then, when I shall no longer
appear to the world. Nothing visible is good: for our God, Jesus Christ,
now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed. The work is
not of persuasiveness, but of greatness, whensoever it is hated by the
world.

"4. I write to all the Churches, and I bid all men know that of my own
free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me. I exhort you not to
show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for
the wild beasts, that through them I shall attain to God. I am the wheat
of God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found
the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts that they may
become my sepulchre, and may leave no part of my body behind, so that I
may not, when I am fallen asleep, be burdensome to any one. Then shall I
be truly a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not so much as
see my body. Supplicate the Lord for me, that through these instruments
I may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul
did. They were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am a slave
to this very hour. But, when I suffer, I shall be a freed-man of Jesus
Christ, and shall rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put
away every desire.

"5. From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts; by land and sea,
by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of
soldiers, who only become worse when they are kindly treated. Howbeit
through their wrong-doings I am become more completely a disciple, yet
am I not hereby justified. May I have joy of the beasts that have been
prepared for me; and I pray that I may find them prompt; nay, I will
entice them that they may devour me promptly, not as they have done to
some, refusing to touch them through fear. Yea, though of themselves
they should not be willing while I am ready, I myself will force them to
it. Bear with me, I know what is expedient for me. Now am I beginning
to be a disciple. May nought of things visible and things invisible
envy me, that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Come fire and cross, and
grapplings with wild beasts, cuttings and manglings, wrenching of bones,
hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body, come cruel tortures of the
devil to assail me, only be it mine to attain to Jesus Christ.

"6. The farthest bounds of the universe shall profit me nothing, neither
the kingdoms of this world. It is good for me to die for Jesus Christ,
rather than to reign over the farthest bounds of the earth. I seek Him
who died on our behalf, I desire Him who rose again for our sake. My
birth-pangs are at hand. Pardon me, brethren, do not hinder me from
living. Do not wish to keep me in a state of death, while I desire to
belong to God; do not give me over to the world, neither allure me
with material things. Suffer me to obtain pure light; when I have gone
thither, then shall I be a man. Permit me to be an imitator of the
passion of my God. If any man has Him within himself, let him consider
what I desire, and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am
straitened.

"7. The prince of this world would fain seize me, and corrupt my
disposition towards God. Let not any of you, therefore, that are near
abet him. Rather be ye on my side, that is, on God's side. Do not speak
of Jesus Christ and set your desires on the world. Let not envy dwell
among you. Even though I myself, when I am with you, should beseech you,
obey me not, but rather give credit to those things which I now write.
My earthly passion has been crucified, and there is no fire of material
longing in me; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks,
saying to me inwardly, 'Come to the Father.' I have no delight in the
food of corruption, or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread
of God, which is the flesh of Christ, who was of the seed of David; and
for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.

"8. I desire no longer to live after the manner of men; and this shall
be, if ye desire it. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may be desired.
In a brief letter I beseech you, do ye give credit to me. Jesus Christ
will reveal these things to you, so that ye shall know that I speak the
truth--Jesus Christ the unerring mouth by which the Father has spoken
truly. Pray for me that I may attain the object of my desire. I write
not unto you after the flesh, but after the mind of God. If I shall
suffer, it was your desire; but if I am rejected, ye have hated me.

"9. Remember in your prayers the Church which is in Syria, which has God
for its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop,
He and your love; but for myself, I am ashamed to be called one of them;
for neither am I worthy, being the very last of them and an untimely
birth; but I have found mercy that I should be some one, if so I shall
attain unto God. My spirit salutes you, and the love of the Churches
which received me in the name of Jesus Christ, not as a mere wayfarer;
for even those Churches which did not lie on my route after the flesh,
went before me from city to city.

"10. Now I write these things to you from Smyrna, by the hand of the
Ephesians, who are worthy of all felicitation. And Crocus also, a name
very dear to me, is with me, with many others besides.

"11. As touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome, to the
glory of God, I believe that ye have received instructions; whom also
apprize that I am near, for they all are worthy of God and of you, and
it becomes you to refresh them in all things. These things I write to
you on the 9th before the Kalends of September. Fare-ye-well unto the
end in the patient waiting for Jesus Christ."


This letter is a strange mixture of silly babblement, mysticism,
and fanaticism; but throughout it wants the true ring of an honest
correspondence. Why does the writer describe himself as the _Bishop of
Syria_, and why does he never once mention _Antioch_ from beginning to
end? When an apostle was imprisoned, his brethren prayed for his release
(Acts xii. 5); but this Ignatius forbade the Christians at Rome to make
any attempt to save him from martyrdom. Paul taught that he might give
his body to be burned, and yet after all be a reprobate (1 Cor. xiii.
3); but this Ignatius indicates that all would be well with him, if he
had the good fortune to be eaten by the lions. His letter is pervaded,
not by the enlightened and cheerful piety of the New Testament, but by
the gloomy and repulsive spirit of Montanism. Bishop Lightfoot tells
us that it had "a wider popularity than the other letters of Ignatius"
(vol. ii, § i. p. 186). It was accommodated to the taste of an age of
deteriorated Christianity. Polycarp would have sternly condemned its
extravagance. But, in the early part of the third century, the tone of
public sentiment in the Christian Church was greatly changed, and the
writings of Tertullian contributed much to give encouragement to such
productions as the Ignatian Epistles. Tertullian, however, in his
numerous writings, never once names Ignatius. It would appear that he
had never heard of these letters.



[ENDNOTES]


[2:1] Carwithen, _Hist. Ch. of England_, i. 554, 2nd ed.

[2:2] _Instit._ I. c. xiii. § 29. "There is," says Calvin, "nothing more
abominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of
Ignatius."

[3:1] _The Apostolic Fathers_, Part II., S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp.
Revised texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and
Translations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Bishop of Durham.
London 1885.

[4:1] _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 401. London, Hodder & Stoughton.

[6:1] Vol. i. p. 316.

[6:2] Pref. I. vii.

[6:3] Vol. i. p. 107.

[7:1] Monk's _Life of Bentley_, ii. p. 44, ed. 1833. Monk adds, that the
affair was "the talk of the Long Vacation"--a clear proof that the truth
of the statement was indisputable.

[7:2] See my _Old Catholic Church_, p. 398, Edinburgh 1871; and Appendix
No. 1 to this Reply.

[7:3] Vol. i. p. 321, note.

[8:1] Vol. i. p. 316.

[8:2] Vol. i. p. 321.

[8:3] Vol. i. p. 320.

[9:1] See _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 403.

[9:2] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 436.

[10:1] Vol. i. p.345.

[11:1] Vol. i. p. 331.

[11:2] See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 131.

[12:1] See _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 404.

[13:1] Page v.

[15:1] Preface, p. vi.

[16:1] _Contra Haer._ iii. 3. 4.

[16:2] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 446.

[16:3] _Ibid._

[17:1] Vol. i. p. 380. He says elsewhere "almost simultaneously," vol.
i. p. 382.

[17:2] § 4, 5, 6. It is worthy of remark that Eusebius notices the
letter of Polycarp, not along with the Ignatian Epistles, but in
connection with the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See
Eusebius, Book IV. chap. xiv.

[18:1] The words "for kings" of this part of the letter are extant only
in a Latin version. The passage in the Latin stands thus: "Orate etiam,
pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus."

[18:2] As the great monarch of Assyria surveyed the potentates under his
dominion, he was tempted to exclaim vaingloriously, "Are not my princes
all of them kings?" Isa. x. 8, Revised Version. The emperor of Rome
might have uttered the same proud boast.

[18:3] Vol. i. p. 576.

[18:4] _Ibid._ In support of this view Dr. Lightfoot appeals to 1
Tim ii. 2, where the apostle says that "supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks," as circumstances required, should
be made "for kings and all that are in authority." Paul is here giving
general directions suited to all time; but Polycarp is addressing
himself to the Philippians, and furnishing them with instructions
adapted to their existing condition.

[19:1] Vol. i. p. 407

[21:1] § 13. This part of the letter is only extant in the Latin
version. Its words are: "De ipso Ignatio, et _de his qui cum eo sunt_,
quod certius agnoveritis, significate." Dr. Lightfoot admits that "it
was made from an older form of the Greek" than any of the existing Greek
MSS., vol. ii. § ii. p. 201. He vainly tries to prove that the words
"qui cum eo sunt" must be a mistranslation. They do not suit his theory.
They imply that Ignatius and his party were still living when the letter
was written.

[21:3] See Dr. Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 23, and Zahn, _Ignatius von
Antiochien_, pp. 28 and 401.

[21:4] This road was several hundred miles in length.

[22:2] Vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 921, note.

[23:1] "Si quis vadit ad Syriam, deferat literas meas, quas fecero
ad vos." This is the reading of the old Latin version, which, as Dr.
Lightfoot tells us, "is sometimes useful for correcting the text of the
extant Greek MSS." Vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 901. Even some of the Greek MSS.
read, not [Greek: par humon] but [Greek: par haemon]. This reading is
found in some copies of Eusebius and in Nicephorus, and is followed by
Rufinus. See Jacobson, _Pat. Apost._ ii. 488, note.

[24:1] The apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem directed their
letters to the brethren "in _Antioch_, and Syria, and Cilicia," Acts xv.
23; but, according to Dr. Lightfoot and his supporters, Ignatius ignores
his own city, though one of the greatest in the empire, and remembers
only the province to which it belonged!

[25:1] Epistle to Polycarp, § 7.

[26:1] The words may be literally translated, "If any one is going to
Syria, he might convey to you my letters which I shall have finished,"
that is, which I have ready. Friendly letters were then generally much
longer than in our day, as the opportunities of transmitting them were
few; and much longer time was occupied in their preparation.

[27:1] [Greek: Psuria]--see the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, by J. B.
Friedreich, p. 64. Erlangen 1856. It is mentioned by Homer in the
_Odyssey_, lib. iii. 171. See also Dunbar's _Greek Lexicon_, art.
[Greek: Psuria].

[27:2] Mr. Gladstone has remarked that "the [Greek: Suriae naesos], or
Syros, has the same bearing in respect to Delos as [Greek: Psuriae] in
respect to Chios."--_Studies on Homer_, vol. iii. 333, note.

[28:1] See Homer, _Odyssey_, xv. 402. See the note in the _Odyssey_, by
F. H. Rothe, pp. 233-34. Leipsic 1834. In the Latin version of Strabo
we have these words: "Videtur sub-Syriae nomine mentionem facere Homerus
his quidem verbis:--

   'Ortygiam supra Syria est quaedam insula.'"

Strabo, _Rer. Geog._ lib. x. p. 711. Oxford 1807. The passage in Homer
is thus rendered by Chapman:--

  "There is an isle above Ortygia,
   If thou hast heard, they call it Syria."

The present inhabitants of this island call themselves [Greek: Surianoi]
or Syrians. See Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography_, art.
"Syros."

[28:2] Bingham's _Origines Ecclesiasticae_, iii. 196. London 1840.

[28:3] Smith's _Assyrian Discoveries_, p. 22. London 1875.

[29:1] Smith, p. 21.

[29:2] Dr. Lightfoot imagines that he has discovered a wonderful
confirmation of his views in the word "likewise" which here occurs (vol.
i. p. 574). It is not easy to see the force of his argument; but, with
the explanations given in the text, the word has peculiar significance.
It implies that whilst the messenger was to carry the letters from
Smyrna to Syria, he was _also_, or likewise, to bring back Smyrna the
letters sent to Syria from Philippi.

[30:1] Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, § 11.

[30:2] Zahn speaks of the mission to Antioch as "senseless, even
considering the time of the year."--_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 287.

[34:1] I was myself so much impressed at one time by Dr. Lightfoot's
reasoning in the _Contemporary Review_ (May 1875), that I actually
adopted his reckoning as to the date of Polycarp's death in a late
edition of my _Ancient Church_; but, on more mature consideration, I
have found it to be quite untenable.

[34:2] Vol. i. p. 629.

[34:3] Vol. i. pp. 629, 630.

[35:1] Vol. i. p. 630.

[37:1] Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 632.

[37:2] _Ibid._

[37:3] Vol. i. p. 148.

[37:4] _Vita Malchi_, Opera iv. pp. 90, 91. Paris 1706.

[38:1] Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, by Plummer, pp. 79, 80.
Edinburgh 1876.

[38:2] Vol. i. p. 633.

[39:1] Dr. Lightfoot is not supported in his chronology by his favourite
Zahn, who places the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp after the death
of Peregrinus, in A.D. 165.--_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 517.

[40:1] Vol. i. p. 451.

[40:2] Vol. i. p. 635.

[41:1] Vol. i. p. 640.

[41:2] Vol. i. pp. 639, 640.

[42:1] Vol. i. 610.

[42:2] _Ibid._ Even the manuscript authorities of this postscript differ
as to the name. According to some, the prenomen was _Statius_; according
to others, _Stratius_; according to another, _Tatius_; whilst in another
the name is omitted altogether. See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 656, note;
vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 984; see also Jacobson, ii. p. 593.

[43:1] It is probable that the postscript was written many years after
the event; and, under these circumstances, the writer may have mistaken
the name of the proconsul at the time. Eusebius seems to have known
nothing of this postscript, and it is now impossible to tell when it was
added.

[43:2] Ummidius Quadratus, in A.D. 167, was associated with the Emperor
Lucius Verus in the consulship; and it would appear that about A.D.
169--on the ground of exceptional ability and influence--he was
appointed to the proconsulship of Asia.

[43:3] Vol. i. pp. 460, 463. In another case we find the proconsul
_Sergius_ Paulus styled incorrectly _Servillius_ Paullus, vol. i. p.
494. See also i. p. 508.

[44:1] It is stated in this same postscript, that "Philip of Tralles was
high priest," or Asiarch, at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp.
From this fact Dr. Lightfoot has endeavoured to derive support for his
chronology. His argument is, however, quite inconclusive. The dignity
of Asiarch could be enjoyed only by the very rich, as none others could
sustain the expense of it; and the same individual might hold it for
years together, as well as again and again. The Philip of whom Dr.
Lightfoot speaks, had a son of the same name, who may also have been
high priest or Asiarch. See Lightfoot, vol. i. pp. 612, 613, 615, 616.

[44:2] Euseb. iv.

[45:1] Vol. i. p. 443.

[45:2] Vol. i. p. 343.

[45:3] Vol. i. pp. 443-44.

[46:1] Vol. i. p. 510.

[46:2] § 2.

[46:3] See Neander, i. p. 147. Edinburgh 1847.

[46:4] Neander, i. p. 146.

[47:1] Antoninus Pius became emperor in A.D. 138.--Lightfoot, i. p. 703.
Hadrian died on the 10th of July of that year.--_Ibid._

[47:2] Book iv. 10.

[47:3] Book iv. 11. Dr. Lightfoot states that Eusebius had lists of
Roman and Alexandrian bishops, "giving the lengths of their respective
terms of office," vol. ii. sec. i. p. 451. It is said that Hippolytus
was the first who ever made a chronological list of the Bishops of
Rome.--Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, p. 337.

[50:1] § 8, 9.

[50:2] Vol. i. p. 703.

[50:3] Vol. i. p. 650.

[51:1] Vol. i. p. 273.

[53:1] _Contra Haer._ lib. v. c. 28. §4.

[54:1] Dr. Lightfoot seems to have been in a condition of strange
forgetfulness when he asks, "Why does not Irenaeus quote Polycarp's
Epistle?"--vol. i. p. 328. The simple answer is that he mentions the
Epistle, and quotes Polycarp by name as a witness against the heretics.
_Contra Haer._ book iii. c. 3. § 4.

[55:1] Eusebius, v. c. i. The writer here mentions a number of
individuals by name, who were at this time "led into the amphitheatre to
the wild beasts."

[55:2] Professor Harnack says: "If we do not retain the Epistle of
Polycarp, then we must allow that _the external evidence on behalf
of the Ignatian Epistles is exceedingly weak, and hence is highly
favourable to the suspicion that they are spurious."--Expositor_ for
Jan. 1886, p. 11. We have seen, however, that the Epistle of Polycarp
furnishes no evidence in their favour. See Chap. II.

[56:1] Vol. i. p. 578.

[57:1] Vol. i. p. 579.

[57:2] Vol. i. p. 580.

[57:3] Vol. i. p. 39.

[57:4] Vol. i. p. 583.

[57:5] To the Trallians, § 10.

[58:1] To the Romans, § 5.

[58:2] To the Trallians, § 4.

[58:3] To the Smyrnaeans, § 4.

[58:4] To the Romans, § 4.

[58:5] Letter of the Smyrnaeans relating to the death of Polycarp, § 4.

[58:6] To the Smyrnaeans, § 9.

[58:7] Polycarp to the Philippians, Section § 1, 5, 10.

[58:8] § 4, 6.

[59:1] To the Philad. § 3. To the Smyrnaeans, § 9. To Polycarp, § 6.

[59:2] _The Ancient Church_, Period II. sec. ii. chap. ii., iii.

[59:3] _Epistle to the Philippians_, pp. 181-269.

[60:1] Vol. i. p. 377.

[60:2] 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 5.

[61:1] Acts xx. 28, 31.

[61:2] 1 Tim. iv. 14.

[62:1] _Comment. in Titum_.

[62:2] Gal. ii. 9.

[63:1] _Philippians._ Essay, pp. 216, 218.

[63:2] Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, here completely mistakes the date
of the Epistle of Polycarp.

[63:3] _Philippians_, p. 226.

[63:4] _Ibid._ p. 227.

[63:5] _Ibid._ p. 226.

[64:1] See my _Ancient Church_, 4th edition, pp. 470-71. New York 1883.

[64:2] Vol. i. p. 377.

[64:3] It is quite clear that the bishops of whom Irenaeus speaks were
not a distinct order from presbyters. Thus he says, "It is incumbent
to obey the _presbyters_ who are in the Church, those who possess the
succession from the apostles, and who together with the _succession
of the episcopate_ have received the certain gift of truth." ... "It
behoves us ... to adhere to those who ... hold the doctrine of the
apostles, and who, together with _the order of the presbytery_, display
sound speech and blameless conduct."--_Contra Haer._ lib. iv. c. 26, §
2, 4.

[65:1] _Irenicum_, part ii. chap. 7.

[65:2] _Contra Haer._ iii. 3, 4.

[65:3] "It is," says he, "at all events _not likely_," vol. i. p. 425.

[66:1] 1 Tim. i. 18.

[66:2] If he was eighty-six years of age at the time of his martyrdom in
A.D. 169, he was born A.D. 83.

[67:1] Even Eusebius has given some countenance to this practice. See
his _Evangelical Preparation_, xii. c. 31.

[68:1] Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, p. 113.

[69:1] § 9. See this letter in Appendix II.

[70:1] Vol. i. p. 383. It is worthy of note that, in this Epistle to the
Romans, Antioch is not named. Ignatius speaks of himself as "the bishop
from Syria," § 2. He thus seeks to identify himself with the Ignatius
mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, who speaks of sending letters to
Syria.

[71:1] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 186.

[72:1] Lightfoot, vol. ii. sec. i. pp. 435, 445.

[72:2] Vol. i. p. 46.

[73:1] Euseb. v. c. 24.

[74:1] Eph. § 6; Magn. § 6.

[74:2] Rom. § 4.

[74:3] Eph. § 12; Rom. § 4; Trallians, § 3.

[74:4] Eph. § 9.

[75:1] Polycarp, § 6.

[75:2] Smyrnaeans, § 5; Philad. § 6.

[75:3] _Philosophumena_, Book IX.

[75:4] Eph. § 1.

[75:5] Rom. § 6.

[76:1] Vol. i. p. 329.

[76:2] Philippians, p. 236.

[77:1] Cyprian could not sympathize with this Ignatius in his passion
for martyrdom. The Bishop of Carthage incurred some odium by retiring to
a place of safety in a time of persecution.

[77:2] Philippians, Essay 237.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.