{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8908/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8908","id":"gutenberg_8908","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8908","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Ignatius, Saint, Bishop of Antioch, -approximately 110 -- Authorship","Ignatius, Saint, Bishop of Antioch, -approximately 110. Correspondence. Polyglot","Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, 1828-1889"],"text":"Produced by Freethought Archives\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.\n\nA Reply to The Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham.\n\nBy W. D. Killen, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Principal\nof the Presbyterian Theological Faculty, Ireland.\n\n\n    \"As the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius may be justly\n     suspected, so, too, the letters which presuppose the correctness\n     of this suspicious legend do not wear at all a stamp of a distinct\n     individuality of character, and of a man of these times addressing\n     his last words to the Churches.\"\n     --AUGUSTUS NEANDER.\n\n\nEDINBURGH\n\n\n1886.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis little volume is respectfully submitted to the candid consideration\nof all who take an interest in theological inquiries, under the\nimpression that it will throw some additional light on a subject which\nhas long created much discussion. It has been called forth by the\nappearance of a treatise entitled, \"_The Apostolic Fathers_, Part II.\nS. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes,\nDissertations, and Translations, by J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D,\nBishop of Durham.\" In this voluminous production the Right Reverend\nAuthor has maintained, not only that all the seven letters attributed by\nEusebius to Ignatius are genuine, but also that \"no Christian writings\nof the second century, and very few writings of antiquity, whether\nChristian or pagan, are so well authenticated.\" These positions,\nadvocated with the utmost confidence by the learned prelate, are sure to\nbe received with implicit confidence by a wide circle of readers; and I\nhave felt impelled here openly to protest against them, inasmuch as I\nam satisfied that they cannot be accepted without overturning all the\nlegitimate landmarks of historical criticism. I freely acknowledge\nthe eminent services which Dr. Lightfoot has rendered to the Christian\nChurch by his labours as a Commentator on Scripture, and it is\ntherefore all the more important that the serious errors of a writer so\ndistinguished should not be permitted to pass unchallenged. All who love\nthe faith once delivered to the saints, may be expected to regard\nwith deference the letters of a martyr who lived on the borders of the\napostolic age; but these Ignatian Epistles betray indications of a very\ndifferent original, for they reveal a spirit of which no enlightened\nChristian can approve, and promulgate principles which would sanction\nthe boldest assumptions of ecclesiastical despotism. In a work published\nby me many years ago, I have pointed out the marks of their imposture;\nand I have since seen no cause to change my views. Regarding all these\nletters as forgeries from beginning to end, I have endeavoured, in the\nfollowing pages, to expose the fallacy of the arguments by which Dr.\nLightfoot has attempted their vindication.\n\nASSEMBLY COLLEGE, BELFAST,\n\nJuly 1886.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.\n\nThe critical spirit stimulated by the Reformation--The Ignatian Epistles\nas regarded by Calvin, Ussher, Vossius, Daill\u00e9, Pearson, Wake, and\nCureton--Dr. Lightfoot as a scholar and a commentator--The valuable\ninformation supplied in his recent work--His estimate of the parties who\nhave pronounced judgment on the question of the Ignatian Epistles--His\nverdict unfair--His introduction of Lucian as a witness in his\nfavour--The story of Peregrinus--Dr. Lightfoot's cardinal mistake in his\ntreatment of this question.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.\n\nDr. Lightfoot makes a most unguarded statement as to the Ignatian\nEpistles--The letter of Polycarp better authenticated--The date assigned\nfor the martyrdom of Ignatius--The date of Polycarp's Epistle--Written\nin the reign of Marcus Aurelius--Not written in the reign of Trajan--The\nEpistle of Polycarp has no reference to Ignatius of Antioch--It refers\nto another Ignatius of another age and country--It was written at a\ntime of persecution--The postscript to the letter of Polycarp quite\nmisunderstood--What is meant by letters being carried to Syria--Psyria\nand Syria, two islands in the Aegaean Sea--The errors of transcribers of\nthe postscript--The true meaning of the postscript--What has led to\nthe mistake as to the claims of the Ignatian Epistles--The continued\npopularity of these Epistles among High Churchmen.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.\n\nDr. Lightfoot's strange reasoning on this subject--The testimony of\nEusebius, Jerome, and others--Eusebius and Jerome highly competent\nwitnesses--Dr. D\u00f6llinger's estimate of Jerome--The basis on which\nDr. Lightfoot rests the whole weight of his chronological\nargument--Aristides and his _Sacred Discourses_--Statius Quadratus, the\nconsuls and proconsuls--Ummidius Quadratus--Polycarp martyred in the\nreign of Marcus Aurelius--His visit to Rome in the time of Anicetus--Put\nto death when there was only one emperor--Age of Polycarp at the time of\nhis martyrdom--The importance of the chronological argument.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.\n\nThe testimony of Irenaeus quite misunderstood--Refers to the dying\nwords of one of the martyrs of Lyons--The internal evidence against the\ngenuineness of the Ignatian Epistles--The contrast between the Epistle\nof Polycarp and the Ignatian Epistles as exhibited by Dr. Lightfoot\nhimself--Additional points of contrast--Dr. Lightfoot quite mistaken\nas to the origin of Prelacy--It did not originate in the East, or Asia\nMinor, but in Rome--The argument from the cases of Timothy and Titus\nuntenable--Jerome's account of the origin of Prelacy--James not the\nfirst bishop of Jerusalem--In the early part of the second century\nthe Churches of Rome, Corinth, and Smyrna were Presbyterian--Irenaeus\nconceals the origin of Prelacy--Coins the doctrine of the apostolical\nsuccession--The succession cannot be determined even in Rome--Testimony\nof Stillingfleet--In what sense Polycarp may have been constituted a\nbishop by the apostles.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.\n\nWe have no positive historical information as to the origin of the\nIgnatian Epistles--First saw the light in the early part of the third\ncentury--Such forgeries then common--What was then thought by many as to\npious frauds--Callistus of Rome probably concerned in the fabrication of\nthe Ignatian Epistles--His remarkable history--The Epistle to the\nRomans first forged--It embodies the credentials of the rest--Montanism\nstimulated the desire for martyrdom--The prevalence of this mania early\nin the third century--The Ignatian Epistles present it in its most\noutrageous form--The Epistle to the Romans must have been very popular\nat Rome--Doubtful whether Ignatius was martyred at Rome--The Ignatian\nEpistles intended to advance the claims of Prelacy--Well fitted to do\nso at the time of their appearance--The account of Callistus given\nby Hippolytus--The Ignatian letters point to Callistus as their\nauthor--Cannot have been written in the beginning of the second\ncentury--Their doctrine that of the Papacy.\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nI.--Letter of Dr. Cureton.\n\nII.--The Ignatian Epistle to the Romans.\n\n\nENDNOTES\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.\n\n\nThe question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius\nof Antioch has continued to awaken interest ever since the period of the\nReformation. That great religious revolution gave an immense impetus\nto the critical spirit; and when brought under the light of its\nexamination, not a few documents, the claims of which had long passed\nunchallenged, were summarily pronounced spurious. Eusebius, writing in\nthe fourth century, names only seven letters as attributed to Ignatius;\nbut long before the days of Luther, more than double that number were in\ncirculation. Many of these were speedily condemned by the critics of the\nsixteenth century. Even the seven recognised by Eusebius were regarded\nwith grave suspicion; and Calvin--who then stood at the head of\nProtestant theologians--did not hesitate to denounce the whole of them\nas forgeries. The work, long employed as a text-book in Cambridge and\nOxford, was the _Institutes_ of the Reformer of Geneva; [Endnote 2:1]\nand as his views on this subject are there proclaimed very emphatically,\n[2:2] we may presume that the entire body of the Ignatian literature\nwas at that time viewed with distrust by the leaders of thought in\nthe English universities. But when the doctrine of the Divine Right\nof Episcopacy began to be promulgated, the seven letters rose in the\nestimation of the advocates of the hierarchy; and an extreme desire was\nmanifested to establish their pretensions. So great was the importance\nattached to their evidence, that in 1644--in the very midst of the\ndin and confusion of the civil war between Charles I. and his\nParliament--the pious and erudite Archbishop Ussher presented the\nliterary world with a new edition of these memorials. Two years later\nthe renowned Isaac Vossius produced a kindred publication. Some time\nafterwards, Daill\u00e9, a learned French Protestant minister, attacked them\nwith great ability; and proved, to the satisfaction of many readers,\nthat they are utterly unworthy of credit. Pearson, subsequently Bishop\nof Chester, now entered the arena, and in a work of much talent and\nresearch--the fruit of six years' labour--attempted to restore their\nreputation. This vindication was not permitted to pass without an\nanswer; but, meanwhile, the dark prospects of the Reformed faith\nin England and the Continent directed attention to matters of more\nabsorbing interest, and the controversy was discontinued. From time to\ntime, however, these Epistles were kept before the eyes of the public by\nArchbishop Wake and other editors; and more recently the appearance of a\nSyriac copy of three of them--printed under the supervision of the late\nRev. Dr. Cureton--reopened the discussion. Dr. Cureton maintained\nthat his three Epistles are the only genuine remains of the pastor\nof Antioch. In a still later publication, [3:1] Bishop Lightfoot\ncontroverts the views of Dr. Cureton, and makes a vigorous effort to\nuphold the credit of the seven letters quoted by Eusebius and supported\nby Pearson. Dr. Lightfoot has already acquired a high and deserved\nreputation as a scholar and a commentator, and the present work\nfurnishes abundant evidence of his linguistic attainments and his\nperseverance; but it is somewhat doubtful whether it will add to\nhis fame as a critic and a theologian. In these three portly octavo\nvolumes--extending to upwards of 1800 pages of closely printed\nmatter--he tries to convince his readers that a number of the silliest\nproductions to be found among the records of antiquity, are the remains\nof an apostolic Father. He tells us, in his preface, that the subject\nhas been before him \"for nearly thirty years;\" and that, during this\nperiod, it has \"engaged his attention off and on in the intervals of\nother literary pursuits and official duties.\" Many, we apprehend, will\nfeel that the result is not equal to such a vast expenditure of time\nand labour; and will concur with friends who, as he informs us, have\ncomplained to him that he has thus \"allowed himself to be diverted from\nthe more congenial task of commenting on S. Paul's Epistles.\" There is\nnot, we presume, an evangelical minister in Christendom who would not\nprotest against the folly exhibited in these Ignatian letters; and yet\nit appears that the good Bishop of Durham has spent a large portion of\nhis life in an attempt to accomplish their vindication.\n\nTo Dr. Lightfoot may be justly awarded the praise of having here made\nthe reading public acquainted with the various manuscripts and versions\nof these Ignatian letters, as well as with the arguments which may be\nurged in their favour; and he has thus rendered good service to the\ncause of historical criticism. Professor Harnack, in a late number of\nthe _Expositor_ [4:1], states no more than the truth when he affirms\nthat \"this work is the most learned and careful Patristic Monograph\nwhich has appeared in the nineteenth century.\" To any one who wishes to\nstudy the Ignatian controversy, it supplies a large amount of valuable\nevidence, not otherwise easily accessible. Some, indeed, may think that,\nwithout any detriment to ecclesiastical literature, some of the matter\nwhich has helped to swell the dimensions of these volumes might have\nbeen omitted. Everything in any way associated with the name of Ignatius\nseems to have a wonderful fascination for the learned prelate. Not\ncontent with publishing and commending what he considers the genuine\nproductions of the apostolic Father, he here edits and annotates letters\nwhich have long since been discredited by scholars of all classes, and\nwhich he himself confesses to be apocryphal. The _Acts of Martyrdom of\nIgnatius_--which he also acknowledges to be a mere bundle of fables--he\ntreats with the same tender regard. Nor is this all. He gives these\nacts, or large portions of them, in Latin and Greek, as well as\nin Coptic and Syriac; and annotates them in addition. He supplies,\nlikewise, English translations. It may be argued, that the publication\nof such a mass of legendary rubbish is necessary to enable the student\nto form a correct judgment on the merits of the subject in debate; but\nsurely the question might be settled without the aid of some of these\nauxiliaries.\n\nDr. Lightfoot has long been known as one of the most candid and\npainstaking of scriptural commentators; but it must always be remembered\nthat he is an Episcopalian, and the ruler of an English diocese. He\nwould be something almost more than human, were he to hold up the scales\nof testimony with strict impartiality when weighing the claims of his\nown order. It strikes us that, in the work before us, his prejudices and\npredilections reveal their influence more conspicuously than in any of\nhis other publications. He can see support for his views in words and\nphrases where an ordinary observer can discover nothing of the kind;\nand he can close his eyes against evidence which others may deem very\nsatisfactory. Even when appraising the writers who have taken part in\nthis controversy, he has presented a very one-sided estimate. He\nspeaks of those who reject the claims of these Epistles as forming\n\"a considerable list of _second and third rate_ names;\" [6:1] and he\nmentions Ussher and Bentley among those who espouse his sentiments.\nAccording to our author, there cannot be a \"shadow of doubt\" that the\nseven Vossian Epistles \"represent the genuine Ignatius.\" [6:2] \"No\nChristian writings of the second century,\" says he, \"and very few\nwritings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well\nauthenticated.\" [6:3] He surely cannot imagine that Ussher would have\nendorsed such statements; for he knows well that the Primate of Armagh\ncondemned the Epistle to Polycarp as a forgery. He has still less reason\nto claim Bentley as on his side. On authority which Bishop Monk, the\nbiographer of Bentley, deemed well worthy of acceptance, it is stated\nthat in 1718, \"on occasion of a Divinity Act,\" the Master of Trinity\nCollege, Cambridge, \"made a speech _condemning_ the Epistles of S.\nIgnatius.\" His address created a \"great ferment\" in the university.\n[7:1] It is further reported that Bentley \"refused to hear the\nRespondent who attempted to reply.\" We might have expected such a\ndeliverance from the prince of British critics; for, with the intuition\nof genius, he saw the absurdity of recognising these productions as\nproceeding from a Christian minister who had been carefully instructed\nby the apostles. Bentley's refusal to hear the Respondent who attempted\nto reply to him, was exactly in keeping with his well-known dictatorial\ntemper. Does Dr. Lightfoot bring forward any evidence to contradict this\npiece of collegiate history? None whatever. He merely treats us to a few\nof his own _conjectures_, which simply prove his anxiety to depreciate\nits significance. And yet he ventures to parade the name of Bentley\namong those of the scholars who contend for the genuineness of these\nletters! He deals after the same fashion with the celebrated Porson.\nIn a letter to the author of this review [7:2], Dr. Cureton states that\nPorson \"rejected\" these letters \"in the form in which they were\nput forth by Ussher and Vossius;\" and declares that this piece of\ninformation was conveyed to himself by no less competent an authority\nthan Bishop Kaye. Dr. Lightfoot meets this evidence by saying that \"the\n_obiter dictum_ even of a Porson,\" in the circumstances in which it was\ngiven, might be \"of little value.\" [7:3] It was given, however, exactly\nin the circumstances in which the speaker was best prepared to deliver a\nsound verdict, for it was pronounced after the great critic had read the\n_Vindiciae_ of Pearson.\n\nIt would be hopeless to attempt to settle a disputed question of\ncriticism by enumerating authorities on different sides, as, after all,\nthe value of these authorities would be variously discounted. We\nmust seek to arrive at truth, not by quoting names, but by weighing\narguments. Not a few, however, whose opinion may be entitled to some\nrespect, will not be prepared to agree with Bishop Lightfoot when he\naffirms that those who reject these Ignatian letters are, with few\nexceptions, only to be found in the \"list of second and third rate\nnames\" in literature. [8:1] We have seen that Bentley and Porson\ndisagree with him--and he can point to no more eminent critics in the\nwhole range of modern scholarship. If Daill\u00e9 must be placed in the\nsecond rank, surely Pearson may well be relegated to the same position;\nfor there is most respectable proof that his _Vindiciae_, in reply to\nthe treatise of the French divine, was pronounced by Porson to be\na \"very unsatisfactory\" performance. [8:2] \"The most elaborate\nand ingenious portion of the work\" is, as Bishop Lightfoot himself\nconfesses, \"the least satisfactory.\" [8:3] Dr. Lightfoot, we believe,\nwill hardly pretend to say that Vossius, Bull, and Waterland stand\nhigher in the literary world than Salmasius, John Milton, and Augustus\nNeander; and he will greatly astonish those who are acquainted with the\nhistory and writings of one of the fathers of the Reformation, if he\nwill contend that John Calvin must be placed only in the second or third\nclass of Protestant theologians. In the presence of the great doctor of\nGeneva, Hammond, Grotius, Zahn, and others whom Dr. Lightfoot has named\nas his supporters, may well hide their diminished heads.\n\nIn the work before us the Bishop of Durham has pretty closely followed\nPearson, quoting his explanations and repeating his arguments. Some\nof these are sufficiently nebulous. Professor Harnack--who has already\nreviewed his pages in the _Expositor_, and who, to a great extent,\nadheres to the views which they propound--admits, notwithstanding, that\nhe has \"overstrained\" his case, and has adduced as witnesses writers of\nthe second and third centuries of whom it is impossible to prove that\nthey knew anything of the letters attributed to Ignatius. [9:1] As a\nspecimen of the depositions which Dr. Lightfoot has pressed into his\nservice, we may refer to the case of Lucian. That author wrote about\nsixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and his\nLordship imagines that in one of his works he can trace allusions to the\npastor of Antioch under the fictitious name of Peregrinus. \"Writing,\"\nsays he \"soon after A.D. 165,\" Lucian \"caricatures the progress of\nIgnatius through Asia Minor in his death of Peregrinus.\" [9:2] This\nPeregrinus was certainly an odd character. Early in life he had murdered\nhis own father, and for this he was obliged to make his escape from his\ncountry. Wandering about from place to place, he identified himself with\nthe Christians, gained their confidence, and became, as is alleged, a\ndistinguished member of their community. His zeal in their cause\nsoon exposed him to persecution, and he was thrown into prison. His\nincarceration added greatly to his fame. His co-religionists, including\nwomen and children, were seen from morning to night lingering about the\nplace of his confinement; he was abundantly supplied with food; and\nthe large sums of money, given to him as presents, provided him with\nan ample revenue. After his release he forfeited the favour of his\nChristian friends, and became a Cynic philosopher; but he could not\nbe at peace. He at length resolved to immortalize himself by voluntary\nmartyrdom. Meanwhile he despatched letters to many famous cities,\ncontaining laws and ordinances; and appointed certain of his\ncompanions--under the name of death-messengers--to scatter abroad these\nmissives. Finally, at the close of the Olympian games he erected a\nfuneral pile; and when it was all ablaze, he threw himself into it, and\nperished in the flames. \"There is very strong reason for believing\" says\nDr. Lightfoot, \"that Lucian has drawn his picture, at least in part,\nfrom the known circumstances of Ignatius' history.\" [10:1] The bishop\nreturns again and again to the parallelism between Ignatius and\nPeregrinus, and appears to think it furnishes an argument of singular\npotency in favour of the disputed Epistles. \"Second only,\" says he,\nto certain other vouchers, which he produces, \"stands this testimony.\"\n[11:1] From such a sample the judicious reader may form some idea of the\nconclusiveness of the bishop's reasoning. Peregrinus begins life as a\nparricide, and dies like a madman; and yet we are asked to believe that\nLucian has thus sketched the history of an apostolic Father! When Lucian\nwrote, Ignatius had been dead about sixty years; but the pagan satirist\nsought to amuse the public by sketching the career of an individual whom\nhe had himself heard and seen, [11:2] and who must have been well known\nto many of his readers. About the middle of the second century the\nChurch was sorely troubled by false teachers, especially of the Gnostic\ntype; and it may have been that some adventurer, of popular gifts and\nprofessing great zeal in the Christian cause, contrived to gather around\nhim a number of deluded followers, who, for a time, adhered to him with\nwonderful enthusiasm. It may be that it is this charlatan to whom Lucian\npoints, and whose history he perhaps exaggerates. But there is nothing\nin the life of Peregrinus which can fairly be recognised even as a\ncaricature of the career of one of the most distinguished of the early\nChristian martyrs. Were we to maintain that the pagan satirist was\nreferring to the Apostle John, we might be able to show almost as many\npoints of resemblance. The beloved disciple travelled about through\nvarious countries; acquired a high reputation among the Christians; was\nimprisoned in the Isle of Patmos; wrote letters to the seven Churches of\nAsia; and was visited in his place of exile by angels or messengers, who\nprobably did not repair to him empty-handed. John died only a few years\nbefore Ignatius, and was connected with the same quarter of the globe.\nWe have, however, never yet heard that Lucian was suspected of alluding\nto the author of the Apocalypse. If Bishop Lightfoot thinks that he can\nconvince sensible men of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles by\nbringing forward such witnesses as Lucian and his hero Peregrinus, we\nbelieve he is very much mistaken. The argument is not original, for\nit is pressed with great confidence by his predecessor Pearson, and\nby others more recently. But its weakness is transparent. Professor\nHarnack, whilst admitting the weight of much of the evidence adduced in\nthese volumes, scornfully refuses to acknowledge its relevancy. \"Above\nall,\" says he, \"Lucian should be struck out. I confess I cannot imagine\nhow writers go on citing Lucian as a witness for the Epistles.\" [12:1]\nThere is, however, an old adage, \"Any port in a storm:\" and before the\nclose of this discussion it may perhaps be found that Lucian is as good\na harbour of refuge as can be furnished for the credit of the Ignatian\nEpistles in the whole of the second century.\n\nIt is obvious that, even according to his own account of the history of\nhis present work, Dr. Lightfoot has not entered on its preparation under\ncircumstances likely to result in a safe and unprejudiced verdict. \"_I\nnever once doubted_,\" says he in the preface, [13:1] \"that we possessed\nin one form or another the genuine letters of Ignatius.\" This is,\nhowever, the very first point to be proved; and the bishop has been\nlabouring throughout to make good a foregone conclusion. No wonder\nthat the result should be unsatisfactory. If he has built on a false\nfoundation, nothing else could be expected. There is not, we are\nsatisfied, a particle of solid evidence to show that Ignatius of Antioch\nleft behind him any writings whatever. This may be deemed a very bold\nstatement, but it is deliberately advanced. I hope, in a subsequent\nchapter, to demonstrate that it is not made without due consideration.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.\n\n\nThe Bishop of Durham affirms, in a passage already quoted, that \"no\nChristian writings of the second century, and very few writings of\nantiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so _well authenticated_\" as\nthe Epistles attributed to Ignatius. This assuredly is an astounding\nannouncement, made deliberately by a distinguished author, whose\nattention, for nearly thirty years, has been directed to the subject.\nThe letter of Polycarp to the Philippians is a writing of the second\ncentury, and it is by far the most important witness in support of the\nIgnatian letters; but we must infer, from the words just quoted, that\nit is not \"so well authenticated\" as they are. It is difficult to\nunderstand by what process of logic his Lordship has arrived at this\nconclusion. In an ordinary court of law, the witness who deposes to\ncharacter is expected to stand on at least as high a moral platform in\npublic estimation as the individual in whose favour he bears testimony;\nbut if the letter of Polycarp is not \"so well authenticated\" as these\nIgnatian letters, how can it be brought forward to establish their\nreputation? Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance connected with\nthis discussion. There was a time when, according to his own statement\nin the present work, Dr. Lightfoot \"accepted the Curetonian letters\nas representing the genuine Ignatius;\" [15:1] and, of course, when he\nregarded as forgeries the four others which he now acknowledges. In\nthe volumes before us, as if to make compensation for the unfavourable\nopinion which he once cherished, he advances the whole seven of the\nlarger edition to a position of especial honour. The letter of Polycarp,\nthe works of Justin Martyr, the treatise of Irenaeus _Against Heresies_,\nand other writings of the second century, have long sustained an honest\ncharacter; but now they must all take rank below the Ignatian Epistles.\nAccording to the Bishop of Durham, they are not \"so well authenticated.\"\n\nIn his eagerness to exalt the credit of these Ignatian letters, Dr.\nLightfoot, in his present publication, has obviously expressed himself\nmost incautiously. In point of fact, the letter of Polycarp, as a\ngenuine production of the second century, occupies an incomparably\nhigher position than the Ignatian Epistles. The internal evidence in\nits favour is most satisfactory. It is exactly such a piece of\ncorrespondence as we might expect from a pious and sensible Christian\nminister, well acquainted with the Scriptures, and living on the\nconfines of the apostolic age. It has, besides, all the external\nconfirmation we could desire. Irenaeus, who was personally well known to\nthe author, and who has left behind him the treatise _Against Heresies_\nalready mentioned, speaks therein of this letter in terms of high\napproval. \"There is,\" says he, \"a very sufficient Epistle of Polycarp\nwritten to the Philippians, from which those who desire it, and who care\nfor their own salvation, can learn both the character of his faith\nand the message of the truth.\" [16:1] Could such a voucher as this be\nproduced for the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and were the external\nevidence equally satisfactory, it would be absurd to doubt their\ngenuineness. But whilst the internal evidence testifies against them,\nthey are not noticed by any writer for considerably more than a century\nafter they are said to have appeared.\n\nThe date commonly assigned for the martyrdom of Ignatius, and\nconsequently for the writing of the letters ascribed to him, is\nthe ninth year of Trajan, corresponding to A.D. 107. This date, Dr.\nLightfoot tells us, is \"the one fixed element in the common tradition.\"\n[16:2] It is to be found in the _Chronicon Paschale_, and in the\nAntiochene and the Roman \"Acts,\" as well as elsewhere. [16:3] This\nsame date is assigned by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles for the\nwriting of Polycarp's letter. \"Only a few months at the outside,\" says\nDr. Lightfoot, \"probably only a few weeks, after these Ignatian Epistles\npurport to have been written, the Bishop of Smyrna himself addresses a\nletter to the Philippians.\" [17:1] In due course it will be shown that\nPolycarp was at this time only about four-and-twenty years of age; and\nany intelligent reader who pursues his Epistle can judge for himself\nwhether it can be reasonably accepted as the production of so very\nyouthful an author. It appears that it was dictated in answer to a\ncommunication from the Church at Philippi, in which he was requested\nto interpose his influence with a view to the settlement of some grave\nscandals which disturbed that ancient Christian community. Is it likely\nthat a minister of so little experience would have been invited to\nundertake such a service? The communication is rather such an outpouring\nof friendly counsel as befitted an aged patriarch. In a fatherly style\nhe here addresses himself to wives and widows, to young men and maidens,\nto parents and children, to deacons and presbyters. [17:2]\n\nThere are other indications in this letter that it cannot have been\nwritten at the date ascribed to it by the advocates of the Ignatian\nEpistles. It contains an admonition to \"pray for _kings_ (or _the_\nkings), _authorities_, and _princes_.\" [18:1] We are not at liberty to\nassume that these three names are precisely synonymous. By kings,\nor _the_ kings, we may apparently understand the imperial rulers; by\nauthorities, consuls, proconsuls, praetors, and other magistrates; and\nby princes, those petty sovereigns and others of royal rank to be found\nhere and there throughout the Roman dominions. [18:2] Dr. Lightfoot,\nindeed, argues that the translation adopted by some--\"_the_ kings\"--is\ninadmissible, as, according to his ideas, \"we have very good ground\nfor believing that the definite article had no place in the original.\"\n[18:3] He has, however, assigned no adequate reason why the article may\nnot be prefixed. His contention, that the expression \"pray for kings\"\nhas not \"anything more than a general reference,\" [18:4] cannot be\nwell maintained. In a case such as this, we must be, to a great extent,\nguided in our interpretation by the context; and if so, we may fairly\nadmit the article, for immediately afterwards Polycarp exhorts the\nPhilippians to pray for their persecutors and their enemies,--an\nadmonition which obviously has something more than \"a general\nreference.\" Such an advice would be inappropriate when persecution was\nasleep, and when no enemy was giving disturbance. But, at the date\nwhen Ignatius is alleged to have been martyred, Polycarp could not have\nexhorted the Philippians to pray for \"the kings,\" as there was then only\n_one_ sovereign ruling over the empire.\n\nThat this letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written at a time\nwhen persecution was rife, is apparent from its tenor throughout. If we\nexcept the case of Ignatius of Antioch--many of the tales relating\nto which Dr. Lightfoot himself rejects as fabulous [19:1]--we have no\nevidence that in A.D. 107 the Christians were treated with severity.\nThe Roman world was then under the mild government of Trajan, and the\ntroubles which afflicted the disciples in Bithynia, under Pliny, had not\nyet commenced. The emperor, so far as we have trustworthy information,\nhad hitherto in no way interfered with the infant Church. But in A.D.\n161 two sovereigns were in power, and a reign of terror was inaugurated.\nWe can therefore well understand why Polycarp, after exhorting his\ncorrespondents to pray for \"the kings,\" immediately follows up this\nadvice by urging them to pray for their persecutors and their enemies.\nIf by \"kings\" we here understand emperors, as distinguished from\n\"princes\" or inferior potentates, it must be obvious that Polycarp here\nrefers to the two reigning sovereigns. It so happened that, when two\nkings began to reign, persecution at once commenced; and the language of\nthe Epistle exactly befits such a crisis.\n\nThe whole strain of this letter points, not to the reign of Trajan,\nbut to that of Marcus Aurelius. Polycarp exhorts the Philippians \"to\npractise all endurance\" (\u00a7 9) in the service of Christ. \"If,\" says he,\n\"we should suffer for His name's sake, let us glorify Him\" (\u00a7 8).\nHe speaks of men \"encircled in saintly bonds;\" (\u00a7 1) and praises the\nPhilippians for the courage which they had manifested in sympathizing\nwith these confessors. He reminds them how, \"with their own eyes,\" they\nhad seen their sufferings (\u00a7 9). All these statements suggest times of\ntribulation. A careful examination of this letter may convince us that\nit contains no reference to the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of\nAntioch. Of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius, four are said to\nhave been written from _Smyrna_ and three from _Troas_. But the letters\nof which Polycarp speaks were written from neither of these places, but\nfrom _Philippi_. In the letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the\nmartyr describes himself as a solitary sufferer, hurried along by ten\nrough soldiers from city to city on his way to Rome; in the letter\nof Polycarp to the Philippians, Ignatius is only one among a crowd\nof victims, of whose ultimate destination the writer was ignorant. A\nconsiderable time after the party had left Philippi, Polycarp begs the\nbrethren there to tell him what had become of them. \"Concerning Ignatius\nhimself, and those _who are with him_, if,\" says he, \"ye have any\nsure tidings, certify us.\" [21:1] In the Ignatian Epistle addressed to\nPolycarp, he is directed to \"write to the Churches,\" to \"call together\na godly council,\" and \"to elect\" a messenger to be sent to Syria (\u00a77).\nPolycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, takes no notice of these\ninstructions. He had obviously never heard of them. It is indeed plain\nthat the letter of the Philippians to Polycarp had only a partial\nreference to the case of Ignatius and his companions. It was largely\noccupied with other matters; and to these Polycarp addresses himself in\nhis reply.\n\nThe simple solution of all these difficulties is to be found in the fact\nthat the Ignatius mentioned by Polycarp was a totally different person\nfrom the pastor of Antioch. He lived in another age and in another\ncountry. Ignatius or Egnatius--for the name is thus variously\nwritten--was not a very rare designation; [21:3] and in the\nneighbourhood of Philippi it seems to have been common. The famous\n_Egnatian_ road, [21:4] which passed through the place, probably derived\nits title originally from some distinguished member of the family.\nWe learn from the letter of Polycarp that _his_ Ignatius was a man of\nPhilippi. Addressing his brethren there, he says, \"I exhort you all,\ntherefore, to be obedient unto the word of righteousness, and to\npractise all endurance, which also ye saw with your own eyes in the\nblessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, and IN OTHERS ALSO AMONG\nYOURSELVES\" (Sec. 9). These words surely mean that the individuals\nhere named were men of Philippi. It is admitted that two of them,\nviz. Zosimus and Rufus, answered to this description; and in the Latin\nMartyrologies, as Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges, [22:2] they are\nsaid to have been natives of the town. It will require the introduction\nof some novel canon of criticism to enable us to avoid the conclusion\nthat Ignatius, their companion, is not to be classed in the same\ncategory.\n\nIt is well known that when Marcus Aurelius became emperor he inaugurated\na new system of persecution. Instead of at once consigning to death\nthose who boldly made a profession of Christianity, as had heretofore\nbeen customary in times of trial, he employed various expedients to\nextort from them a recantation. He threw them into confinement, bound\nthem with chains, kept them in lingering suspense, and subjected them\nto sufferings of different kinds, in the hope of overcoming their\nconstancy. It would seem that Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, and their\ncompanions were dealt with after this fashion. They were made prisoners,\nput in bonds, plied with torture under the eyes of the Philippians, and\ntaken away from the city, they knew not whither. It may be that they\nwere removed to Thessalonica, the residence of the Roman governor,\nthat they might be immured in a dungeon, to await there the Imperial\npleasure. It is pretty clear that they did not expect instant execution.\nWhen Polycarp wrote, he speaks of them as still living; and he is\nanxious to know what may yet betide them.\n\nLet us now call attention to another passage in this letter of Polycarp\nto the Philippians. Towards its close the following sentence appears\nsomewhat in the form of a postscript. \"Ye wrote to me, both ye\nyourselves and Ignatius, asking that if any one should go to Syria, he\n_might_ carry thither the letters _from you_.\" We have here the reading,\nand translation adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but it so happens that there\nis another reading perhaps, on the whole, quite as well supported by\nthe authority of versions and manuscripts. It may be thus rendered: \"Ye\nwrote to me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, suggesting that if any one\nis going to Syria, he might carry thither _my letters to you_.\" [23:1]\nThe sentence, as interpreted by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles,\nwears a strange and suspicious aspect. If Ignatius and the Philippians\nwished their letters to be carried to _Antioch_, why did they not say\nso? Syria was an extensive province,--much larger than all Ireland,--and\nmany a traveller might have been going there who would have found it\nquite impracticable to deliver letters in its metropolis. When there was\nno penny postage, and when letters of friendship were often carried by\nprivate hands, if an individual residing in the north or south of\nthe Emerald Isle had requested a correspondent in Bristol to send his\nletters by \"any one\" going over to Ireland, it would not have been\nextraordinary if the Englishman had received the message with amazement.\nCould \"any one\" passing over to Ireland be expected to deliver letters\nin Cork or Londonderry? There were many places of note in Syria far\ndistant from Antioch; and it was preposterous to propose that \"any one\"\ntravelling to that province should carry letters to its capital city. No\none can pretend to say that the whole, or even any considerable part of\nSyria, was under the ecclesiastical supervision of Ignatius; for, long\nafter this period, the jurisdiction of a bishop did not extend beyond\nthe walls of the town in which he dwelt. If Ignatius meant to have his\nletters taken to _Antioch_, why vaguely say that they were to be carried\nto Syria? [24:1] Why not distinctly name the place of their destination?\nIt had long been the scene of his pastoral labours; and it might have\nbeen expected that its very designation would have been repeated by him\nwith peculiar interest. No good reason can be given why he should speak\nof Syria, and not of Antioch, as the place to which his letters were to\nbe transmitted. Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance associated\nwith the request mentioned in the postscript to this letter. If the\nPhilippians, or Ignatius, had sent letters to Polycarp addressed to the\nChurch of Antioch, was it necessary for them to say to him that they\nshould be forwarded? Would not his own common sense have directed him\nwhat to do? He was not surely such a dotard that he required to be told\nhow to dispose of these Epistles.\n\nIf we are to be guided by the statements in the Ignatian Epistles, we\nmust infer that the letters to be sent to Antioch were to be forwarded\nwith the utmost expedition. A council was to be called forthwith, and by\nit a messenger \"fit to bear the name of God's courier\" [25:1] was to be\nchosen to carry them to the Syrian metropolis. There are no such signs\nof haste or urgency indicated in the postscript to Polycarp's Epistle.\nThe letters of which he speaks could afford to wait until some one\nhappened to be travelling to Syria; and then, it is suggested, he\n_might_ take them along with him. If we adopt the reading to be found in\nthe Latin version, and which, from internal evidence, we may judge to\nbe a true rendering of the original, we are, according to the\ninterpretation which must be given to it by the advocates of the\nIgnatian Epistles, involved in hopeless bewilderment. If by Syria we\nunderstand the eastern province, what possibly can be the meaning of the\nwords addressed by Polycarp to the Philippians, \"If any one is going\nto Syria, he might _carry thither my letters to you_\"? [26:1] Any one\npassing from Smyrna to Philippi turns his face to the north-west, but\na traveller from Smyrna to Syria proceeds south-east, or in the exactly\nopposite direction. How could Polycarp hope to keep up a correspondence\nwith his brethren of Philippi, if he sent his letters to the distant\nEast by any one who might be going there?\n\nIt is pretty evident that the Latin version has preserved the true\noriginal of this postscript, and that the current reading, adopted by\nDr. Lightfoot and others, must be traced to the misapprehensions of\ntranscribers. Puzzled by the statement that letters from Polycarp to\nthe Philippians were to be sent to Syria, they have tried to correct the\ntext by changing [Greek: par haemon] into [Greek: par humon]--implying\nthat the letters were to be transmitted, not from Polycarp to the\nPhilippians, but from the Philippians to Antioch. A very simple\nexplanation may, however, remove this whole difficulty. If by Syria\nwe understand, not the great eastern province so called, but a little\nisland of similar name in the Aegaean Sea, the real bearing of the\nrequest is at once apparent. Psyria [27:1]--in the course of time\ncontracted into Psyra--lies a few miles west of Chios, [27:2] and is\nalmost directly on the way between Smyrna and Neapolis, the port-town\nof Philippi. A letter from Smyrna left there would be carried a\nconsiderable distance on its journey to Philippi. Some friendly hand\nmight convey it from thence to its destination. Psyria and Syria are\nwords so akin in sound that a transcriber of Polycarp's letter, copying\nfrom dictation, might readily mistake the one for the other; and thus\nan error creeping into an early manuscript may have led to all this\nperplexity. Letters in those days could commonly be sent only by special\nmessengers, or friends traveling abroad; and the Philippians had made\na suggestion to Polycarp as to the best mode of keeping up their\ncorrespondence. They had probably some co-religionists in Psyria; and\na letter sent there to one or other of them, could, at the earliest\nopportunity, be forwarded. But another explanation, perhaps quite as\nworthy of acceptance, may solve this mystery. Syria was the ancient name\nof another island in the Aegaean Sea, and one of the Cyclades. Though\nit is not so much as Psyria in the direct course between Smyrna and\nPhilippi, it is a place of greater celebrity and of more commercial\nimportance. Like Psyria, in the course of ages its name has been\ncontracted, and it is now known as Syra. Between it and Smyrna there has\nbeen much intercourse from time immemorial. It has been famous since\nthe days of Homer, [28:1] and it was anciently the seat of a bishop,\n[28:2]--an evidence that it must soon have had a Christian population.\nIt is at the present day the centre of an active trade; and a late\ndistinguished traveller has told us how, not many years ago, in an\nafternoon, he and his party \"left Syra, and next morning anchored\nin front of the town of Smyrna.\" [28:3] Syria is not, as has been\nintimated, in the direct route to Philippi; but the shortest way is not\nalways either the best or the most convenient. At present this place is\nthe principal port of the Greek archipelago; [29:1] and probably, in the\ndays of Polycarp, vessels were continually leaving its harbour for towns\non the opposite coasts of the Aegaean. A Christian merchant resident\nin Syria would thus have facilities for sending letters left with him\neither to Smyrna or Philippi. Ignatius or his friends may have heard of\nan offer from such a quarter to take charge of their correspondence,\nand may have accordingly made the suggestion noticed at the close of\nPolycarp's letter. As the island of Syria was well known to them all,\nthe Smyrnaeans could not have misunderstood the intimation.\n\nThis explanation throws light on another part of this postscript which\nhas long been embarrassing to many readers. After adverting to the\nrequest of Ignatius and the Philippians relative to the conveyance of\nthe letters, Polycarp adds, \"which request I will attend to if I get a\nfit opportunity, either personally, or by one whom I shall depute to\nact likewise on your behalf.\" [29:2] According to the current\ninterpretation, Polycarp here suggests the probability of a personal\nvisit to the eastern capital, if he could find no one else to undertake\nthe service. The occasion evidently called for no such piece of\nself-sacrifice on the part of this apostolic Father. The Church of\nAntioch, after the removal of its pastor Ignatius, was, we are assured,\ndelivered from farther trouble, and was now at peace. [30:1] The\npresence of the minister of Smyrna there was utterly unnecessary; [30:2]\nthe place was very far distant; and why then should he be called on to\nundertake a wearisome and expensive journey to Antioch and back again?\nPolycarp admits that his visit was not essential, and that a messenger\nmight do all that was required quite as well. But if by Syria we\nunderstand one of the Sporades or Cyclades, we are furnished with a\nready solution of this enigma. The little island of Psyria was distant\nfrom Smyrna only a few hours' sail; and as it was perhaps the residence\nof some of his co-religionists, Polycarp might soon require to repair\nto it in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties. He could then take\nalong with him, so far, the letters intended for Philippi. Or if by\nSyria we here understand the little island anciently so called, near\nthe centre of the Cyclades, the explanation is equally satisfactory. The\nletter of Polycarp was written, not as Dr. Lightfoot contends, in A.D.\n107 but, as we have seen, about A.D. 161, when, as the whole strain of\nthe Epistle indicates, he was far advanced in life. There is reason to\nbelieve that about this very juncture he was contemplating a journey to\nRome, that he might have a personal conference with its chief pastor,\nAnicetus. His appearance in the seat of Empire on that occasion created\na great sensation, and seems to have produced very important results.\nIf he now went there, any one who looks at the map may see that he must\npass Syria on the way. He could thus take the opportunity of leaving\nthere any letters for Philippi of which he might be the bearer. At a\nsubsequent stage of our discussion, this visit of Polycarp to Rome must\nagain occupy our attention.\n\nThe facts brought under the notice of the reader in this chapter may\nhelp him to understand how it has happened that so many have been\nbefooled by the claims of these Ignatian Epistles. A mistake as to\ntwo of the names mentioned in the letter of Polycarp, created, as will\nsubsequently appear, by the crafty contrivance of a manufacturer\nof spurious documents, has led to a vast amount of blundering and\nmisapprehension. Ignatius, a man of Philippi, has been supposed to be\nIgnatius, the pastor of Antioch; and Syria, the eastern province of the\nRoman Empire, has been confounded with Psyria or Syria--either of these\nnames representing an island in the Aegean Sea not far from Smyrna.\nIgnatius, the confessor of Philippi, when in bonds wrote, as we find,\na number of letters which were deemed worthy of preservation, but which\nhave long since perished; and some time afterwards an adroit forger,\nwith a view to the advancement of a favourite ecclesiastical system,\nconcocted a series of letters which he fathered upon Ignatius of\nAntioch. In an uncritical age the cheat succeeded; the letters were\nquite to the taste of many readers; and ever since they have been the\ndelight of High Churchmen. Popes and Protestant prelates alike have\nperused them with devout enthusiasm; and no wonder that Archbishop Laud,\nBishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Hall, and Archbishop Wake, have quoted\nIgnatius with applause. The letters ascribed to him are the title-deeds\nof their order. Even the worthy Bishop of Durham, who has never\npermitted himself to doubt that we possess in some form the letters of\nthe pastor of Antioch, has been the victim of his own credulity; and has\nbeen striving \"off and on\" for \"nearly thirty years\" to establish the\ncredit of Epistles which teach, in the most barefaced language the\ngospel of sacerdotal pretension and passive obedience.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.\n\n\nTo many it may appear that there can be no connection between the date\nof the martyrdom of Polycarp and the claims of the Ignatian Epistles.\nAll conversant with the history of this controversy must, however,\nbe aware that the question of chronology has entered largely into\nthe discussion. If we defer to the authority of the earliest and best\nwitnesses to whom we can appeal for guidance, it is impossible to remove\nthe cloud of suspicion which at once settles down on these letters.\nTheir advocates are aware of the chronological objection, and they have\naccordingly expended immense pains in trying to prove that Eusebius,\nJerome, and other writers of the highest repute have been mistaken. In\nhis recent work, the Bishop of Durham has exhausted the resources of his\nability and erudition in attempting to demonstrate that the only parties\nfrom whom we can fairly expect anything like evidence have all been\nmisinformed. He has secured a verdict in his favour from a number of\nreviewers, who have apparently at once given way before the formidable\narray of learned lore brought together in these volumes; [34:1] but,\nwithal, the intelligent reader who cautiously peruses and ponders the\nelaborate chapter in which he deals with this question, will feel rather\nmystified than enlightened by his argumentation. It may therefore be\nproper to state the testimony of the ancient Christian writers, and to\ndescribe the line of reasoning pursued by Dr. Lightfoot.\n\n\"The main source of opinion,\" says the bishop, \"respecting the year of\nPolycarp's death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been the\n_Chronicon_ of Eusebius ... After the seventh year of M. Aurelius,\nhe appends the notice, 'A persecution overtaking the Church, Polycarp\nunderwent martyrdom.' ... Eusebius is here assumed to date Polycarp's\nmartyrdom in the seventh year of M. Aurelius, _i.e._ A.D. 167.\"\n[34:2] Dr. Lightfoot then proceeds to observe that \"this inference is\nunwarrantable,\" inasmuch as \"the notice is not placed opposite to, but\n_after this year_.\" He adds that it \"is associated with the persecutions\nin Vienne and Lyons, which we know to have happened A.D. 177.\" [34:3]\nSo far the statement of the bishop is unobjectionable, and, according\nto his own showing, we might conclude that Polycarp suffered some time\nafter the seventh year of M. Aurelius. But this plain logical deduction\nwould be totally ruinous to the system of chronology which he advocates;\nand he is obliged to resort to a most outlandish assumption that he may\nget over the difficulty. He contends that Eusebius did not know at what\nprecise period these martyrdoms occurred. \"We can,\" says the bishop,\n\"only infer with safety that Eusebius _supposed_ Polycarp's martyrdom to\nhave happened _during the reign_ of M. Aurelius.\" \"As a matter of fact,\nthe Gallican persecutions took place some ten years later [than A.D.\n167], and therefore, so far as this notice goes, the martyrdom of\nPolycarp might have taken place _as many years earlier_.\" [35:1]\n\nThese extracts may give the reader some idea of the manner in which\nDr. Lightfoot proceeds to build up his chronological edifice. Eusebius\nplaces the martyrdom of Polycarp and the martyrdoms of Vienne and\nLyons after the seventh year of M. Aurelius; and therefore, argues Dr.\nLightfoot, he did not know when they occurred! Because the martyrdoms\nof Vienne and Lyons took place ten years after A.D. 167, therefore the\nmartyrdom at Smyrna may, for anything that the father of ecclesiastical\nhistory could tell, have been consummated in A.D. 157! Dr. Lightfoot\nhimself supplies proof that such an inference is inadmissible; for he\nacknowledges that, according to Eusebius, the pastor of Smyrna finished\nhis career in the reign of M. Aurelius. But, in A.D. 157, M. Aurelius\nwas not emperor. Such are the contradictions to which this writer\ncommits himself in attempting to change the times and the seasons.\n\nIt is quite clear that Eusebius laboured under no such uncertainty, as\nDr. Lightfoot would fondly persuade himself, relative to the date of\nthe martyrdom of Polycarp. He directs attention to the subject in his\n_History_ as well as in his _Chronicon_, and in both his testimony is to\nthe same effect. In both it is alleged that Polycarp was martyred in the\nreign of Marcus Aurelius. It must be remembered, too, that Eusebius was\nborn only about a century after the event; that from his youth he had\ndevoted himself to ecclesiastical studies; that he enjoyed the privilege\nof access to the best theological libraries in existence in his day;\nthat, from his position in the Church as bishop of the metropolis of\nPalestine, and as the confidential counselor of the Emperor Constantine,\nhe had opportunities of coming into personal contact with persons of\ndistinction from all countries, who must have been well acquainted with\nthe traditions of their respective Churches; and that he was a man of\nrare prudence, intelligence, and discernment. He was certainly not a\nphilosophical historian, and in his great work he has omitted to notice\nmany things of much moment; but it must be conceded that, generally\nspeaking, he is an accurate recorder of facts; and, in the case before\nus, he was under no temptation whatever to make a misleading statement.\nWe must also recollect that his testimony is corroborated by Jerome, who\nlived in the same century; who, at least in two places in his writings,\nreports the martyrdom; and who affirms that it occurred in the seventh\nyear of M. Aurelius. [37:1] Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, asserts that Jerome\n\"derived his knowledge from Eusebius,\" [37:2] and that, \"though well\nversed in works of Biblical exegesis, ... he was otherwise _extremely\nignorant_ of early Christian literature.\" [37:3] We have here unhappily\nanother of those rash utterances in which the Bishop of Durham indulges\nthroughout these volumes; for assuredly it is the very extravagance\nof folly to tax Jerome with \"extreme ignorance of early Christian\nliterature.\" Those who are acquainted with his writings will decline to\nsubscribe any such depreciatory certificate. He was undoubtedly bigoted\nand narrow-minded, but he had a most capacious memory; he had travelled\nin various countries; he had gathered a prodigious stock of information;\nhe was the best Christian scholar of his generation; he has preserved\nfor us the knowledge of not a few important facts which Eusebius has\nnot registered; and he at one time contemplated undertaking himself the\ncomposition of an ecclesiastical history. [37:4] We cannot, therefore,\nregard him as the mere copyist of the Bishop of Caesarea. \"Every one\nacquainted with the literature of the primitive Church,\" says Dr.\nD\u00f6llinger, \"knows that it is precisely in Jerome that we find _a more\nexact knowledge of the more ancient teachers_ of the Church, and that\nwe are indebted to him for more information about their teaching and\nwritings, than to any other of the Latin Fathers.\" [38:1] Dr. D\u00f6llinger\nis a Church historian whom even the Bishop of Durham cannot afford to\nignore,--as, in his own field of study, he has, perhaps, no peer in\nexistence,--and yet he here states explicitly, not certainly that Jerome\nwas extremely ignorant of early Christian literature, but that, in this\nvery department, he was specially well informed. The learned monk of\nBethlehem must have felt a deep interest in Polycarp as an apostolic\nFather: he was quite capable of testing the worth of the evidence\nrelative to the time of the martyrdom; and his endorsement of the\nstatement of Eusebius must be accepted as a testimony entitled to very\ngrave consideration. Some succeeding writers assign even a later period\nto the death of Polycarp. It is a weighty fact that no Christian author\nfor the first eight centuries of our era places it before the reign\nof M. Aurelius. The first writer who attaches to it an earlier date\nis Georgius Hamartolus, who flourished about the middle of the ninth\ncentury. Dr. Lightfoot confesses that what he says cannot be received as\nbased on \"any historical tradition or critical investigation.\" [38:2] It\nis, in fact, utterly worthless.\n\nThe manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array of evidence\nopposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does not attempt to\nshow that it is improbable in itself, or that there are any rebutting\ndepositions. He leaves it in its undiminished strength; but he raises\nsuch a cloud of learned dust around it, that the reader may well lose\nhis head, and be unable, for a time, to see the old chronological\nlandmarks. [39:1] He rests his case chiefly on a statement to be found\nin a postscript, of admittedly doubtful authority, appended to the\nletter of the Smyrnaeans relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He\nargues as if the authority for this statement were unimpeachable; and,\nevidently regarding it as the very key of the position, he endeavours,\nby means of it, to upset the chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, the\n_Chronicon Paschale_, and other witnesses. As the reader peruses his\nchapter on \"The Date of the Martyrdom,\" he cannot but feel that the\nevidence presented to him is bewildering, indecisive, and obscure;\nand it may occur to him that the author is very like an individual who\nproposes to determine the value of two or three unknown quantities from\none simple algebraic equation. His principal witness, Aristides, were he\nnow living and brought up in presence of a jury, would find himself\nin rather an odd predicament. He is expected to settle the date of the\ndeath of Polycarp, and yet he knows nothing either of the pastor of\nSmyrna or of his tragic end. It does not appear that he had ever heard\nof the worthy apostolic Father. Aristides was a rhetorician who has left\nbehind him certain orations, entitled _Sacred Discourses_, written in\npraise of the god Aesculapius. It might be thought that such a writer\nis but poorly qualified to decide a disputed question of chronology. Our\nreaders may have heard of Papias,--one of the early Fathers, noted\nfor the imbecility of his intellect. Aristides, it seems, was quite as\nliable to imposition. \"The credulity of a Papias,\" says Dr. Lightfoot,\n\"is more than matched by the credulity of an Aristides.\" [40:1] Such\nis the bishop's leading witness. Aristides was an invalid and a\nhypochondriac; and, in the discourses he has left behind him, he\ndescribes the course of a long illness, with an account of his pains,\naches, purgations, dreams, and visions--interspersed, from time to time,\nwith what Dr. Lightfoot estimates as \"valuable chronological notices!\"\n[40:2]\n\nThe reader may be at a loss to understand how it happens that this\neccentric character has been brought forward as a witness to the date\nof the martyrdom of Polycarp. He has been introduced under the following\ncircumstances. In the postscript to the Smyrnaean letter--an appendage\nof very doubtful authority--we are told that the martyrdom occurred\nwhen Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia. From certain incidental\nallusions made by Aristides in his discourses, the bishop labours hard\nto prove that this Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia somewhere\nabout A.D. 155. The evidence is not very clear or well authenticated;\nand we have reason to fear that very little reliance can be placed on\nthe declarations of this afflicted rhetorician. His sickness is said\nto have lasted seventeen years; and it is possible that, meanwhile, his\nmemory as to dates may have been somewhat impaired. Dr. Lightfoot cannot\nexactly tell when his sickness commenced or when it terminated. But\nhe has ascertained that this Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and, by\nweighing probabilities as to the length of the interval which may have\nelapsed before he became proconsul, he has arrived at the conclusion\nthat it might have amounted to twelve or thirteen years. Nothing,\nhowever, can be more unsatisfactory than the process by which he has\nreached this result. According to the usual routine, an individual\nadvanced to the consulate became, in a number of years afterwards, a\nproconsul; and yet, as everything depended on the will of the emperor,\nit was impossible to tell how long he might have to wait for the\nappointment. He might obtain it in five years, or perhaps sooner, if \"an\nexceptionally able man;\" [41:1] or he might be kept in expectancy for\neighteen or nineteen years. The proconsulship commonly terminated in a\nyear; but an individual might be retained in the office for five or six\nyears. [41:2] He might become consul a second time, and then possibly\nhe might again be made proconsul. Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, has\nproved that Statius Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and then, by the\naid of the dreamer Aristides, he has tried to show that he probably\nbecame proconsul of Asia about A.D. 154 or A.D. 155. His calculations\nare obviously mere guesswork. Even admitting their correctness, it would\nby no means follow that Polycarp was then consigned to martyrdom. The\npostscript of the Smyrnaean letter is, as we have seen, justly suspected\nas no part of the original document. Dr. Lightfoot himself tells us,\nthat it is \"_generally_ treated as a later addition to the letter, and\nas coming from a different hand;\" [42:1] and, whilst disposed to uphold\nits claims as of high authority, he admits that, when tested as to\n\"external evidence,\" the supplementary paragraphs, of which this is one,\n\"do not stand on the same ground\" [42:2] as the rest of the Epistle. And\nyet his whole chronology rests on the supposition that the name of the\nproconsul is correctly given in this probably apocryphal addition to the\nSmyrnaean letter. Were we even to grant that this postscript belonged\noriginally to the document, it would supply no conclusive evidence that\nPolycarp was martyred in A.D. 155. It is far more probable that the\nwriter has been slightly inaccurate as to the exact designation of the\nproconsul of Asia about the time of the martyrdom. [43:1] He was called\nQuadratus--not perhaps _Statius_, but possibly _Ummidius Quadratus_.\n[43:2] There is nothing more common among ourselves than to make such\na mistake as to a name. How often may we find John put for James, or\nRobert for Andrew? Quadratus was a patrician name, well known all\nover the empire; and if Statius Quadratus had, not long before,\nbeen proconsul of Asia, it is quite possible that the writer of this\npostscript may have taken it for granted that the proconsul about the\ntime of Polycarp's death was the same individual. The author, whoever\nhe may have been, was probably not very well acquainted with these\nRoman dignitaries, and may thus have readily fallen into the error. Dr.\nLightfoot has himself recorded a case in which a similar mistake has\nbeen made--not in an ordinary communication such its this, but in an\nImperial ordinance. In a Rescript of the Emperor Hadrian, _Licinius_\nGranianus, the proconsul, is styled _Serenus_ Granianus. [43:3] If such\na blunder could be perpetrated in an official State document, need\nwe wonder if the penman of the postscript of the Smyrnaean letter has\nwritten Statius Quadratus for Ummidius Quadratus? And yet, if we admit\nthis very likely oversight, the whole chronological edifice which the\nBishop of Durham has been at such vast pains to construct, vanishes\nlike the dreams and visions of his leading witness, the hypochondriac\nAristides. [44:1]\n\nArchbishop Ussher and others, who have carefully investigated the\nsubject, have placed in A.D. 169 the martyrdom of Polycarp. The\nfollowing reasons may be assigned why this date is decidedly preferable\nto that contended for by Dr. Lightfoot.\n\n1. All the surrounding circumstances point to the reign of Marcus\nAurelius as the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius has preserved an edict,\nsaid to have been issued by Antoninus Pius, in which he announces\nthat he had written to the governors of provinces \"not to trouble the\nChristians at all, unless they appeared to make attempts against the\nRoman government.\" [44:2] Doubts--it may be, well founded--have been\nentertained as to the genuineness of this ordinance; but it has been\npretty generally acknowledged that it fairly indicates the policy of\nAntoninus Pius. \"Though certainly spurious,\" says Dr. Lightfoot, \"it\nrepresents the conception of him entertained by Christians in the\ngenerations next succeeding his own.\" [45:1] In his reign, the disciples\nof our Lord, according to the declarations of their own apologists, were\ntreated with special indulgence. Melito, for example, who wrote not\nlong after the middle of the second century, bears this testimony.\nCapitolinus, an author who flourished about the close of the third\ncentury, reports that Antoninus Pius lived \"without bloodshed, either\nof citizen or foe,\" during his reign of twenty-two years. [45:2] Dr.\nLightfoot strives again and again to evade the force of this evidence,\nand absurdly quotes the sufferings of Polycarp and his companions as\nfurnishing a contradiction; but he thus only takes for granted what he\nhas elsewhere failed to prove. He admits, at the same time, that this\ncase stands alone. \"_The only recorded martyrdoms_,\" says he, \"in\nProconsular Asia during his reign [that of Antoninus Pius] are those of\nPolycarp and his companions.\" [45:3] It must, however, be obvious\nthat he cannot establish even this exception. We have seen that the\nchronology supported by the Bishop of Durham is at variance with the\nexpress statements of all the early Christian writers; and certain facts\nmentioned in the letter of the Smyrnaeans concur to demonstrate its\ninaccuracy. The description there given of the sufferings endured by\nthose of whom it speaks, supplies abundant evidence that the martyrdoms\nmust have happened in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Dr. Lightfoot himself\nattests that \"persecutions extended throughout this reign;\" that they\nwere \"fierce and deliberate;\" and that they were \"_aggravated by cruel\ntortures_.\" [46:1] Such precisely were the barbarities reported in this\nEpistle. It states that the martyrs \"were so torn by lashes that the\nmechanism of their flesh was visible, even as far as the inward veins\nand arteries;\" that, notwithstanding, they were enabled to \"endure the\nfire;\" and that those who were finally \"condemned to the wild beasts\"\nmeanwhile \"suffered fearful punishments, _being made to lie on sharp\nshells, and buffeted with other forms of manifold tortures._\" [46:2]\nThese words attest that, before the Christians were put to death,\nvarious expedients were employed to extort from them a recantation. Such\nwas the mode of treatment recommended by Marcus Aurelius. In an edict\nissued against those who professed the gospel by this emperor, we have\nthe following directions: \"Let them be arrested, and unless they offer\nto the gods, _let them be punished with divers tortures._\" [46:3]\n\"Various means,\" says Neander, \"were employed to constrain them to a\nrenunciation of their faith; and only in the last extremity, when\nthey could not be forced to submit, was the punishment of death to be\ninflicted.\" [46:4] This, undoubtedly, was the inauguration of a new\nsystem of persecution. In former times, the Christians who refused\nto apostatize were summarily consigned to execution. Now, they were\nhorribly tormented in various ways, with a view to compel them to\nabandon their religion. This new policy is characteristic of the\nreign of Marcus Aurelius. Nothing akin to it, sanctioned by Imperial\nauthority, can be found in the time of any preceding emperor. Its\nemployment now in the case of Polycarp and his companions fixes the date\nof the martyrdom to this reign.\n\n2. We have distinct proof that the visit of Polycarp to Rome took place\n_after_ the date assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to his martyrdom! Eusebius\ntells us that, in the _first_ year of the reign of Antoninus Pius,\n[47:1] Telesphorus of Rome died, and was succeeded in his charge by\nHyginus. [47:2] He subsequently informs us that Hyginus dying \"_after\nthe fourth year of his office,_\" was succeeded by Pius; and he then adds\nthat Pius dying at Rome, \"in the _fifteenth_ year of his episcopate,\"\nwas succeeded by Anicetus. [47:3] It was in the time of this chief\npastor that Polycarp paid his visit to the Imperial city. It is apparent\nfrom the foregoing statements that Anicetus could not have entered\non his office until at least nineteen, or perhaps twenty years, after\nAntoninus Pius became emperor, that is, until A.D. 157, or possibly\nuntil A.D. 158. This, however, is two or three years after the date\nassigned by Dr. Lightfoot for the martyrdom. Surely the Bishop of Durham\nwould not have us to believe that Polycarp reappeared in Rome two or\nthree years after he expired on the funeral pile; and yet it is only by\nsome such desperate supposition that he can make his chronology square\nwith the history of the apostolic Father.\n\nIt is not at all probable that Polycarp arrived in Rome immediately\nafter the appointment of Anicetus as chief pastor. The account of his\nvisit, as given by Irenaeus, rather suggests that a considerable time\nmust meanwhile have elapsed before he made his appearance there. It\nwould seem that he had been disturbed by reports which had reached him\nrelative to innovations with which Anicetus was identified; and that,\napprehending mischief to the whole Christian community from anything\ngoing amiss in a Church of such importance, he was prompted, at his\nadvanced age, to undertake so formidable a journey, in the hope that, by\nthe weight of his personal influence with his brethren in the Imperial\ncity, he might be able to arrest the movement. It is not necessary now\nto inquire more particularly what led the venerable Asiatic presbyter at\nthis period to travel all the way from Smyrna to the seat of empire.\nIt is enough for us to know, as regards the question before us, that\nit took place sometime during the pastorate of Anicetus; that Polycarp\neffected much good by his dealings with errorists when in Rome; and that\nits chief Christian minister, by his tact and discretion, succeeded in\nquieting the fears of the aged stranger. That the visit occurred long\nafter the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for his martyrdom, may now be\nevident; and in a former chapter proof has been adduced to show that it\nmust be dated, not, as the Bishop of Durham argues, about A.D. 154, but\nin A.D. 161. Neither is there any evidence whatever that Polycarp was\nput to death immediately after his return to Smyrna. This supposition is\nabsolutely necessary to give even an appearance of plausibility to the\nbishop's chronology; but he has not been able to furnish so much as a\nsolitary reason for its adoption.\n\n3. We have good grounds for believing that the martyrdom of Polycarp\noccurred not earlier than A.D. 169. This date fulfils better than\nany other the conditions enumerated in the letter of the Smyrnaeans.\nArchbishop Ussher has been at pains to show that the month and day\nthere mentioned precisely correspond to and verify this reckoning. It is\nunnecessary here to repeat his calculations; but it is right to notice\nanother item spoken of in the Smyrnaean Epistle, supplying an additional\nconfirmatory proof which the Bishop of Durham cannot well ignore. When\nPolycarp was pressed to apostatize by the officials who had him in\ncustody, they pleaded with him as if anxious to save his life--\"Why,\nwhat harm is there in saying _Caesar is Lord_, and offering incense?\"\nand they urged him to \"_swear by the genius of Caesar_\" [50:1] These\nwords suggest that, at the time of this transaction, the Roman world had\nonly one emperor. In January A.D. 169, L. Verus died. After recording\nthis event in his _Imperial Fasti_, Dr. Lightfoot adds, \"M. Aurelius is\nnow _sole emperor_.\" [50:2] When he is contending for A.D. 155 as the\ndate of the martyrdom, he lays much stress on the fact that \"throughout\nthis Smyrnaean letter _the singular_ is used of the emperor.\"\n\"Polycarp,\" he says, \"is urged to declare 'Caesar is Lord;' he is\nbidden, and he refuses to swear by the 'genius of Caesar.'\" \"It is,\"\nhe adds, \"at least a matter of surprise that these forms should\nbe persistently used, if the event had happened _during a divided\nsovereignty_.\" [50:3] The bishop cannot, at this stage of the\ndiscussion, decently refuse to recognise the potency of his own\nargument.\n\nThe three reasons just enumerated show conclusively that A.D. 155, for\nwhich the Bishop of Durham contends so strenuously, cannot be accepted\nas the date of the martyrdom. For some years after this, Anicetus was\nnot placed at the head of the Church of the Imperial city; and he must\nhave been for a considerable time in that position, when Polycarp paid\nhis visit to Rome. We have seen that the aged pastor of Smyrna suffered\nin the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and that A.D. 169 is the earliest\nperiod to which we can refer the martyrdom, inasmuch as that was the\nfirst year in which Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor. All the reliable\nchronological indications point to this as the more correct reckoning.\n\nIt has now, we believe, been demonstrated by a series of solid and\nconcurring testimonies, that Archbishop Ussher made no mistake when\nhe fixed on A.D. 169 as the proper date of Polycarp's martyrdom. The\nbearing of this conclusion on the question of the Ignatian Epistles must\nat once be apparent. Polycarp was eighty-six years of age at the time\nof his death; and it follows that in A.D. 107,--or sixty-two years\nbefore,--when the Ignatian letters are alleged to have been dictated, he\nwas only four-and-twenty. The absurdity of believing that at such an\nage he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, or that another apostolic\nFather would then have addressed him in the style employed in the\nIgnatian correspondence, must be plain to every reader of ordinary\nintelligence. No wonder that the advocates of the genuineness of\nthese Epistles have called into requisition such an enormous amount of\ningenuity and erudition to pervert the chronology. Pearson, as we have\nseen, spent six years in this service; and the learned Bishop of Durham\nhas been engaged \"off and on\" for nearly thirty in the same labour. At\nthe close of his long task he seems to have persuaded himself that he\nhas been quite successful; and speaking of the theory of Dr. Cureton,\nhe adopts a tone of triumph, and exclaims: \"I venture to hope that the\ndiscussion which follows will extinguish the last sparks of its waning\nlife.\" [51:1] It remains for the candid reader to ponder the statements\nsubmitted to him in this chapter, and to determine how many sparks of\nlife now remain in the bishop's chronology.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS, AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.\n\n\n1. _The Testimony of Irenaeus._\n\nThe only two vouchers of the second century produced in support of\nthe claims of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, are the letter of\nPolycarp to the Philippians and a sentence from the treatise of Irenaeus\n_Against Heresies_. The evidence from Polycarp's Epistle has been\ndiscussed in a preceding chapter. When examined, it has completely\nbroken down, as it is based on an entire misconception of the meaning\nof the writer. The words of Irenaeus can be adduced with still less\nplausibility to uphold the credit of these letters. The following is\nthe passage in which they are supposed to be authenticated: \"_One of our\npeople said_, when condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony\ntowards God--'As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of\nbeasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.'\" [53:1] It is worse\nthan a mere begging of the question to assert that Irenaeus here gives\nus a quotation from one of the letters of Ignatius. In the extensive\ntreatise from which the words are an extract, he never once mentions\nthe name of the pastor of Antioch. Had he been aware of the existence\nof these Epistles, he would undoubtedly have availed himself of their\nassistance when contending against the heretics--as they would have\nfurnished him with many passages exactly suited for their refutation.\nThe words of a man taught by the apostles, occupying one of the highest\npositions in the Christian Church, and finishing his career by a\nglorious martyrdom in the very beginning of the second century, would\nhave been by far the weightiest evidence he could have produced, next\nto the teaching of inspiration. But though he brings forward Clemens\nRomanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, [54:1] and others to confront\nthe errorists, he ignores a witness whose antiquity and weight of\ncharacter would have imparted peculiar significance to his testimony. To\nsay that though he never names him elsewhere, he points to him in this\nplace as \"one of our people,\" is to make a very bold and improbable\nstatement. Even the Apostle Paul himself would not have ventured to\ndescribe the evangelist John in this way. He would have alluded to\nhim more respectfully. Neither would the pastor of a comparatively\nuninfluential church in the south of Gaul have expressed himself after\nthis fashion when speaking of a minister who had been one of the most\nfamous of the spiritual heroes of the Church. Not many years before, a\nterrific persecution had raged in his own city of Lyons; many had been\nput in prison, and some had been thrown to wild beasts; [55:1] and it is\nobviously to one of these anonymous sufferers that Irenaeus here directs\nattention. The \"one of our people\" is not certainly an apostolic Father;\nbut some citizen of Lyons, moving in a different sphere, whose name the\nauthor does not deem it necessary to enrol in the record of history.\nNeither is it to a _written_ correspondence, but to the _dying words_\nof the unknown martyr, to which he adverts when we read,--\"One of our\npeople _said_, As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth\nof beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.\"\n\nThe two witnesses of the second century who are supposed to uphold the\nclaims of the Ignatian Epistles have now been examined, and it must be\napparent that their testimony amounts to nothing. Thus far, then, there\nis no external evidence whatever in favour of these letters. The result\nof this investigation warrants the suspicion that they are forgeries.\n[55:2] The internal evidence abundantly confirms this impression. Any\none who carefully peruses them, and then reads over the Epistle of\nClemens Romanus, the Teaching of the Apostles, the writings of Justin\nMartyr, and the Epistle of Polycarp, may see that the works just named\nare the productions of quite another period. The Ignatian letters\ndescribe a state of things which they totally ignore. Dr. Lightfoot\nhimself has been at pains to point out the wonderful difference between\nthe Ignatian correspondence and the Epistle of Polycarp. \"In\nwhatever way,\" says he, \"we test the documents, the contrast is very\nstriking,--more striking, indeed, than we should have expected to\nfind between two Christian writers who lived at the same time and were\npersonally acquainted with each other.\" [56:1] He then proceeds to\nmention some of the points of contrast. Whilst the so-called Ignatius\nlays stress on Episcopacy \"as the key-stone of the ecclesiastical\norder,\" Polycarp, in his Epistle, from first to last makes \"no mention\nof the Episcopate,\" and \"the bishop is entirely ignored.\" In regard to\ndoctrinal statement the same contrariety is apparent. Ignatius speaks of\n\"the blood of God\" and \"the passion of my God,\" whilst no such language\nis used by Polycarp. Again, in the letter of the pastor of Smyrna, there\nis \"an entire absence of that sacramental language which confronts us\nagain and again in the most startling forms in Ignatius.\" [57:1]\n\"Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's\nEpistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous as\nwell as more precise than in the former.\" In the Ignatian letters, of\n\"quotations from the New Testament, strictly speaking, there is none.\"\n[57:2] \"Of all the Fathers of the Church, early or later, no one is more\nincisive or more persistent in advocating the claims of the threefold\nministry to allegiance than Ignatius.\" [57:3] Polycarp, on the\nother hand, has written a letter \"which has proved a stronghold of\nPresbyterianism.\" [57:4] And yet Dr. Lightfoot would have us to believe\nthat these various letters were written by two ministers living at\nthe same time, taught by the same instructors, holding the closest\nintercourse with each other, professing the same doctrines, and adhering\nto the same ecclesiastical arrangements!\n\nThe features of distinction between the teaching of the Ignatian\nletters and the teaching of Polycarp, which have been pointed out by Dr.\nLightfoot himself, are sufficiently striking; but his Lordship has not\nexhibited nearly the full amount of the contrast. Ignatius is described\nas offering himself voluntarily that he may suffer as a martyr, and\nas telling those to whom he writes that his supreme desire is to be\ndevoured by the lions at Rome. \"I desire,\" says he, \"to fight with wild\nbeasts.\" [57:5] \"May I have joy of the beasts that have been prepared\nfor me ... I will entice them that they may devour me promptly.\" [58:1]\n\"Though I desire to suffer, yet I know not whether I am worthy.\" [58:2]\n\"I delivered myself over to death.\" [58:3] \"I bid all men know that\nof my own free will I die for God.\" [58:4] The Church, instructed by\nPolycarp, condemns this insane ambition for martyrdom. \"We praise not\nthose,\" say the Smyrnaeans, \"who deliver themselves up, _since the\ngospel does not so teach us_.\" [58:5] In these letters Ignatius speaks\nas a vain babbler, drunken with fanaticism; Polycarp, in his Epistle,\nexpresses himself like an humble-minded Presbyterian minister in his\nsober senses. Ignatius is made to address Polycarp as if he were a\nfull-blown prelate, and tells the people under his care, \"He that\nhonoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doth aught against\nthe knowledge of the bishop, rendereth service to the devil\" [58:6]\nPolycarp, on the other hand, describes himself as one of the elders, and\nexhorts the Philippians to \"submit to the presbyters and deacons,\" and\nto be \"all subject one to another.\" [58:7] When their Church had got\ninto a state of confusion, and when they applied to him for advice,\nhe recommended them \"to walk in the commandment of the Lord,\" and\nadmonished their \"presbyters to be compassionate and merciful towards\nall men,\" [58:8]--never hinting that the appointment of a bishop would\nhelp to keep them in order; whereas, when Ignatius addresses various\nChurches,--that of the Smyrnaeans included,--he assumes a tone of High\nChurchmanship which Archbishop Laud himself would have been afraid,\nand perhaps ashamed, to emulate. \"As many as are of God and of Jesus\nChrist,\" says he, \"they are with the bishop.\" \"It is good to recognise\nGod and the bishop!\" \"Give ye heed to the bishop, that God may also give\nheed to you.\" [59:1]\n\nThe internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles seals their\ncondemnation. I do not intend, however, at present to pursue this\nsubject. In a work published by me six and twenty years ago, [59:2]\nI have called attention to various circumstances which betray the\nimposture; and neither Dr. Lightfoot, Zahn, nor any one else, so far as\nI am aware, has ever yet ventured to deal with my arguments. I might now\nadd new evidences of their fabrication, but I deem this unnecessary. I\ncannot, however, pass from this department of the question in debate,\nwithout protesting against the view presented by the Bishop of Durham of\nthe origin of Prelacy. \"It is shown,\" says he, referring to his _Essay\non the Christian Ministry_, [59:3] \"that though the New Testament\nitself contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized\nepiscopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable\nepiscopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet\nthere is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years\nof the apostolic age, ... and that, in the early years of the second\ncentury, the episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more\nespecially in Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its\nextension in the regions east of the Aegaean at this epoch be resisted,\n_I am at a loss to understand what single fact relating to the history\nof the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can\nbe regarded as established_.\" [60:1]\n\nIn this statement, as well as in not a few others already submitted\nto the reader, Dr. Lightfoot has expressed himself with an amount of\nconfidence which may well excite astonishment. It would not be difficult\nto show that his speculations as to the development of Episcopacy\nin Asia Minor and Syria in the early years of the second century, as\npresented in the Essay to which he refers, are the merest moonshine.\nOn what grounds can he maintain that Timothy exercised what he calls a\n\"moveable episcopate\" in Ephesus? Paul besought him to abide there for a\ntime that he might withstand errorists, and he gave him instructions as\nto how he was to behave himself in the house of God; [60:2] but it did\nnot therefore follow that he was either a bishop or an archbishop. He\nwas an able man, sound in the faith, wise and energetic; and, as he\nwas thus a host in himself, Paul expected that meanwhile he would be\neminently useful in helping the less gifted ministers who were in the\nplace to repress error and keep the Church in order. That Paul intended\nto establish neither a moveable nor an immoveable episcopate in Ephesus,\nis obvious from his own testimony; for when he addresses its elders,--as\nhe believed for the last time,--he ignored their submission to\nany ecclesiastical superior, and committed the Church to their own\nsupervision. [61:1] And if he left Titus in Crete to take charge of the\norganization of the Church there, he certainly did not intend that the\nevangelist was to act alone. In those days there was no occasion for the\nservices of a diocesan bishop, inasmuch as the Christian community\nwas governed by the common council of the elders, and ordination was\nperformed \"with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.\" [61:2]\nTitus was a master builder, and Paul believed that, proceeding in\nconcert with the ministers in Crete, he would render effectual aid in\ncarrying forward the erection of the ecclesiastical edifice. And what\nproof has Dr. Lightfoot produced to show that \"the episcopate was widely\nspread in Asia Minor and in Syria\" in \"the early years of the second\ncentury\"? If the Ignatian Epistles be discredited, he has none at all.\nBut there is very decisive evidence to the contrary. The Teaching of the\nApostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Polycarp prove\nthe very reverse. And yet Dr. Lightfoot is at a loss to understand what\nsingle fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the\nfirst half of the second century can be regarded as established, if we\nreject his baseless assertion!\n\n\n2. _The Genesis of Prelacy._\n\nJerome gives us the true explanation of the origin of the episcopate,\nwhen he tells us that it was set up with a view to prevent divisions in\nthe Church. [62:1] These divisions were created chiefly by the Gnostics,\nwho swarmed in some of the great cities of the empire towards the middle\nof the second century. About that time the president of the Presbytery\nwas in a few places armed with additional authority, in the hope that\nhe would thus be the better able to repress schism. The new system was\ninaugurated in Rome, and its Church has ever since maintained the proud\nboast that it is the centre of ecclesiastical unity. From the Imperial\ncity Episcopacy gradually radiated over all Christendom. The position\nassumed by Dr. Lightfoot--that it commenced in Jerusalem--is without any\nsolid foundation. To support it, he is obliged to adopt the fable that\nJames was the first bishop of the mother Church. The New Testament\nignores this story, and tells us explicitly that James was only one of\nthe \"pillars,\" or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewish\ncapital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employed to\nestablish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greater\nplausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoot himself\nacknowledges that, about the close of the first century, we cannot find\na trace of the episcopate in either of the two great Christian Churches\nof Rome and Corinth. [63:1] \"At the close of the first century,\" says\nhe, \"Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning of the second\ncentury Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter Epistle, so in the\nformer, there is no allusion to the episcopal office.\" [63:2] He might\nhave said that, even after the middle of the second century, it did not\nexist either in Smyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that \"as late as the\nclose of the second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as\ndistinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery.\" [63:3] \"The\nfirst bishop of Alexandria,\" says he, \"of whom any distinct incident is\nrecorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen,\" [63:4]\nwho flourished in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the\nsame place, that \"at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently\nordained by the twelve presbyters out of their own number.\" [63:5]\nInstead of asserting, as has been done, that no single fact relating to\nthe history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second\ncentury can be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate\nwas widely spread in the early years of the second century in Asia Minor\nand elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at the date here\nmentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it was established\nANYWHERE.\n\nIrenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy, for\nhe lived throughout the period of its original development; but he\nhas taken care not to lift the veil which covers its mysterious\ncommencement. He could have told what prompted Polycarp to undertake a\njourney to Rome when burthened with the weight of years; but he has\nleft us to our own surmises. It is, however, significant that the\npresbyterian system was kept up in Smyrna long after the death of its\naged martyr. [64:1] Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that \"Irenaeus\nwas probably the most learned Christian of his time;\" [64:2] and it is\npretty clear that he contributed much to promote the acceptance of the\nepiscopal theory. When arguing with the heretics, he coined the doctrine\nof the apostolical succession, and maintained that the true faith was\npropagated to his own age through an unbroken line of bishops from the\ndays of the apostles. To make out his case, he was necessitated to speak\nof the presidents of the presbyteries as bishops, [64:3] and to ignore\nthe change which had meanwhile taken place in the ecclesiastical\nConstitution. Subsequent writers followed in his wake, and thus it\nis that the beginnings of Episcopacy have been enveloped in so much\nobscurity. Even in Rome, the seat of the most prominent Church in\nChristendom, it is impossible to settle the order in which its early\npresiding pastors were arranged. \"Come we to Rome,\" says Stillingfleet,\n\"and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here\nTertullian, Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next to Peter.\nIrenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus,\nboth Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus, with others, make\nAnacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find\nto extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?\" [65:1] The different\nlists preserved attest that there was no such continuous and homogeneous\nline of bishops as the doctrine of the apostolical succession implies.\nWhen Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp as having \"received his appointment in\nAsia from apostles as bishop in the Church of Smyrna,\" [65:2] he makes\na statement which, literally understood, even Dr. Lightfoot hesitates to\nendorse. [65:3] The Apostle John may have seen Polycarp in his\nboyhood, and may have predicted his future eminence as a Christian\nminister,--just as Timothy was pointed out by prophecy [66:1] as\ndestined to be a champion of the faith. When Episcopacy was introduced,\nits abettors tried to manufacture a little literary capital out of some\nsuch incident; but the allegation that Polycarp was ordained to the\nepiscopal office by the apostles, is a fable that does not require\nrefutation. Almost all of them were dead before he was born. [66:2]\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.\n\n\nIf, as there is every reason to believe, the Ignatian Epistles are\nforgeries from beginning to end, various questions arise as to the\ntime of their appearance, and the circumstances which prompted their\nfabrication. Their origin, like that of many other writings of the same\ndescription, cannot be satisfactorily explored; and we must in vain\nattempt a solution of all the objections which may be urged against\nalmost any hypothesis framed to elucidate their history. It is, however,\npretty clear that, in their original form, they first saw the light in\nthe early part of the third century. About that time there was evidently\nsomething like a mania for the composition of such works,--as various\nspurious writings, attributed to Clemens Romanus and others, abundantly\ntestify. Their authors do not seem to have been aware of the impropriety\nof committing these pious frauds, and may even have imagined that they\nwere thus doing God service. [67:1] Several circumstances suggest that\nCallistus--who became Bishop of Rome about A.D. 219--may, before his\nadvancement to the episcopal chair, have had a hand in the preparation\nof these Ignatian Epistles. His history is remarkable. He was originally\na slave, and in early life he is reported to have been the child of\nmisfortune. He had at one time the care of a bank, in the management\nof which he did not prosper. He was at length banished to Sardinia, to\nlabour there as a convict in the mines; and when released from servitude\nin that unhealthy island, he was brought under the notice of Victor, the\nRoman bishop. To his bounty he was, about this time, indebted for\nhis support. [68:1] On the death of Victor, Callistus became a prime\nfavourite with Zephyrinus, the succeeding bishop. By him he was put in\ncharge of the cemetery of the Christians connected with the Catacombs;\nand he soon attained the most influential position among the Roman\nclergy. So great was his popularity, that, on the demise of his patron,\nhe was himself unanimously chosen to the episcopal office in the chief\ncity of the empire. Callistus was no ordinary man. He was a kind of\noriginal in his way. He possessed a considerable amount of literary\nculture. He took a prominent part in the current theological\ncontroversies,--and yet, if we are to believe Hippolytus, he could\naccommodate himself to the views of different schools of doctrine. He\nhad great versatility of talent, restless activity, deep cunning, and\nmuch force of character. Hippolytus tells us that he was sadly given to\nintrigue, and so slippery in his movements that it was no easy matter\nto entangle him in a dilemma. It may have occurred to him that, in the\npeculiar position of the Church, the concoction of a series of letters,\nwritten in the name of an apostolic Father, and vigorously asserting the\nclaims of the bishops, would help much to strengthen the hands of the\nhierarchy. He might thus manage at the same time quietly to commend\ncertain favourite views of doctrine, and aid the pretensions of the\nRoman chief pastor. But the business must be kept a profound secret;\nand the letters must, if possible, be so framed as not at once to awaken\nsuspicion. If we carefully examine them, we shall find that they were\nwell fitted to escape detection at the time when they were written.\n\nThe internal evidence warrants the conclusion that the Epistle to the\nRomans was the first produced. It came forth alone; and, if it crept\ninto circulation originally in the Imperial city, it was not likely to\nprovoke there any hostile criticism. It is occupied chiefly with giving\nexpression to the personal feelings of the supposed writer in\nthe prospect of martyrdom. It scarcely touches on the question of\necclesiastical regimen; and it closes by soliciting the prayers of the\nRoman brethren for \"the Church which is in Syria.\" [69:1] \"If,\" says\nDr. Lightfoot, \"Ignatius had not incidentally mentioned himself as\nthe Bishop 'of' or 'from Syria,' the letter to the Romans would have\ncontained no indication of the existence of the episcopal office\" [70:1]\nWhilst observing this studied silence on the subject which above all\nothers occupied his thoughts, the writer was craftily preparing the way\nfor the more ready reception of the letters which were to follow. The\nEpistle to the Romans tacitly embodies their credentials. It slyly takes\nadvantage of the connection of the name of Ignatius with Syria in the\nletter of Polycarp to the Philippians; assumes that Syria is the eastern\nprovince; and represents Ignatius as a bishop from that part of the\nempire on his way to die at Rome. It does not venture to say that\nthe Western capital had then a bishop of its own,--for the Epistle\nof Clemens, which was probably in many hands, and which ignored the\nepiscopal office there--might thus have suggested doubts as to its\ngenuineness; but it tells the sensational story of the journey of\nIgnatius in chains, from east to west, in the custody of what are called\n\"ten leopards.\" This tale at the time was likely to be exceedingly\npopular. Ever since the rise of Montanism--which made its appearance\nabout the time of the death of Polycarp--there had been an increasing\ntendency all over the Church to exaggerate the merits of martyrdom. This\ntendency reached its fullest development in the early part of the third\ncentury. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans exhibits it in the height\nof its folly. Ignatius proclaims his most earnest desire to be torn\nto pieces by the lions, and entreats the Romans not to interfere and\ndeprive him of a privilege which he coveted so ardently. The words\nreported by Irenaeus as uttered by one of the martyrs of Lyons are\nadroitly appropriated by the pseudo-Ignatius as if spoken by himself;\nand, in an uncritical age, when the subject-matter of the communication\nwas otherwise so much to the taste of the reader, the quotation helped\nto establish the credit of the Ignatian correspondence. Another portion\nof the letter was sure to be extremely acceptable to the Church\nof Rome--for here the writer is most lavish in his complimentary\nacknowledgements. That Church is described as \"having the presidency in\nthe country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy\nof honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success,\nworthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, filled with the\ngrace of God, without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign\nstain.\"\n\n\"The Epistle to the Romans,\" says Dr. Lightfoot, \"had a wider popularity\nthan the other letters of Ignatius, both early and late. It appears to\nhave been circulated apart from them, sometimes alone.\" [71:1] It was\nput forth as a feeler, to discover how the public would be disposed\nto entertain such a correspondence; and, in case of its favourable\nreception, it was intended to open the way for additional Epistles.\nIt was cleverly contrived. It employed the Epistle of Polycarp to the\nPhilippians as a kind of voucher for its authenticity, inasmuch as it\nis there stated that Ignatius had written a number of letters; and it\ncontained little or nothing which any one in that age would have been\ndisposed to controvert. The Christians of Rome had long enjoyed the\nreputation of a community ennobled by the blood of martyrs, and they\nwould be quite willing to believe that Ignatius had contributed to\ntheir celebrity by dying for the faith within their borders. It is\nvery doubtful whether he really finished his career there: some ancient\nauthorities attest that he suffered at Antioch; [72:1] and the fact\nthat, in the fourth century, his grave was pointed out in that locality,\napparently supports their testimony. [72:2] The account of his hurried\nremoval as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome, in the custody of ten fierce\nsoldiers--whilst he was permitted, as he passed along, to hold something\nlike a levee of his co-religionists at every stage of his journey--wears\nvery much the appearance of an ill-constructed fiction. But the\ndisciples at Rome about this period were willing to be credulous in such\nmatters; and thus it was that this tale of martyrdom was permitted\nto pass unchallenged. In due time the author of the letters, as\nthey appeared one after another, accomplished the design of their\ncomposition. The question of the constitution of the Church had recently\nawakened much attention; and the threat of Victor to excommunicate the\nChristians of Asia Minor, because they ventured to differ from him as\nto the mode of celebrating the Paschal festival, had, no doubt, led to\ndiscussions relative to the claims of episcopal authority which, at Rome\nespecially, were felt to be very inconvenient and uncomfortable. No one\ncould well maintain that it had a scriptural warrant. The few who\nwere acquainted with its history were aware that it was only a human\narrangement of comparatively recent introduction; and yet a bishop\nwho threatened with excommunication such as refused to submit to his\nmandates, could scarcely be expected to make such a confession.\nIrenaeus had sanctioned its establishment; but, when Victor became so\noverbearing, he took the alarm, and told him plainly that those who\npresided over the Church of Rome before him were nothing but presbyters.\n[73:1] This was rather an awkward disclosure; and it was felt by the\nfriends of the new order that some voucher was required to help it in\nits hour of need, and to fortify its pretensions. The letters of an\napostolic Father strongly asserting its claims could not fail to give it\nencouragement. We can thus understand how at this crisis these Epistles\nwere forthcoming. They were admirably calculated to quiet the public\nmind. They were comparatively short, so that they could be easily read;\nand they were quite to the point, for they taught that we are to\n\"regard the bishop as the Lord Himself,\" and that \"he presides after the\nlikeness of God.\" [74:1] Who after all this could doubt the claims of\nEpiscopacy? Should not the words of an apostolic Father put an end to\nall farther questionings?\n\nHippolytus, who was his contemporary, has given us much information in\nrelation to Callistus. He writes, indeed, in an unfriendly spirit; but\nhe speaks, notwithstanding, as an honest man; and we cannot well reject\nhis statements as destitute of foundation. His account of the general\nfacts in the career of this Roman bishop obviously rest on a substratum\nof truth. As we read these Ignatian letters, it may occur to us that\nthe real author sometimes betrays his identity. Callistus had been\noriginally a slave, and he here represents Ignatius as saying of\nhimself, \"I am a slave.\" [74:2] Callistus had been a convict, and more\nthan once this Ignatius declares, \"I am a convict.\" [74:3] May he not\nthus intend to remind his co-religionists at Rome that an illustrious\nbishop and martyr had once been a slave and a convict like himself?\nCallistus, when labouring in the mines of Sardinia, must have been\nwell acquainted with ropes and hoists; and here Ignatius describes the\nEphesians as \"hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus\nChrist,\" having faith as their \"windlass,\" and as \"using for a rope the\nHoly Spirit.\" [74:4] Callistus had at one time been in charge of a bank;\nand Ignatius, in one of these Epistles, is made to say, \"Let your works\nbe your _deposits_, that you may receive your _assets_ due to you.\"\n[75:1] Callistus also had charge of the Christian cemetery in the Roman\nCatacombs; and Ignatius here expresses himself as one familiar with\ngraves and funerals. He speaks of a heretic as \"being himself a bearer\nof a corpse,\" and of those inclined to Judaism \"as tombstones and graves\nof the dead.\" [75:2] It is rather singular that, in these few short\nletters, we find so many expressions which point to Callistus as the\nwriter. There are, however, other matters which warrant equally strong\nsuspicions. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus was a Patripassian. \"The\nFather,\" said he, \"having taken human nature, deified it by uniting it\nto Himself, ... and so he said that the Father had suffered with the\nSon.\" [75:3] Hence Ignatius, in these Epistles, startles us by such\nexpressions as \"the blood of God,\" [75:4] and \"the passion of my God.\"\n[75:5] Callistus is accused by Hippolytus as a trimmer prepared, as\noccasion served, to conciliate different parties in the Church by\nappearing to adopt their views. Sometimes he sided with Hippolytus,\nand sometimes with those opposed to him; hence it is that the theology\ntaught in these letters is of a very equivocal character. Dr. Lightfoot\nhas seized upon this fact as a reason that they are never quoted by\nIrenaeus. \"The language approaching dangerously near to heresy\nmight,\" says he, \"have led him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal\nteaching.\" [76:1] A much better reason was that he had never heard\nof these letters; and yet their theology is exactly such a piebald\nproduction as might have been expected from Callistus.\n\nIt is not easy to understand how Dr. Lightfoot has brought himself to\nbelieve that these Ignatian Epistles were written in the beginning\nof the second century. \"_Throughout the whole range of Christian\nliterature_,\" says he, \"no more uncompromising advocacy of the\nepiscopate can be found than appears in these writings ... It is when\nasserting the claims of the episcopal office to obedience and respect\nthat the language is _strained to the utmost_. The bishops established\n_in the farthest part of the world_ are in the counsels of Jesus\nChrist.\" [76:2] It is simply incredible that such a state of things\ncould have existed six or seven years after the death of the Apostle\nJohn. All the extant writings for sixty years after the alleged date\nof the martyrdom of Ignatius demonstrate the utter falsehood of these\nletters. It is certain that they employ a terminology, and develop\nChurch principles unknown before the beginning of the third century, and\nwhich were not current even then. The forger, whoever he may have been,\nhas displayed no little art and address in their fabrication. From all\nthat we know of Callistus, he was quite equal to the task. Like the\nfalse Decretals, these letters exerted much influence on the subsequent\nhistory of the Church. Cyprian, though he never mentions them, [77:1]\nspeedily caught their spirit. His assertion of episcopal authority\nis quite in the same style. Origen visited Rome shortly after they\nappeared; he is the first writer who recognises them; and it is worthy\nof note that, of the three quotations from them found in his works,\ntwo are from the Epistle to the Romans. It is quite within the range\nof possibility that evidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that they\nemanated from one of the early popes. They are worthy of such an origin.\nThey recommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiastical\ndictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever since\ninculcated. \"It need hardly be remarked,\" says Dr. Lightfoot, \"how\nsubversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negation\nof individual freedom and the consequent suppression of direct\nresponsibility to God in Christ, is the _crushing despotism_ with which\"\nthe language of these letters, \"if taken literally, would invest the\nepiscopal office.\" [77:2] And yet, having devoted nearly thirty\nyears off and on to the study of these Epistles, the Bishop of Durham\nmaintains that we have here the genuine writings of an apostolic Father\nwho was instructed by the inspired founders of the Christian Church!!\n\nIn this Review no notice is taken of the various forms of these\nEpistles. If they are all forgeries, it is not worth while to spend time\nin discussing the merits of the several editions.\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nLETTER OF THE LATE DR. CURETON.\n\n\nImmediately after the appearance of the second edition of _The Ancient\nChurch_, a copy of it was sent to the late Rev. W. Cureton, D.D., Canon\nof Westminster--the well-known author of various publications\nrelating to the Ignatian Epistles. It was considered only due to that\ndistinguished scholar to call his attention to a work in which he was\nso prominently noticed, and in which various arguments were adduced\nto prove that all the letters he had edited are utterly spurious. In a\nshort time that gentleman acknowledged the presentation of the volume in\na most kind and courteous communication, which will be read with special\ninterest by all who have studied the Ignatian controversy. I give the\nletter entire--just as it reached me. It was published several years\nago, appended to my _Old Catholic Church_.\n\n\nDEANS YARD, WESTMINSTER, _Sept._ 24, 1861.\n\nDEAR SIR,--I beg to thank you very much for your kindness in sending\nme a valuable contribution to Ecclesiastical History in your book, _The\nAncient Church_, which I found here upon my return to London two or\nthree days ago. How much would it contribute to the promotion of charity\nand the advancement of the truth were all who combated the opinions and\nviews of another to give him the means of seeing what was written fairly\nand openly, and not to endeavour to overthrow his arguments without his\nknowledge. This will indeed ever be the case when truth is sought for\nitself, and no personal feelings enter into the matter.\n\nI have read your chapters on Ignatius, and you will perhaps hardly\nexpect that I should subscribe to your views. It is now about twenty\nyears since I first undertook this inquiry, and constantly have I\nbeen endeavouring to add some new light ever since. I once answered an\nopponent in my present brother canon, Dr. Wordsworth, but since that\ntime I have never replied to any adverse views--but have only looked\nto see if I could find anything either to show that I was wrong or to\nstrengthen my convictions that I was right. And I have found the\nwisdom of this, and have had the satisfaction of knowing that my ablest\nopponents, after having had more time to inquire and to make greater\nresearch, have of their own accord conformed to my views and written in\ntheir support.\n\nI attach no very great importance to the Epistles of Ignatius. I shall\nnot draw from them any dogma. I only look upon them as evidence of the\ntime to certain facts, which indeed were amply established even without\nsuch evidence. I think that in such cases, we must look chiefly to the\nhistorical testimony of facts; and you will forgive me for saying that\nI think your arguments are based upon presumptive evidence, negative\nevidence, and the evidence of appropriateness--all of which, however\nvaluable, must tumble to the ground before one single fact. You notice\nthat Archbishop Ussher doubted the Epistle to Polycarp. But why? simply\nbecause its style (not having been altered by the forger) was different\nfrom the rest. But you know he says there was more _historical_ evidence\nin its favour than for any of the rest. It thus becomes an argument in\nsupport of the Syriac text instead of against it. Can you explain how\nit happens that the Syriac text, found in the very language of Ignatius\nhimself, and transcribed many hundreds of years before the Ignatian\ncontroversy was thought of, now it is discovered, should contain only\nthe _three Epistles_ of the existence of which there is any historical\nevidence before the time of Eusebius, and that, although it may contain\nsome things which you do not approve, still has rejected all the\npassages which the critics of the Ignatian controversy protested\nagainst? You go too far to say that Bentley rejected the Ignatian\nEpistles--he only rejected them in the form in which they were put forth\nby Ussher and Vossius, and not in the form of the Syriac. So did Porson,\nas Bishop Kaye informed me--but he never denied that Ignatius had\nwritten letters--indeed, the very forgeries were a proof of true\npatterns which were falsified.\n\nA great many of the ablest scholars in Europe, who had refused to accept\nthe Greek letters, are convinced of the genuineness of the Syriac. But\ntime will open. Believe me, yours faithfully,\n\nWILLIAM CURETON.\n\n\n\nTHE REV. DR. KILLEN.\n\nSome time after this letter was written, ecclesiastical literature\nsustained a severe loss in the death of its amiable and accomplished\nauthor. Though Dr. Cureton here expressed himself with due caution, his\nlanguage is certainly not calculated to reassure the advocates of the\nIgnatian Epistles. One of their most learned editors in recent times--so\nfar from speaking in a tone of confidence respecting them--here admits\nthat he attached to them \"no very great importance.\" Though he had spent\ntwenty years chiefly in their illustration, he acknowledges that he was\nconstantly endeavouring \"to add some new light\" for his guidance.\nTo him, therefore, the subject must have been still involved in much\nmystery.\n\nIt is noteworthy that, in the preceding letter, he has not been able\nto point out a solitary error in the statement of the claims of these\nEpistles as presented in _The Ancient Church_. He alleges, indeed, that\nthe arguments employed are \"based upon presumptive evidence, negative\nevidence, and the evidence of appropriateness;\" he confesses that\nthese proofs are \"valuable;\" but, though he contends that they must all\n\"tumble to the around before one single fact,\" he has failed to produce\nthe one single fact required for their overthrow.\n\nDr. Cureton had obviously not been previously aware that Dr. Bentley,\nthe highest authority among British critics, had rejected the Ignatian\nEpistles. Had he been cognisant of that fact when he wrote the _Corpus\nIgnatianum_, he would have candidly announced it to his readers. The\nmanner in which he here attempts to dispose of it is certainly not very\nsatisfactory. He pleads that, though Bentley condemned as spurious the\nletters edited by Ussher and Vossius, he would not have pronounced the\nsame decision on the Syriac version recently discovered. Why not? This\nSyriac version is an edition of _the same Epistles_ in an abbreviated\nform. If Bentley denounced _the whole_ as a forgery, it seems to follow,\nby logical inference, that he would have pronounced the same verdict on\nthe half or the third part. Dr. Cureton is mistaken when he affirms in\nthe preceding communication that his Syriac version has rejected \"all\nthe passages\" against which \"the critics of the Ignatian controversy\"\nhad protested. The very contrary has been demonstrated in _The Ancient\nChurch_. A large number of the sentences which had provoked the most\nunsparing criticism are retained in the Curetonian edition. It is\nright to add that Archbishop Ussher more than \"doubted\" the Epistle to\nPolycarp. He discarded it altogether. Without hesitation he set it aside\nas spurious. Whilst he disliked its style, he felt that it wanted other\nmarks of genuineness. When writing _The Ancient Church_--now nearly\nthirty years ago--I was disposed to think that the Ignatian Epistles had\nbeen manufactured at Antioch; but more mature consideration has led me\nto adopt the conclusion that they were concocted at Rome. They bear a\nstrong resemblance to several other spurious works which appeared\nthere; and the servile submission to episcopal authority which they so\nstrenuously inculcate was first most offensively challenged by the chief\npastor of the great Western bishopric. These Epistles tended much to\npromote the progress of ecclesiastical despotism.\n\nAny one who studies the two chapters on the Ignatian Epistles in _The\nAncient Church_, must see that what is there urged against them is\nsomething more than \"presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the\nevidence of appropriateness.\" It is shown that their anachronisms,\nhistorical blundering, and false doctrine clearly convict them of\nforgery.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nIt has been deemed right to subjoin here a copy of the Ignatian Epistle\nto the Romans, as some readers may not have it at hand for consultation.\nVarious translations of this Epistle have been published. The following\nadheres pretty closely to that given by the Bishop of Durham:--\n\n\"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to her that has obtained mercy\nthrough the might of the Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ His only\nSon, to the Church which is beloved and enlightened through the will\nof Him who willeth all things that are according to the love of Jesus\nChrist our God, to her that has the presidency in the country of the\nregion of the Romans; being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of\nfelicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and\nhaving the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ, and bearing\nthe Father's name, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the\nSon of the Father, to those that are united both according to the flesh\nand spirit to every one of His commandments, being filled inseparably\nwith the grace of God, and filtered clear from every foreign stain;\nabundance of happiness unblameably in Jesus Christ our God.\n\n\"1. Through prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeing your\nmost worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested, for\nI hope as a prisoner in Jesus Christ to salute you, if indeed it be the\nwill of God that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the\nbeginning has been well ordered, if so be I shall attain unto the goal,\nthat I may receive my inheritance without hindrance. For I am afraid of\nyour love, lest it should be to me an injury; for it is easy for you to\naccomplish what you please, but it is difficult for me to attain to God,\nif ye spare me.\n\n\"2. For I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to please God, as\nye do please Him. For neither shall I ever have such an opportunity of\nattaining to God, nor can ye, if ye be silent, ever be entitled to the\nhonour of a better work. For if ye are silent concerning me, I shall\nbecome God's; but if ye love my body, I shall have my course again to\nrun. Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than\nthat I be poured out a libation to God, while there is still an altar\nready; that being gathered together in love ye may sing praise to the\nFather through Jesus Christ, that God has deemed me, the bishop of\nSyria, worthy to be sent for from the east to the west. It is good to\nset from the world to God, that I may rise again to Him.\n\n\"3. Ye have never envied any one. Ye have taught others, and my desire\nis that those lessons shall hold good, which as teachers ye enjoin. Only\nrequest in my behalf both inward and outward strength, so that I may\nnot only say it, but also desire it; that I may not only be called a\nChristian, but really be found one. For if I shall be found so, then\ncan I also be called one, and be faithful then, when I shall no longer\nappear to the world. Nothing visible is good: for our God, Jesus Christ,\nnow that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed. The work is\nnot of persuasiveness, but of greatness, whensoever it is hated by the\nworld.\n\n\"4. I write to all the Churches, and I bid all men know that of my own\nfree will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me. I exhort you not to\nshow an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for\nthe wild beasts, that through them I shall attain to God. I am the wheat\nof God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found\nthe pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts that they may\nbecome my sepulchre, and may leave no part of my body behind, so that I\nmay not, when I am fallen asleep, be burdensome to any one. Then shall I\nbe truly a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not so much as\nsee my body. Supplicate the Lord for me, that through these instruments\nI may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul\ndid. They were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am a slave\nto this very hour. But, when I suffer, I shall be a freed-man of Jesus\nChrist, and shall rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put\naway every desire.\n\n\"5. From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts; by land and sea,\nby night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of\nsoldiers, who only become worse when they are kindly treated. Howbeit\nthrough their wrong-doings I am become more completely a disciple, yet\nam I not hereby justified. May I have joy of the beasts that have been\nprepared for me; and I pray that I may find them prompt; nay, I will\nentice them that they may devour me promptly, not as they have done to\nsome, refusing to touch them through fear. Yea, though of themselves\nthey should not be willing while I am ready, I myself will force them to\nit. Bear with me, I know what is expedient for me. Now am I beginning\nto be a disciple. May nought of things visible and things invisible\nenvy me, that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Come fire and cross, and\ngrapplings with wild beasts, cuttings and manglings, wrenching of bones,\nhacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body, come cruel tortures of the\ndevil to assail me, only be it mine to attain to Jesus Christ.\n\n\"6. The farthest bounds of the universe shall profit me nothing, neither\nthe kingdoms of this world. It is good for me to die for Jesus Christ,\nrather than to reign over the farthest bounds of the earth. I seek Him\nwho died on our behalf, I desire Him who rose again for our sake. My\nbirth-pangs are at hand. Pardon me, brethren, do not hinder me from\nliving. Do not wish to keep me in a state of death, while I desire to\nbelong to God; do not give me over to the world, neither allure me\nwith material things. Suffer me to obtain pure light; when I have gone\nthither, then shall I be a man. Permit me to be an imitator of the\npassion of my God. If any man has Him within himself, let him consider\nwhat I desire, and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am\nstraitened.\n\n\"7. The prince of this world would fain seize me, and corrupt my\ndisposition towards God. Let not any of you, therefore, that are near\nabet him. Rather be ye on my side, that is, on God's side. Do not speak\nof Jesus Christ and set your desires on the world. Let not envy dwell\namong you. Even though I myself, when I am with you, should beseech you,\nobey me not, but rather give credit to those things which I now write.\nMy earthly passion has been crucified, and there is no fire of material\nlonging in me; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks,\nsaying to me inwardly, 'Come to the Father.' I have no delight in the\nfood of corruption, or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread\nof God, which is the flesh of Christ, who was of the seed of David; and\nfor a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.\n\n\"8. I desire no longer to live after the manner of men; and this shall\nbe, if ye desire it. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may be desired.\nIn a brief letter I beseech you, do ye give credit to me. Jesus Christ\nwill reveal these things to you, so that ye shall know that I speak the\ntruth--Jesus Christ the unerring mouth by which the Father has spoken\ntruly. Pray for me that I may attain the object of my desire. I write\nnot unto you after the flesh, but after the mind of God. If I shall\nsuffer, it was your desire; but if I am rejected, ye have hated me.\n\n\"9. Remember in your prayers the Church which is in Syria, which has God\nfor its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop,\nHe and your love; but for myself, I am ashamed to be called one of them;\nfor neither am I worthy, being the very last of them and an untimely\nbirth; but I have found mercy that I should be some one, if so I shall\nattain unto God. My spirit salutes you, and the love of the Churches\nwhich received me in the name of Jesus Christ, not as a mere wayfarer;\nfor even those Churches which did not lie on my route after the flesh,\nwent before me from city to city.\n\n\"10. Now I write these things to you from Smyrna, by the hand of the\nEphesians, who are worthy of all felicitation. And Crocus also, a name\nvery dear to me, is with me, with many others besides.\n\n\"11. As touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome, to the\nglory of God, I believe that ye have received instructions; whom also\napprize that I am near, for they all are worthy of God and of you, and\nit becomes you to refresh them in all things. These things I write to\nyou on the 9th before the Kalends of September. Fare-ye-well unto the\nend in the patient waiting for Jesus Christ.\"\n\n\nThis letter is a strange mixture of silly babblement, mysticism,\nand fanaticism; but throughout it wants the true ring of an honest\ncorrespondence. Why does the writer describe himself as the _Bishop of\nSyria_, and why does he never once mention _Antioch_ from beginning to\nend? When an apostle was imprisoned, his brethren prayed for his release\n(Acts xii. 5); but this Ignatius forbade the Christians at Rome to make\nany attempt to save him from martyrdom. Paul taught that he might give\nhis body to be burned, and yet after all be a reprobate (1 Cor. xiii.\n3); but this Ignatius indicates that all would be well with him, if he\nhad the good fortune to be eaten by the lions. His letter is pervaded,\nnot by the enlightened and cheerful piety of the New Testament, but by\nthe gloomy and repulsive spirit of Montanism. Bishop Lightfoot tells\nus that it had \"a wider popularity than the other letters of Ignatius\"\n(vol. ii, \u00a7 i. p. 186). It was accommodated to the taste of an age of\ndeteriorated Christianity. Polycarp would have sternly condemned its\nextravagance. But, in the early part of the third century, the tone of\npublic sentiment in the Christian Church was greatly changed, and the\nwritings of Tertullian contributed much to give encouragement to such\nproductions as the Ignatian Epistles. Tertullian, however, in his\nnumerous writings, never once names Ignatius. It would appear that he\nhad never heard of these letters.\n\n\n\n\n\n[ENDNOTES]\n\n\n[2:1] Carwithen, _Hist. Ch. of England_, i. 554, 2nd ed.\n\n[2:2] _Instit._ I. c. xiii. \u00a7 29. \"There is,\" says Calvin, \"nothing more\nabominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of\nIgnatius.\"\n\n[3:1] _The Apostolic Fathers_, Part II., S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp.\nRevised texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and\nTranslations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Bishop of Durham.\nLondon 1885.\n\n[4:1] _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 401. London, Hodder & Stoughton.\n\n[6:1] Vol. i. p. 316.\n\n[6:2] Pref. I. vii.\n\n[6:3] Vol. i. p. 107.\n\n[7:1] Monk's _Life of Bentley_, ii. p. 44, ed. 1833. Monk adds, that the\naffair was \"the talk of the Long Vacation\"--a clear proof that the truth\nof the statement was indisputable.\n\n[7:2] See my _Old Catholic Church_, p. 398, Edinburgh 1871; and Appendix\nNo. 1 to this Reply.\n\n[7:3] Vol. i. p. 321, note.\n\n[8:1] Vol. i. p. 316.\n\n[8:2] Vol. i. p. 321.\n\n[8:3] Vol. i. p. 320.\n\n[9:1] See _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 403.\n\n[9:2] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 436.\n\n[10:1] Vol. i. p.345.\n\n[11:1] Vol. i. p. 331.\n\n[11:2] See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 131.\n\n[12:1] See _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 404.\n\n[13:1] Page v.\n\n[15:1] Preface, p. vi.\n\n[16:1] _Contra Haer._ iii. 3. 4.\n\n[16:2] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 446.\n\n[16:3] _Ibid._\n\n[17:1] Vol. i. p. 380. He says elsewhere \"almost simultaneously,\" vol.\ni. p. 382.\n\n[17:2] \u00a7 4, 5, 6. It is worthy of remark that Eusebius notices the\nletter of Polycarp, not along with the Ignatian Epistles, but in\nconnection with the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See\nEusebius, Book IV. chap. xiv.\n\n[18:1] The words \"for kings\" of this part of the letter are extant only\nin a Latin version. The passage in the Latin stands thus: \"Orate etiam,\npro regibus et potestatibus et principibus.\"\n\n[18:2] As the great monarch of Assyria surveyed the potentates under his\ndominion, he was tempted to exclaim vaingloriously, \"Are not my princes\nall of them kings?\" Isa. x. 8, Revised Version. The emperor of Rome\nmight have uttered the same proud boast.\n\n[18:3] Vol. i. p. 576.\n\n[18:4] _Ibid._ In support of this view Dr. Lightfoot appeals to 1\nTim ii. 2, where the apostle says that \"supplications, prayers,\nintercessions, and giving of thanks,\" as circumstances required, should\nbe made \"for kings and all that are in authority.\" Paul is here giving\ngeneral directions suited to all time; but Polycarp is addressing\nhimself to the Philippians, and furnishing them with instructions\nadapted to their existing condition.\n\n[19:1] Vol. i. p. 407\n\n[21:1] \u00a7 13. This part of the letter is only extant in the Latin\nversion. Its words are: \"De ipso Ignatio, et _de his qui cum eo sunt_,\nquod certius agnoveritis, significate.\" Dr. Lightfoot admits that \"it\nwas made from an older form of the Greek\" than any of the existing Greek\nMSS., vol. ii. \u00a7 ii. p. 201. He vainly tries to prove that the words\n\"qui cum eo sunt\" must be a mistranslation. They do not suit his theory.\nThey imply that Ignatius and his party were still living when the letter\nwas written.\n\n[21:3] See Dr. Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 23, and Zahn, _Ignatius von\nAntiochien_, pp. 28 and 401.\n\n[21:4] This road was several hundred miles in length.\n\n[22:2] Vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 921, note.\n\n[23:1] \"Si quis vadit ad Syriam, deferat literas meas, quas fecero\nad vos.\" This is the reading of the old Latin version, which, as Dr.\nLightfoot tells us, \"is sometimes useful for correcting the text of the\nextant Greek MSS.\" Vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 901. Even some of the Greek MSS.\nread, not [Greek: par humon] but [Greek: par haemon]. This reading is\nfound in some copies of Eusebius and in Nicephorus, and is followed by\nRufinus. See Jacobson, _Pat. Apost._ ii. 488, note.\n\n[24:1] The apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem directed their\nletters to the brethren \"in _Antioch_, and Syria, and Cilicia,\" Acts xv.\n23; but, according to Dr. Lightfoot and his supporters, Ignatius ignores\nhis own city, though one of the greatest in the empire, and remembers\nonly the province to which it belonged!\n\n[25:1] Epistle to Polycarp, \u00a7 7.\n\n[26:1] The words may be literally translated, \"If any one is going to\nSyria, he might convey to you my letters which I shall have finished,\"\nthat is, which I have ready. Friendly letters were then generally much\nlonger than in our day, as the opportunities of transmitting them were\nfew; and much longer time was occupied in their preparation.\n\n[27:1] [Greek: Psuria]--see the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, by J. B.\nFriedreich, p. 64. Erlangen 1856. It is mentioned by Homer in the\n_Odyssey_, lib. iii. 171. See also Dunbar's _Greek Lexicon_, art.\n[Greek: Psuria].\n\n[27:2] Mr. Gladstone has remarked that \"the [Greek: Suriae naesos], or\nSyros, has the same bearing in respect to Delos as [Greek: Psuriae] in\nrespect to Chios.\"--_Studies on Homer_, vol. iii. 333, note.\n\n[28:1] See Homer, _Odyssey_, xv. 402. See the note in the _Odyssey_, by\nF. H. Rothe, pp. 233-34. Leipsic 1834. In the Latin version of Strabo\nwe have these words: \"Videtur sub-Syriae nomine mentionem facere Homerus\nhis quidem verbis:--\n\n   'Ortygiam supra Syria est quaedam insula.'\"\n\nStrabo, _Rer. Geog._ lib. x. p. 711. Oxford 1807. The passage in Homer\nis thus rendered by Chapman:--\n\n  \"There is an isle above Ortygia,\n   If thou hast heard, they call it Syria.\"\n\nThe present inhabitants of this island call themselves [Greek: Surianoi]\nor Syrians. See Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography_, art.\n\"Syros.\"\n\n[28:2] Bingham's _Origines Ecclesiasticae_, iii. 196. London 1840.\n\n[28:3] Smith's _Assyrian Discoveries_, p. 22. London 1875.\n\n[29:1] Smith, p. 21.\n\n[29:2] Dr. Lightfoot imagines that he has discovered a wonderful\nconfirmation of his views in the word \"likewise\" which here occurs (vol.\ni. p. 574). It is not easy to see the force of his argument; but, with\nthe explanations given in the text, the word has peculiar significance.\nIt implies that whilst the messenger was to carry the letters from\nSmyrna to Syria, he was _also_, or likewise, to bring back Smyrna the\nletters sent to Syria from Philippi.\n\n[30:1] Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, \u00a7 11.\n\n[30:2] Zahn speaks of the mission to Antioch as \"senseless, even\nconsidering the time of the year.\"--_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 287.\n\n[34:1] I was myself so much impressed at one time by Dr. Lightfoot's\nreasoning in the _Contemporary Review_ (May 1875), that I actually\nadopted his reckoning as to the date of Polycarp's death in a late\nedition of my _Ancient Church_; but, on more mature consideration, I\nhave found it to be quite untenable.\n\n[34:2] Vol. i. p. 629.\n\n[34:3] Vol. i. pp. 629, 630.\n\n[35:1] Vol. i. p. 630.\n\n[37:1] Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 632.\n\n[37:2] _Ibid._\n\n[37:3] Vol. i. p. 148.\n\n[37:4] _Vita Malchi_, Opera iv. pp. 90, 91. Paris 1706.\n\n[38:1] D\u00f6llinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, by Plummer, pp. 79, 80.\nEdinburgh 1876.\n\n[38:2] Vol. i. p. 633.\n\n[39:1] Dr. Lightfoot is not supported in his chronology by his favourite\nZahn, who places the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp after the death\nof Peregrinus, in A.D. 165.--_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 517.\n\n[40:1] Vol. i. p. 451.\n\n[40:2] Vol. i. p. 635.\n\n[41:1] Vol. i. p. 640.\n\n[41:2] Vol. i. pp. 639, 640.\n\n[42:1] Vol. i. 610.\n\n[42:2] _Ibid._ Even the manuscript authorities of this postscript differ\nas to the name. According to some, the prenomen was _Statius_; according\nto others, _Stratius_; according to another, _Tatius_; whilst in another\nthe name is omitted altogether. See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 656, note;\nvol. ii. sec. ii. p. 984; see also Jacobson, ii. p. 593.\n\n[43:1] It is probable that the postscript was written many years after\nthe event; and, under these circumstances, the writer may have mistaken\nthe name of the proconsul at the time. Eusebius seems to have known\nnothing of this postscript, and it is now impossible to tell when it was\nadded.\n\n[43:2] Ummidius Quadratus, in A.D. 167, was associated with the Emperor\nLucius Verus in the consulship; and it would appear that about A.D.\n169--on the ground of exceptional ability and influence--he was\nappointed to the proconsulship of Asia.\n\n[43:3] Vol. i. pp. 460, 463. In another case we find the proconsul\n_Sergius_ Paulus styled incorrectly _Servillius_ Paullus, vol. i. p.\n494. See also i. p. 508.\n\n[44:1] It is stated in this same postscript, that \"Philip of Tralles was\nhigh priest,\" or Asiarch, at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp.\nFrom this fact Dr. Lightfoot has endeavoured to derive support for his\nchronology. His argument is, however, quite inconclusive. The dignity\nof Asiarch could be enjoyed only by the very rich, as none others could\nsustain the expense of it; and the same individual might hold it for\nyears together, as well as again and again. The Philip of whom Dr.\nLightfoot speaks, had a son of the same name, who may also have been\nhigh priest or Asiarch. See Lightfoot, vol. i. pp. 612, 613, 615, 616.\n\n[44:2] Euseb. iv.\n\n[45:1] Vol. i. p. 443.\n\n[45:2] Vol. i. p. 343.\n\n[45:3] Vol. i. pp. 443-44.\n\n[46:1] Vol. i. p. 510.\n\n[46:2] \u00a7 2.\n\n[46:3] See Neander, i. p. 147. Edinburgh 1847.\n\n[46:4] Neander, i. p. 146.\n\n[47:1] Antoninus Pius became emperor in A.D. 138.--Lightfoot, i. p. 703.\nHadrian died on the 10th of July of that year.--_Ibid._\n\n[47:2] Book iv. 10.\n\n[47:3] Book iv. 11. Dr. Lightfoot states that Eusebius had lists of\nRoman and Alexandrian bishops, \"giving the lengths of their respective\nterms of office,\" vol. ii. sec. i. p. 451. It is said that Hippolytus\nwas the first who ever made a chronological list of the Bishops of\nRome.--D\u00f6llinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, p. 337.\n\n[50:1] \u00a7 8, 9.\n\n[50:2] Vol. i. p. 703.\n\n[50:3] Vol. i. p. 650.\n\n[51:1] Vol. i. p. 273.\n\n[53:1] _Contra Haer._ lib. v. c. 28. \u00a74.\n\n[54:1] Dr. Lightfoot seems to have been in a condition of strange\nforgetfulness when he asks, \"Why does not Irenaeus quote Polycarp's\nEpistle?\"--vol. i. p. 328. The simple answer is that he mentions the\nEpistle, and quotes Polycarp by name as a witness against the heretics.\n_Contra Haer._ book iii. c. 3. \u00a7 4.\n\n[55:1] Eusebius, v. c. i. The writer here mentions a number of\nindividuals by name, who were at this time \"led into the amphitheatre to\nthe wild beasts.\"\n\n[55:2] Professor Harnack says: \"If we do not retain the Epistle of\nPolycarp, then we must allow that _the external evidence on behalf\nof the Ignatian Epistles is exceedingly weak, and hence is highly\nfavourable to the suspicion that they are spurious.\"--Expositor_ for\nJan. 1886, p. 11. We have seen, however, that the Epistle of Polycarp\nfurnishes no evidence in their favour. See Chap. II.\n\n[56:1] Vol. i. p. 578.\n\n[57:1] Vol. i. p. 579.\n\n[57:2] Vol. i. p. 580.\n\n[57:3] Vol. i. p. 39.\n\n[57:4] Vol. i. p. 583.\n\n[57:5] To the Trallians, \u00a7 10.\n\n[58:1] To the Romans, \u00a7 5.\n\n[58:2] To the Trallians, \u00a7 4.\n\n[58:3] To the Smyrnaeans, \u00a7 4.\n\n[58:4] To the Romans, \u00a7 4.\n\n[58:5] Letter of the Smyrnaeans relating to the death of Polycarp, \u00a7 4.\n\n[58:6] To the Smyrnaeans, \u00a7 9.\n\n[58:7] Polycarp to the Philippians, Section \u00a7 1, 5, 10.\n\n[58:8] \u00a7 4, 6.\n\n[59:1] To the Philad. \u00a7 3. To the Smyrnaeans, \u00a7 9. To Polycarp, \u00a7 6.\n\n[59:2] _The Ancient Church_, Period II. sec. ii. chap. ii., iii.\n\n[59:3] _Epistle to the Philippians_, pp. 181-269.\n\n[60:1] Vol. i. p. 377.\n\n[60:2] 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 5.\n\n[61:1] Acts xx. 28, 31.\n\n[61:2] 1 Tim. iv. 14.\n\n[62:1] _Comment. in Titum_.\n\n[62:2] Gal. ii. 9.\n\n[63:1] _Philippians._ Essay, pp. 216, 218.\n\n[63:2] Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, here completely mistakes the date\nof the Epistle of Polycarp.\n\n[63:3] _Philippians_, p. 226.\n\n[63:4] _Ibid._ p. 227.\n\n[63:5] _Ibid._ p. 226.\n\n[64:1] See my _Ancient Church_, 4th edition, pp. 470-71. New York 1883.\n\n[64:2] Vol. i. p. 377.\n\n[64:3] It is quite clear that the bishops of whom Irenaeus speaks were\nnot a distinct order from presbyters. Thus he says, \"It is incumbent\nto obey the _presbyters_ who are in the Church, those who possess the\nsuccession from the apostles, and who together with the _succession\nof the episcopate_ have received the certain gift of truth.\" ... \"It\nbehoves us ... to adhere to those who ... hold the doctrine of the\napostles, and who, together with _the order of the presbytery_, display\nsound speech and blameless conduct.\"--_Contra Haer._ lib. iv. c. 26, \u00a7\n2, 4.\n\n[65:1] _Irenicum_, part ii. chap. 7.\n\n[65:2] _Contra Haer._ iii. 3, 4.\n\n[65:3] \"It is,\" says he, \"at all events _not likely_,\" vol. i. p. 425.\n\n[66:1] 1 Tim. i. 18.\n\n[66:2] If he was eighty-six years of age at the time of his martyrdom in\nA.D. 169, he was born A.D. 83.\n\n[67:1] Even Eusebius has given some countenance to this practice. See\nhis _Evangelical Preparation_, xii. c. 31.\n\n[68:1] D\u00f6llinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, p. 113.\n\n[69:1] \u00a7 9. See this letter in Appendix II.\n\n[70:1] Vol. i. p. 383. It is worthy of note that, in this Epistle to the\nRomans, Antioch is not named. Ignatius speaks of himself as \"the bishop\nfrom Syria,\" \u00a7 2. He thus seeks to identify himself with the Ignatius\nmentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, who speaks of sending letters to\nSyria.\n\n[71:1] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 186.\n\n[72:1] Lightfoot, vol. ii. sec. i. pp. 435, 445.\n\n[72:2] Vol. i. p. 46.\n\n[73:1] Euseb. v. c. 24.\n\n[74:1] Eph. \u00a7 6; Magn. \u00a7 6.\n\n[74:2] Rom. \u00a7 4.\n\n[74:3] Eph. \u00a7 12; Rom. \u00a7 4; Trallians, \u00a7 3.\n\n[74:4] Eph. \u00a7 9.\n\n[75:1] Polycarp, \u00a7 6.\n\n[75:2] Smyrnaeans, \u00a7 5; Philad. \u00a7 6.\n\n[75:3] _Philosophumena_, Book IX.\n\n[75:4] Eph. \u00a7 1.\n\n[75:5] Rom. \u00a7 6.\n\n[76:1] Vol. i. p. 329.\n\n[76:2] Philippians, p. 236.\n\n[77:1] Cyprian could not sympathize with this Ignatius in his passion\nfor martyrdom. The Bishop of Carthage incurred some odium by retiring to\na place of safety in a time of persecution.\n\n[77:2] Philippians, Essay 237.","title":"The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious: A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":24006}