THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. A Reply to The Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham. BY W. D. KILLEN, D. D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History, andPrincipal of the Presbyterian Theological Faculty, Ireland. "As the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius may be justly suspected, so, too, the letters which presuppose the correctness of this suspicious legend do not wear at all a stamp of a distinct individuality of character, and of a man of these times addressing his last words to the Churches. " --AUGUSTUS NEANDER. EDINBURGH1886. PREFACE. This little volume is respectfully submitted to the candidconsideration of all who take an interest in theologicalinquiries, under the impression that it will throw some additionallight on a subject which has long created much discussion. It hasbeen called forth by the appearance of a treatise entitled, "_TheApostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. RevisedTexts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, by J. B. Lightfoot, D. D. , D. C. L. , LL. D, Bishop of Durham. "In this voluminous production the Right Reverend Author hasmaintained, not only that all the seven letters attributed byEusebius to Ignatius are genuine, but also that "no Christianwritings of the second century, and very few writings ofantiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well authenticated. "These positions, advocated with the utmost confidence by thelearned prelate, are sure to be received with implicit confidenceby a wide circle of readers; and I have felt impelled here openlyto protest against them, inasmuch as I am satisfied that theycannot be accepted without overturning all the legitimatelandmarks of historical criticism. I freely acknowledge theeminent services which Dr. Lightfoot has rendered to the ChristianChurch by his labours as a Commentator on Scripture, and it istherefore all the more important that the serious errors of awriter so distinguished should not be permitted to passunchallenged. All who love the faith once delivered to the saints, may be expected to regard with deference the letters of a martyrwho lived on the borders of the apostolic age; but these IgnatianEpistles betray indications of a very different original, for theyreveal a spirit of which no enlightened Christian can approve, andpromulgate principles which would sanction the boldest assumptionsof ecclesiastical despotism. In a work published by me many yearsago, I have pointed out the marks of their imposture; and I havesince seen no cause to change my views. Regarding all theseletters as forgeries from beginning to end, I have endeavoured, inthe following pages, to expose the fallacy of the arguments bywhich Dr. Lightfoot has attempted their vindication. ASSEMBLY COLLEGE, BELFAST, July 1886. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. The critical spirit stimulated by the Reformation--The IgnatianEpistles as regarded by Calvin, Ussher, Vossius, Daillé, Pearson, Wake, and Cureton--Dr. Lightfoot as a scholar and a commentator--The valuable information supplied in his recent work--His estimateof the parties who have pronounced judgment on the question of theIgnatian Epistles--His verdict unfair--His introduction of Lucianas a witness in his favour--The story of Peregrinus--Dr. Lightfoot'scardinal mistake in his treatment of this question. CHAPTER II. THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED. Dr. Lightfoot makes a most unguarded statement as to the IgnatianEpistles--The letter of Polycarp better authenticated--The dateassigned for the martyrdom of Ignatius--The date of Polycarp'sEpistle--Written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius--Not written inthe reign of Trajan--The Epistle of Polycarp has no reference toIgnatius of Antioch--It refers to another Ignatius of another ageand country--It was written at a time of persecution--The postscriptto the letter of Polycarp quite misunderstood--What is meantby letters being carried to Syria--Psyria and Syria, twoislands in the Aegaean Sea--The errors of transcribers of thepostscript--The true meaning of the postscript--What has led tothe mistake as to the claims of the Ignatian Epistles--Thecontinued popularity of these Epistles among High Churchmen. CHAPTER III. THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. Dr. Lightfoot's strange reasoning on this subject--The testimonyof Eusebius, Jerome, and others--Eusebius and Jerome highlycompetent witnesses--Dr. Döllinger's estimate of Jerome--The basison which Dr. Lightfoot rests the whole weight of his chronologicalargument--Aristides and his _Sacred Discourses_--StatiusQuadratus, the consuls and proconsuls--Ummidius Quadratus--Polycarpmartyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius--His visit to Rome in thetime of Anicetus--Put to death when there was only one emperor--Age of Polycarp at the time of his martyrdom--The importance ofthe chronological argument. CHAPTER IV. THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY. The testimony of Irenaeus quite misunderstood--Refers to the dyingwords of one of the martyrs of Lyons--The internal evidenceagainst the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles--The contrastbetween the Epistle of Polycarp and the Ignatian Epistles asexhibited by Dr. Lightfoot himself--Additional points ofcontrast--Dr. Lightfoot quite mistaken as to the origin ofPrelacy--It did not originate in the East, or Asia Minor, but inRome--The argument from the cases of Timothy and Titus untenable--Jerome's account of the origin of Prelacy--James not the firstbishop of Jerusalem--In the early part of the second century theChurches of Rome, Corinth, and Smyrna were Presbyterian--Irenaeusconceals the origin of Prelacy--Coins the doctrine of theapostolical succession--The succession cannot be determined evenin Rome--Testimony of Stillingfleet--In what sense Polycarp mayhave been constituted a bishop by the apostles. CHAPTER V. THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. We have no positive historical information as to the origin of theIgnatian Epistles--First saw the light in the early part of thethird century--Such forgeries then common--What was then thoughtby many as to pious frauds--Callistus of Rome probably concernedin the fabrication of the Ignatian Epistles--His remarkablehistory--The Epistle to the Romans first forged--It embodies thecredentials of the rest--Montanism stimulated the desire formartyrdom--The prevalence of this mania early in the thirdcentury--The Ignatian Epistles present it in its most outrageousform--The Epistle to the Romans must have been very popular atRome--Doubtful whether Ignatius was martyred at Rome--The IgnatianEpistles intended to advance the claims of Prelacy--Well fitted todo so at the time of their appearance--The account of Callistusgiven by Hippolytus--The Ignatian letters point to Callistus astheir author--Cannot have been written in the beginning of thesecond century--Their doctrine that of the Papacy. APPENDIX I. --Letter of Dr. Cureton. II. --The Ignatian Epistle to the Romans. [ENDNOTES] THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. The question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed toIgnatius of Antioch has continued to awaken interest ever sincethe period of the Reformation. That great religious revolutiongave an immense impetus to the critical spirit; and when broughtunder the light of its examination, not a few documents, theclaims of which had long passed unchallenged, were summarilypronounced spurious. Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, names only seven letters as attributed to Ignatius; but longbefore the days of Luther, more than double that number were incirculation. Many of these were speedily condemned by the criticsof the sixteenth century. Even the seven recognised by Eusebiuswere regarded with grave suspicion; and Calvin--who then stood atthe head of Protestant theologians--did not hesitate to denouncethe whole of them as forgeries. The work, long employed as a text-bookin Cambridge and Oxford, was the _Institutes_ of the Reformerof Geneva; [Endnote 2:1] and as his views on this subject arethere proclaimed very emphatically, [2:2] we may presume thatthe entire body of the Ignatian literature was at that timeviewed with distrust by the leaders of thought in the Englishuniversities. But when the doctrine of the Divine Right ofEpiscopacy began to be promulgated, the seven letters rose in theestimation of the advocates of the hierarchy; and an extreme desirewas manifested to establish their pretensions. So great was theimportance attached to their evidence, that in 1644--in the verymidst of the din and confusion of the civil war between Charles I. And his Parliament--the pious and erudite Archbishop Ussherpresented the literary world with a new edition of these memorials. Two years later the renowned Isaac Vossius produced a kindredpublication. Some time afterwards, Daillé, a learned FrenchProtestant minister, attacked them with great ability; andproved, to the satisfaction of many readers, that they are utterlyunworthy of credit. Pearson, subsequently Bishop of Chester, nowentered the arena, and in a work of much talent and research--thefruit of six years' labour--attempted to restore their reputation. This vindication was not permitted to pass without an answer; but, meanwhile, the dark prospects of the Reformed faith in England andthe Continent directed attention to matters of more absorbinginterest, and the controversy was discontinued. From time to time, however, these Epistles were kept before the eyes of the publicby Archbishop Wake and other editors; and more recently theappearance of a Syriac copy of three of them--printed underthe supervision of the late Rev. Dr. Cureton--reopened thediscussion. Dr. Cureton maintained that his three Epistles are theonly genuine remains of the pastor of Antioch. In a still laterpublication, [3:1] Bishop Lightfoot controverts the views ofDr. Cureton, and makes a vigorous effort to uphold the credit ofthe seven letters quoted by Eusebius and supported by Pearson. Dr. Lightfoot has already acquired a high and deserved reputation as ascholar and a commentator, and the present work furnishes abundantevidence of his linguistic attainments and his perseverance; butit is somewhat doubtful whether it will add to his fame as acritic and a theologian. In these three portly octavo volumes--extending to upwards of 1800 pages of closely printed matter--hetries to convince his readers that a number of the silliestproductions to be found among the records of antiquity, are theremains of an apostolic Father. He tells us, in his preface, thatthe subject has been before him "for nearly thirty years;" andthat, during this period, it has "engaged his attention off and onin the intervals of other literary pursuits and official duties. "Many, we apprehend, will feel that the result is not equal to sucha vast expenditure of time and labour; and will concur withfriends who, as he informs us, have complained to him that he hasthus "allowed himself to be diverted from the more congenial taskof commenting on S. Paul's Epistles. " There is not, we presume, anevangelical minister in Christendom who would not protest againstthe folly exhibited in these Ignatian letters; and yet it appearsthat the good Bishop of Durham has spent a large portion of hislife in an attempt to accomplish their vindication. To Dr. Lightfoot may be justly awarded the praise of having heremade the reading public acquainted with the various manuscriptsand versions of these Ignatian letters, as well as with thearguments which may be urged in their favour; and he has thusrendered good service to the cause of historical criticism. Professor Harnack, in a late number of the _Expositor_ [4:1], states no more than the truth when he affirms that "this work isthe most learned and careful Patristic Monograph which hasappeared in the nineteenth century. " To any one who wishes tostudy the Ignatian controversy, it supplies a large amount ofvaluable evidence, not otherwise easily accessible. Some, indeed, may think that, without any detriment to ecclesiasticalliterature, some of the matter which has helped to swell thedimensions of these volumes might have been omitted. Everything inany way associated with the name of Ignatius seems to have awonderful fascination for the learned prelate. Not content withpublishing and commending what he considers the genuineproductions of the apostolic Father, he here edits and annotatesletters which have long since been discredited by scholars of allclasses, and which he himself confesses to be apocryphal. The_Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius_--which he also acknowledges to bea mere bundle of fables--he treats with the same tender regard. Nor is this all. He gives these acts, or large portions of them, in Latin and Greek, as well as in Coptic and Syriac; and annotatesthem in addition. He supplies, likewise, English translations. It may be argued, that the publication of such a mass of legendaryrubbish is necessary to enable the student to form a correctjudgment on the merits of the subject in debate; but surely thequestion might be settled without the aid of some of theseauxiliaries. Dr. Lightfoot has long been known as one of the most candid andpainstaking of scriptural commentators; but it must always beremembered that he is an Episcopalian, and the ruler of an Englishdiocese. He would be something almost more than human, were heto hold up the scales of testimony with strict impartiality whenweighing the claims of his own order. It strikes us that, inthe work before us, his prejudices and predilections revealtheir influence more conspicuously than in any of his otherpublications. He can see support for his views in words andphrases where an ordinary observer can discover nothing of thekind; and he can close his eyes against evidence which others maydeem very satisfactory. Even when appraising the writers who havetaken part in this controversy, he has presented a very one-sidedestimate. He speaks of those who reject the claims of theseEpistles as forming "a considerable list of _second and thirdrate_ names;" [6:1] and he mentions Ussher and Bentley among thosewho espouse his sentiments. According to our author, there cannotbe a "shadow of doubt" that the seven Vossian Epistles "representthe genuine Ignatius. " [6:2] "No Christian writings of the secondcentury, " says he, "and very few writings of antiquity, whetherChristian or pagan, are so well authenticated. " [6:3] He surelycannot imagine that Ussher would have endorsed such statements;for he knows well that the Primate of Armagh condemned theEpistle to Polycarp as a forgery. He has still less reasonto claim Bentley as on his side. On authority which Bishop Monk, the biographer of Bentley, deemed well worthy of acceptance, it isstated that in 1718, "on occasion of a Divinity Act, " the Masterof Trinity College, Cambridge, "made a speech _condemning_ theEpistles of S. Ignatius. " His address created a "great ferment" inthe university. [7:1] It is further reported that Bentley "refusedto hear the Respondent who attempted to reply. " We might haveexpected such a deliverance from the prince of British critics;for, with the intuition of genius, he saw the absurdity ofrecognising these productions as proceeding from a Christianminister who had been carefully instructed by the apostles. Bentley's refusal to hear the Respondent who attempted to reply tohim, was exactly in keeping with his well-known dictatorialtemper. Does Dr. Lightfoot bring forward any evidence tocontradict this piece of collegiate history? None whatever. He merely treats us to a few of his own _conjectures_, which simplyprove his anxiety to depreciate its significance. And yet heventures to parade the name of Bentley among those of the scholarswho contend for the genuineness of these letters! He deals afterthe same fashion with the celebrated Porson. In a letter to theauthor of this review [7:2], Dr. Cureton states that Porson"rejected" these letters "in the form in which they were put forthby Ussher and Vossius;" and declares that this piece ofinformation was conveyed to himself by no less competent anauthority than Bishop Kaye. Dr. Lightfoot meets this evidence bysaying that "the _obiter dictum_ even of a Porson, " in thecircumstances in which it was given, might be "of little value. " [7:3]It was given, however, exactly in the circumstances in whichthe speaker was best prepared to deliver a sound verdict, for itwas pronounced after the great critic had read the _Vindiciae_ ofPearson. It would be hopeless to attempt to settle a disputed question ofcriticism by enumerating authorities on different sides, as, afterall, the value of these authorities would be variously discounted. We must seek to arrive at truth, not by quoting names, but byweighing arguments. Not a few, however, whose opinion may beentitled to some respect, will not be prepared to agree withBishop Lightfoot when he affirms that those who reject theseIgnatian letters are, with few exceptions, only to be found in the"list of second and third rate names" in literature. [8:1] We haveseen that Bentley and Porson disagree with him--and he can pointto no more eminent critics in the whole range of modernscholarship. If Daillé must be placed in the second rank, surelyPearson may well be relegated to the same position; for there ismost respectable proof that his _Vindiciae_, in reply to thetreatise of the French divine, was pronounced by Porson to be a"very unsatisfactory" performance. [8:2] "The most elaborate andingenious portion of the work" is, as Bishop Lightfoot himselfconfesses, "the least satisfactory. " [8:3] Dr. Lightfoot, webelieve, will hardly pretend to say that Vossius, Bull, andWaterland stand higher in the literary world than Salmasius, JohnMilton, and Augustus Neander; and he will greatly astonish thosewho are acquainted with the history and writings of one of thefathers of the Reformation, if he will contend that John Calvinmust be placed only in the second or third class of Protestanttheologians. In the presence of the great doctor of Geneva, Hammond, Grotius, Zahn, and others whom Dr. Lightfoot has named ashis supporters, may well hide their diminished heads. In the work before us the Bishop of Durham has pretty closelyfollowed Pearson, quoting his explanations and repeating hisarguments. Some of these are sufficiently nebulous. ProfessorHarnack--who has already reviewed his pages in the _Expositor_, and who, to a great extent, adheres to the views which theypropound--admits, notwithstanding, that he has "overstrained" hiscase, and has adduced as witnesses writers of the second and thirdcenturies of whom it is impossible to prove that they knewanything of the letters attributed to Ignatius. [9:1] As aspecimen of the depositions which Dr. Lightfoot has pressed intohis service, we may refer to the case of Lucian. That author wroteabout sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom ofIgnatius, and his Lordship imagines that in one of his works hecan trace allusions to the pastor of Antioch under the fictitiousname of Peregrinus. "Writing, " says he "soon after A. D. 165, "Lucian "caricatures the progress of Ignatius through Asia Minor inhis death of Peregrinus. " [9:2] This Peregrinus was certainly anodd character. Early in life he had murdered his own father, andfor this he was obliged to make his escape from his country. Wandering about from place to place, he identified himself withthe Christians, gained their confidence, and became, as isalleged, a distinguished member of their community. His zeal intheir cause soon exposed him to persecution, and he was throwninto prison. His incarceration added greatly to his fame. Hisco-religionists, including women and children, were seen from morningto night lingering about the place of his confinement; he wasabundantly supplied with food; and the large sums of money, givento him as presents, provided him with an ample revenue. After hisrelease he forfeited the favour of his Christian friends, andbecame a Cynic philosopher; but he could not be at peace. He atlength resolved to immortalize himself by voluntary martyrdom. Meanwhile he despatched letters to many famous cities, containinglaws and ordinances; and appointed certain of his companions--under the name of death-messengers--to scatter abroad thesemissives. Finally, at the close of the Olympian games he erected afuneral pile; and when it was all ablaze, he threw himself intoit, and perished in the flames. "There is very strong reason forbelieving" says Dr. Lightfoot, "that Lucian has drawn his picture, at least in part, from the known circumstances of Ignatius'history. " [10:1] The bishop returns again and again to theparallelism between Ignatius and Peregrinus, and appears to thinkit furnishes an argument of singular potency in favour of thedisputed Epistles. "Second only, " says he, to certain othervouchers, which he produces, "stands this testimony. " [11:1]From such a sample the judicious reader may form some idea of theconclusiveness of the bishop's reasoning. Peregrinus begins lifeas a parricide, and dies like a madman; and yet we are asked tobelieve that Lucian has thus sketched the history of an apostolicFather! When Lucian wrote, Ignatius had been dead about sixtyyears; but the pagan satirist sought to amuse the public bysketching the career of an individual whom he had himself heardand seen, [11:2] and who must have been well known to many of hisreaders. About the middle of the second century the Church wassorely troubled by false teachers, especially of the Gnostic type;and it may have been that some adventurer, of popular gifts andprofessing great zeal in the Christian cause, contrived to gatheraround him a number of deluded followers, who, for a time, adheredto him with wonderful enthusiasm. It may be that it is thischarlatan to whom Lucian points, and whose history he perhapsexaggerates. But there is nothing in the life of Peregrinus whichcan fairly be recognised even as a caricature of the career of oneof the most distinguished of the early Christian martyrs. Were weto maintain that the pagan satirist was referring to the ApostleJohn, we might be able to show almost as many points of resemblance. The beloved disciple travelled about through various countries;acquired a high reputation among the Christians; was imprisonedin the Isle of Patmos; wrote letters to the seven Churches of Asia;and was visited in his place of exile by angels or messengers, who probably did not repair to him empty-handed. John died onlya few years before Ignatius, and was connected with the samequarter of the globe. We have, however, never yet heard thatLucian was suspected of alluding to the author of the Apocalypse. If Bishop Lightfoot thinks that he can convince sensible men ofthe genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles by bringing forward suchwitnesses as Lucian and his hero Peregrinus, we believe he is verymuch mistaken. The argument is not original, for it is pressedwith great confidence by his predecessor Pearson, and by othersmore recently. But its weakness is transparent. Professor Harnack, whilst admitting the weight of much of the evidence adduced inthese volumes, scornfully refuses to acknowledge its relevancy. "Above all, " says he, "Lucian should be struck out. I confessI cannot imagine how writers go on citing Lucian as a witnessfor the Epistles. " [12:1] There is, however, an old adage, "Any port in a storm:" and before the close of this discussionit may perhaps be found that Lucian is as good a harbour ofrefuge as can be furnished for the credit of the Ignatian Epistlesin the whole of the second century. It is obvious that, even according to his own account of thehistory of his present work, Dr. Lightfoot has not entered on itspreparation under circumstances likely to result in a safe andunprejudiced verdict. "_I never once doubted_, " says he in thepreface, [13:1] "that we possessed in one form or another thegenuine letters of Ignatius. " This is, however, the very firstpoint to be proved; and the bishop has been labouring throughoutto make good a foregone conclusion. No wonder that the resultshould be unsatisfactory. If he has built on a false foundation, nothing else could be expected. There is not, we are satisfied, aparticle of solid evidence to show that Ignatius of Antioch leftbehind him any writings whatever. This may be deemed a very boldstatement, but it is deliberately advanced. I hope, in asubsequent chapter, to demonstrate that it is not made without dueconsideration. CHAPTER II. THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED. The Bishop of Durham affirms, in a passage already quoted, that"no Christian writings of the second century, and very fewwritings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so_well authenticated_" as the Epistles attributed to Ignatius. This assuredly is an astounding announcement, made deliberatelyby a distinguished author, whose attention, for nearly thirty years, has been directed to the subject. The letter of Polycarp to thePhilippians is a writing of the second century, and it is by farthe most important witness in support of the Ignatian letters; butwe must infer, from the words just quoted, that it is not "so wellauthenticated" as they are. It is difficult to understand by whatprocess of logic his Lordship has arrived at this conclusion. Inan ordinary court of law, the witness who deposes to character isexpected to stand on at least as high a moral platform in publicestimation as the individual in whose favour he bears testimony;but if the letter of Polycarp is not "so well authenticated" asthese Ignatian letters, how can it be brought forward to establishtheir reputation? Nor is this the only perplexing circumstanceconnected with this discussion. There was a time when, accordingto his own statement in the present work, Dr. Lightfoot "acceptedthe Curetonian letters as representing the genuine Ignatius;" [15:1]and, of course, when he regarded as forgeries the four otherswhich he now acknowledges. In the volumes before us, as if tomake compensation for the unfavourable opinion which he oncecherished, he advances the whole seven of the larger edition to aposition of especial honour. The letter of Polycarp, the works ofJustin Martyr, the treatise of Irenaeus _Against Heresies_, andother writings of the second century, have long sustained anhonest character; but now they must all take rank below theIgnatian Epistles. According to the Bishop of Durham, they are not"so well authenticated. " In his eagerness to exalt the credit of these Ignatian letters, Dr. Lightfoot, in his present publication, has obviously expressedhimself most incautiously. In point of fact, the letter ofPolycarp, as a genuine production of the second century, occupiesan incomparably higher position than the Ignatian Epistles. Theinternal evidence in its favour is most satisfactory. It isexactly such a piece of correspondence as we might expect from apious and sensible Christian minister, well acquainted with theScriptures, and living on the confines of the apostolic age. Ithas, besides, all the external confirmation we could desire. Irenaeus, who was personally well known to the author, and who hasleft behind him the treatise _Against Heresies_ already mentioned, speaks therein of this letter in terms of high approval. "Thereis, " says he, "a very sufficient Epistle of Polycarp written tothe Philippians, from which those who desire it, and who care fortheir own salvation, can learn both the character of his faith andthe message of the truth. " [16:1] Could such a voucher as this beproduced for the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and were theexternal evidence equally satisfactory, it would be absurd todoubt their genuineness. But whilst the internal evidencetestifies against them, they are not noticed by any writer forconsiderably more than a century after they are said to haveappeared. The date commonly assigned for the martyrdom of Ignatius, andconsequently for the writing of the letters ascribed to him, isthe ninth year of Trajan, corresponding to A. D. 107. This date, Dr. Lightfoot tells us, is "the one fixed element in the commontradition. " [16:2] It is to be found in the _Chronicon Paschale_, and in the Antiochene and the Roman "Acts, " as well as elsewhere. [16:3]This same date is assigned by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistlesfor the writing of Polycarp's letter. "Only a few months at theoutside, " says Dr. Lightfoot, "probably only a few weeks, afterthese Ignatian Epistles purport to have been written, the Bishopof Smyrna himself addresses a letter to the Philippians. " [17:1]In due course it will be shown that Polycarp was at this timeonly about four-and-twenty years of age; and any intelligentreader who pursues his Epistle can judge for himself whether itcan be reasonably accepted as the production of so very youthfulan author. It appears that it was dictated in answer to acommunication from the Church at Philippi, in which he wasrequested to interpose his influence with a view to the settlementof some grave scandals which disturbed that ancient Christiancommunity. Is it likely that a minister of so little experiencewould have been invited to undertake such a service? Thecommunication is rather such an outpouring of friendly counsel asbefitted an aged patriarch. In a fatherly style he here addresseshimself to wives and widows, to young men and maidens, to parentsand children, to deacons and presbyters. [17:2] There are other indications in this letter that it cannot havebeen written at the date ascribed to it by the advocates of theIgnatian Epistles. It contains an admonition to "pray for _kings_(or _the_ kings), _authorities_, and _princes_. " [18:1] We are notat liberty to assume that these three names are preciselysynonymous. By kings, or _the_ kings, we may apparently understandthe imperial rulers; by authorities, consuls, proconsuls, praetors, and other magistrates; and by princes, those pettysovereigns and others of royal rank to be found here and therethroughout the Roman dominions. [18:2] Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, argues that the translation adopted by some--"_the_ kings"--isinadmissible, as, according to his ideas, "we have very goodground for believing that the definite article had no place in theoriginal. " [18:3] He has, however, assigned no adequate reason whythe article may not be prefixed. His contention, that theexpression "pray for kings" has not "anything more than a generalreference, " [18:4] cannot be well maintained. In a case such asthis, we must be, to a great extent, guided in our interpretationby the context; and if so, we may fairly admit the article, forimmediately afterwards Polycarp exhorts the Philippians to prayfor their persecutors and their enemies, --an admonition whichobviously has something more than "a general reference. " Such anadvice would be inappropriate when persecution was asleep, andwhen no enemy was giving disturbance. But, at the date whenIgnatius is alleged to have been martyred, Polycarp could not haveexhorted the Philippians to pray for "the kings, " as there wasthen only _one_ sovereign ruling over the empire. That this letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written at atime when persecution was rife, is apparent from its tenorthroughout. If we except the case of Ignatius of Antioch--many ofthe tales relating to which Dr. Lightfoot himself rejects asfabulous [19:1]--we have no evidence that in A. D. 107 theChristians were treated with severity. The Roman world was thenunder the mild government of Trajan, and the troubles whichafflicted the disciples in Bithynia, under Pliny, had not yetcommenced. The emperor, so far as we have trustworthy information, had hitherto in no way interfered with the infant Church. But inA. D. 161 two sovereigns were in power, and a reign of terror wasinaugurated. We can therefore well understand why Polycarp, afterexhorting his correspondents to pray for "the kings, " immediatelyfollows up this advice by urging them to pray for theirpersecutors and their enemies. If by "kings" we here understandemperors, as distinguished from "princes" or inferior potentates, it must be obvious that Polycarp here refers to the two reigningsovereigns. It so happened that, when two kings began to reign, persecution at once commenced; and the language of the Epistleexactly befits such a crisis. The whole strain of this letter points, not to the reign ofTrajan, but to that of Marcus Aurelius. Polycarp exhorts thePhilippians "to practise all endurance" (§ 9) in the service ofChrist. "If, " says he, "we should suffer for His name's sake, letus glorify Him" (§ 8). He speaks of men "encircled in saintlybonds;" (§ 1) and praises the Philippians for the courage whichthey had manifested in sympathizing with these confessors. Hereminds them how, "with their own eyes, " they had seen theirsufferings (§ 9). All these statements suggest times oftribulation. A careful examination of this letter may convince usthat it contains no reference to the Epistles attributed toIgnatius of Antioch. Of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius, four are said to have been written from _Smyrna_ and three from_Troas_. But the letters of which Polycarp speaks were writtenfrom neither of these places, but from _Philippi_. In the lettersattributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the martyr describes himself asa solitary sufferer, hurried along by ten rough soldiers from cityto city on his way to Rome; in the letter of Polycarp to thePhilippians, Ignatius is only one among a crowd of victims, ofwhose ultimate destination the writer was ignorant. A considerabletime after the party had left Philippi, Polycarp begs the brethrenthere to tell him what had become of them. "Concerning Ignatiushimself, and those _who are with him_, if, " says he, "ye have anysure tidings, certify us. " [21:1] In the Ignatian Epistleaddressed to Polycarp, he is directed to "write to the Churches, "to "call together a godly council, " and "to elect" a messenger tobe sent to Syria (§7). Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, takes no notice of these instructions. He had obviously neverheard of them. It is indeed plain that the letter of thePhilippians to Polycarp had only a partial reference to the caseof Ignatius and his companions. It was largely occupied with othermatters; and to these Polycarp addresses himself in his reply. The simple solution of all these difficulties is to be found inthe fact that the Ignatius mentioned by Polycarp was a totallydifferent person from the pastor of Antioch. He lived in anotherage and in another country. Ignatius or Egnatius--for the name isthus variously written--was not a very rare designation; [21:3]and in the neighbourhood of Philippi it seems to have been common. The famous _Egnatian_ road, [21:4] which passed through the place, probably derived its title originally from some distinguishedmember of the family. We learn from the letter of Polycarp that_his_ Ignatius was a man of Philippi. Addressing his brethrenthere, he says, "I exhort you all, therefore, to be obedient untothe word of righteousness, and to practise all endurance, whichalso ye saw with your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius, andZosimus, and Rufus, and IN OTHERS ALSO AMONG YOURSELVES" (Sec. 9). These words surely mean that the individuals here named were menof Philippi. It is admitted that two of them, viz. Zosimusand Rufus, answered to this description; and in the LatinMartyrologies, as Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges, [22:2] theyare said to have been natives of the town. It will require theintroduction of some novel canon of criticism to enable us toavoid the conclusion that Ignatius, their companion, is not to beclassed in the same category. It is well known that when Marcus Aurelius became emperor heinaugurated a new system of persecution. Instead of at onceconsigning to death those who boldly made a profession ofChristianity, as had heretofore been customary in times of trial, he employed various expedients to extort from them a recantation. He threw them into confinement, bound them with chains, kept themin lingering suspense, and subjected them to sufferings ofdifferent kinds, in the hope of overcoming their constancy. Itwould seem that Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, and their companionswere dealt with after this fashion. They were made prisoners, putin bonds, plied with torture under the eyes of the Philippians, and taken away from the city, they knew not whither. It may bethat they were removed to Thessalonica, the residence of the Romangovernor, that they might be immured in a dungeon, to await therethe Imperial pleasure. It is pretty clear that they did not expectinstant execution. When Polycarp wrote, he speaks of them as stillliving; and he is anxious to know what may yet betide them. Let us now call attention to another passage in this letter ofPolycarp to the Philippians. Towards its close the followingsentence appears somewhat in the form of a postscript. "Ye wroteto me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, asking that if any oneshould go to Syria, he _might_ carry thither the letters _fromyou_. " We have here the reading, and translation adopted byDr. Lightfoot; but it so happens that there is another readingperhaps, on the whole, quite as well supported by the authority ofversions and manuscripts. It may be thus rendered: "Ye wrote tome, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, suggesting that if any one isgoing to Syria, he might carry thither _my letters to you_. " [23:1]The sentence, as interpreted by the advocates of the IgnatianEpistles, wears a strange and suspicious aspect. If Ignatiusand the Philippians wished their letters to be carried to_Antioch_, why did they not say so? Syria was an extensiveprovince, --much larger than all Ireland, --and many a travellermight have been going there who would have found it quiteimpracticable to deliver letters in its metropolis. When therewas no penny postage, and when letters of friendship were oftencarried by private hands, if an individual residing in the northor south of the Emerald Isle had requested a correspondent inBristol to send his letters by "any one" going over to Ireland, itwould not have been extraordinary if the Englishman had receivedthe message with amazement. Could "any one" passing over toIreland be expected to deliver letters in Cork or Londonderry?There were many places of note in Syria far distant from Antioch;and it was preposterous to propose that "any one" travelling tothat province should carry letters to its capital city. No one canpretend to say that the whole, or even any considerable part ofSyria, was under the ecclesiastical supervision of Ignatius; for, long after this period, the jurisdiction of a bishop did notextend beyond the walls of the town in which he dwelt. If Ignatiusmeant to have his letters taken to _Antioch_, why vaguely say thatthey were to be carried to Syria? [24:1] Why not distinctly namethe place of their destination? It had long been the scene of hispastoral labours; and it might have been expected that its verydesignation would have been repeated by him with peculiarinterest. No good reason can be given why he should speak ofSyria, and not of Antioch, as the place to which his letters wereto be transmitted. Nor is this the only perplexing circumstanceassociated with the request mentioned in the postscript to thisletter. If the Philippians, or Ignatius, had sent letters toPolycarp addressed to the Church of Antioch, was it necessary forthem to say to him that they should be forwarded? Would not hisown common sense have directed him what to do? He was not surelysuch a dotard that he required to be told how to dispose of theseEpistles. If we are to be guided by the statements in the Ignatian Epistles, we must infer that the letters to be sent to Antioch were to beforwarded with the utmost expedition. A council was to be calledforthwith, and by it a messenger "fit to bear the name of God'scourier" [25:1] was to be chosen to carry them to the Syrian metropolis. There are no such signs of haste or urgency indicated in the postscriptto Polycarp's Epistle. The letters of which he speaks could affordto wait until some one happened to be travelling to Syria; and then, it is suggested, he _might_ take them along with him. If we adoptthe reading to be found in the Latin version, and which, frominternal evidence, we may judge to be a true rendering of the original, we are, according to the interpretation which must be given to itby the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles, involved in hopelessbewilderment. If by Syria we understand the eastern province, whatpossibly can be the meaning of the words addressed by Polycarp tothe Philippians, "If any one is going to Syria, he might _carrythither my letters to you_"? [26:1] Any one passing from Smyrna toPhilippi turns his face to the north-west, but a traveller fromSmyrna to Syria proceeds south-east, or in the exactly oppositedirection. How could Polycarp hope to keep up a correspondencewith his brethren of Philippi, if he sent his letters to thedistant East by any one who might be going there? It is pretty evident that the Latin version has preserved the trueoriginal of this postscript, and that the current reading, adoptedby Dr. Lightfoot and others, must be traced to the misapprehensionsof transcribers. Puzzled by the statement that letters from Polycarpto the Philippians were to be sent to Syria, they have tried to correctthe text by changing [Greek: par haemon] into [Greek: par humon]--implying that the letters were to be transmitted, not from Polycarpto the Philippians, but from the Philippians to Antioch. A verysimple explanation may, however, remove this whole difficulty. If by Syria we understand, not the great eastern province so called, but a little island of similar name in the Aegaean Sea, the realbearing of the request is at once apparent. Psyria [27:1]--in thecourse of time contracted into Psyra--lies a few miles west ofChios, [27:2] and is almost directly on the way between Smyrnaand Neapolis, the port-town of Philippi. A letter from Smyrna leftthere would be carried a considerable distance on its journey toPhilippi. Some friendly hand might convey it from thence to itsdestination. Psyria and Syria are words so akin in sound that atranscriber of Polycarp's letter, copying from dictation, mightreadily mistake the one for the other; and thus an error creepinginto an early manuscript may have led to all this perplexity. Letters in those days could commonly be sent only by specialmessengers, or friends traveling abroad; and the Philippianshad made a suggestion to Polycarp as to the best mode of keepingup their correspondence. They had probably some co-religionistsin Psyria; and a letter sent there to one or other of them, could, at the earliest opportunity, be forwarded. But another explanation, perhaps quite as worthy of acceptance, may solve this mystery. Syria was the ancient name of another island in the Aegaean Sea, and one of the Cyclades. Though it is not so much as Psyria inthe direct course between Smyrna and Philippi, it is a place ofgreater celebrity and of more commercial importance. Like Psyria, in the course of ages its name has been contracted, and it is nowknown as Syra. Between it and Smyrna there has been much intercoursefrom time immemorial. It has been famous since the days of Homer, [28:1]and it was anciently the seat of a bishop, [28:2]--an evidencethat it must soon have had a Christian population. It is at thepresent day the centre of an active trade; and a late distinguishedtraveller has told us how, not many years ago, in an afternoon, he and his party "left Syra, and next morning anchored in frontof the town of Smyrna. " [28:3] Syria is not, as has been intimated, in the direct route to Philippi; but the shortest way is not alwayseither the best or the most convenient. At present this place isthe principal port of the Greek archipelago; [29:1] and probably, in the days of Polycarp, vessels were continually leaving its harbourfor towns on the opposite coasts of the Aegaean. A Christianmerchant resident in Syria would thus have facilities for sendingletters left with him either to Smyrna or Philippi. Ignatius orhis friends may have heard of an offer from such a quarter to takecharge of their correspondence, and may have accordingly made thesuggestion noticed at the close of Polycarp's letter. As theisland of Syria was well known to them all, the Smyrnaeans couldnot have misunderstood the intimation. This explanation throws light on another part of this postscriptwhich has long been embarrassing to many readers. After advertingto the request of Ignatius and the Philippians relative to theconveyance of the letters, Polycarp adds, "which request I willattend to if I get a fit opportunity, either personally, or by onewhom I shall depute to act likewise on your behalf. " [29:2]According to the current interpretation, Polycarp here suggeststhe probability of a personal visit to the eastern capital, if hecould find no one else to undertake the service. The occasionevidently called for no such piece of self-sacrifice on the partof this apostolic Father. The Church of Antioch, after the removalof its pastor Ignatius, was, we are assured, delivered fromfarther trouble, and was now at peace. [30:1] The presence of theminister of Smyrna there was utterly unnecessary; [30:2] the placewas very far distant; and why then should he be called on toundertake a wearisome and expensive journey to Antioch and backagain? Polycarp admits that his visit was not essential, and thata messenger might do all that was required quite as well. But ifby Syria we understand one of the Sporades or Cyclades, we arefurnished with a ready solution of this enigma. The little islandof Psyria was distant from Smyrna only a few hours' sail; and asit was perhaps the residence of some of his co-religionists, Polycarp might soon require to repair to it in the discharge ofhis ecclesiastical duties. He could then take along with him, sofar, the letters intended for Philippi. Or if by Syria we hereunderstand the little island anciently so called, near the centreof the Cyclades, the explanation is equally satisfactory. Theletter of Polycarp was written, not as Dr. Lightfoot contends, inA. D. 107 but, as we have seen, about A. D. 161, when, as the wholestrain of the Epistle indicates, he was far advanced in life. There is reason to believe that about this very juncture he wascontemplating a journey to Rome, that he might have a personalconference with its chief pastor, Anicetus. His appearance in theseat of Empire on that occasion created a great sensation, andseems to have produced very important results. If he now wentthere, any one who looks at the map may see that he must passSyria on the way. He could thus take the opportunity of leavingthere any letters for Philippi of which he might be the bearer. At a subsequent stage of our discussion, this visit of Polycarpto Rome must again occupy our attention. The facts brought under the notice of the reader in this chaptermay help him to understand how it has happened that so many havebeen befooled by the claims of these Ignatian Epistles. A mistakeas to two of the names mentioned in the letter of Polycarp, created, as will subsequently appear, by the crafty contrivance ofa manufacturer of spurious documents, has led to a vast amount ofblundering and misapprehension. Ignatius, a man of Philippi, hasbeen supposed to be Ignatius, the pastor of Antioch; and Syria, the eastern province of the Roman Empire, has been confounded withPsyria or Syria--either of these names representing an island inthe Aegean Sea not far from Smyrna. Ignatius, the confessor ofPhilippi, when in bonds wrote, as we find, a number of letterswhich were deemed worthy of preservation, but which have longsince perished; and some time afterwards an adroit forger, with aview to the advancement of a favourite ecclesiastical system, concocted a series of letters which he fathered upon Ignatius ofAntioch. In an uncritical age the cheat succeeded; the letterswere quite to the taste of many readers; and ever since they havebeen the delight of High Churchmen. Popes and Protestant prelatesalike have perused them with devout enthusiasm; and no wonder thatArchbishop Laud, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Hall, and ArchbishopWake, have quoted Ignatius with applause. The letters ascribed tohim are the title-deeds of their order. Even the worthy Bishop ofDurham, who has never permitted himself to doubt that we possessin some form the letters of the pastor of Antioch, has been thevictim of his own credulity; and has been striving "off and on"for "nearly thirty years" to establish the credit of Epistleswhich teach, in the most barefaced language the gospel ofsacerdotal pretension and passive obedience. CHAPTER III. THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. To many it may appear that there can be no connection between thedate of the martyrdom of Polycarp and the claims of the IgnatianEpistles. All conversant with the history of this controversymust, however, be aware that the question of chronology hasentered largely into the discussion. If we defer to the authorityof the earliest and best witnesses to whom we can appeal forguidance, it is impossible to remove the cloud of suspicion whichat once settles down on these letters. Their advocates are awareof the chronological objection, and they have accordingly expendedimmense pains in trying to prove that Eusebius, Jerome, and otherwriters of the highest repute have been mistaken. In his recentwork, the Bishop of Durham has exhausted the resources of hisability and erudition in attempting to demonstrate that the onlyparties from whom we can fairly expect anything like evidence haveall been misinformed. He has secured a verdict in his favour froma number of reviewers, who have apparently at once given waybefore the formidable array of learned lore brought together inthese volumes; [34:1] but, withal, the intelligent reader whocautiously peruses and ponders the elaborate chapter in which hedeals with this question, will feel rather mystified thanenlightened by his argumentation. It may therefore be proper tostate the testimony of the ancient Christian writers, and todescribe the line of reasoning pursued by Dr. Lightfoot. "The main source of opinion, " says the bishop, "respecting theyear of Polycarp's death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been the _Chronicon_ of Eusebius . .. After the seventh year ofM. Aurelius, he appends the notice, 'A persecution overtaking theChurch, Polycarp underwent martyrdom. ' . .. Eusebius is hereassumed to date Polycarp's martyrdom in the seventh year ofM. Aurelius, _i. E. _ A. D. 167. " [34:2] Dr. Lightfoot then proceedsto observe that "this inference is unwarrantable, " inasmuch as"the notice is not placed opposite to, but _after this year_. "He adds that it "is associated with the persecutions in Vienne andLyons, which we know to have happened A. D. 177. " [34:3] So far thestatement of the bishop is unobjectionable, and, according to hisown showing, we might conclude that Polycarp suffered some timeafter the seventh year of M. Aurelius. But this plain logicaldeduction would be totally ruinous to the system of chronologywhich he advocates; and he is obliged to resort to a mostoutlandish assumption that he may get over the difficulty. Hecontends that Eusebius did not know at what precise period thesemartyrdoms occurred. "We can, " says the bishop, "only infer withsafety that Eusebius _supposed_ Polycarp's martyrdom to havehappened _during the reign_ of M. Aurelius. " "As a matter of fact, the Gallican persecutions took place some ten years later [thanA. D. 167], and therefore, so far as this notice goes, themartyrdom of Polycarp might have taken place _as many yearsearlier_. " [35:1] These extracts may give the reader some idea of the manner inwhich Dr. Lightfoot proceeds to build up his chronologicaledifice. Eusebius places the martyrdom of Polycarp and themartyrdoms of Vienne and Lyons after the seventh year ofM. Aurelius; and therefore, argues Dr. Lightfoot, he did not knowwhen they occurred! Because the martyrdoms of Vienne and Lyonstook place ten years after A. D. 167, therefore the martyrdom atSmyrna may, for anything that the father of ecclesiastical historycould tell, have been consummated in A. D. 157! Dr. Lightfoothimself supplies proof that such an inference is inadmissible; forhe acknowledges that, according to Eusebius, the pastor of Smyrnafinished his career in the reign of M. Aurelius. But, in A. D. 157, M. Aurelius was not emperor. Such are the contradictions to whichthis writer commits himself in attempting to change the times andthe seasons. It is quite clear that Eusebius laboured under no such uncertainty, as Dr. Lightfoot would fondly persuade himself, relative to thedate of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He directs attention to thesubject in his _History_ as well as in his _Chronicon_, and inboth his testimony is to the same effect. In both it is allegedthat Polycarp was martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. It must be remembered, too, that Eusebius was born only abouta century after the event; that from his youth he had devotedhimself to ecclesiastical studies; that he enjoyed the privilegeof access to the best theological libraries in existence inhis day; that, from his position in the Church as bishop ofthe metropolis of Palestine, and as the confidential counselorof the Emperor Constantine, he had opportunities of coming intopersonal contact with persons of distinction from all countries, who must have been well acquainted with the traditions of theirrespective Churches; and that he was a man of rare prudence, intelligence, and discernment. He was certainly not a philosophicalhistorian, and in his great work he has omitted to notice manythings of much moment; but it must be conceded that, generallyspeaking, he is an accurate recorder of facts; and, in the casebefore us, he was under no temptation whatever to make a misleadingstatement. We must also recollect that his testimony is corroboratedby Jerome, who lived in the same century; who, at least in twoplaces in his writings, reports the martyrdom; and who affirmsthat it occurred in the seventh year of M. Aurelius. [37:1]Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, asserts that Jerome "derived his knowledgefrom Eusebius, " [37:2] and that, "though well versed in works ofBiblical exegesis, . .. He was otherwise _extremely ignorant_ ofearly Christian literature. " [37:3] We have here unhappily anotherof those rash utterances in which the Bishop of Durham indulgesthroughout these volumes; for assuredly it is the very extravaganceof folly to tax Jerome with "extreme ignorance of early Christianliterature. " Those who are acquainted with his writings willdecline to subscribe any such depreciatory certificate. He wasundoubtedly bigoted and narrow-minded, but he had a most capaciousmemory; he had travelled in various countries; he had gathered aprodigious stock of information; he was the best Christian scholarof his generation; he has preserved for us the knowledge of not afew important facts which Eusebius has not registered; and he atone time contemplated undertaking himself the composition of anecclesiastical history. [37:4] We cannot, therefore, regard him asthe mere copyist of the Bishop of Caesarea. "Every one acquaintedwith the literature of the primitive Church, " says Dr. Döllinger, "knows that it is precisely in Jerome that we find _a more exactknowledge of the more ancient teachers_ of the Church, and that weare indebted to him for more information about their teaching andwritings, than to any other of the Latin Fathers. " [38:1]Dr. Döllinger is a Church historian whom even the Bishop of Durhamcannot afford to ignore, --as, in his own field of study, he has, perhaps, no peer in existence, --and yet he here states explicitly, not certainly that Jerome was extremely ignorant of earlyChristian literature, but that, in this very department, he wasspecially well informed. The learned monk of Bethlehem must havefelt a deep interest in Polycarp as an apostolic Father: he wasquite capable of testing the worth of the evidence relative to thetime of the martyrdom; and his endorsement of the statement ofEusebius must be accepted as a testimony entitled to very graveconsideration. Some succeeding writers assign even a later periodto the death of Polycarp. It is a weighty fact that no Christianauthor for the first eight centuries of our era places it beforethe reign of M. Aurelius. The first writer who attaches to it anearlier date is Georgius Hamartolus, who flourished about themiddle of the ninth century. Dr. Lightfoot confesses that what hesays cannot be received as based on "any historical tradition orcritical investigation. " [38:2] It is, in fact, utterly worthless. The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array ofevidence opposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does notattempt to show that it is improbable in itself, or that there areany rebutting depositions. He leaves it in its undiminishedstrength; but he raises such a cloud of learned dust around it, that the reader may well lose his head, and be unable, for a time, to see the old chronological landmarks. [39:1] He rests his casechiefly on a statement to be found in a postscript, of admittedlydoubtful authority, appended to the letter of the Smyrnaeansrelative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He argues as if theauthority for this statement were unimpeachable; and, evidentlyregarding it as the very key of the position, he endeavours, bymeans of it, to upset the chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, the_Chronicon Paschale_, and other witnesses. As the reader peruseshis chapter on "The Date of the Martyrdom, " he cannot but feelthat the evidence presented to him is bewildering, indecisive, andobscure; and it may occur to him that the author is very like anindividual who proposes to determine the value of two or threeunknown quantities from one simple algebraic equation. Hisprincipal witness, Aristides, were he now living and brought up inpresence of a jury, would find himself in rather an oddpredicament. He is expected to settle the date of the death ofPolycarp, and yet he knows nothing either of the pastor of Smyrnaor of his tragic end. It does not appear that he had ever heard ofthe worthy apostolic Father. Aristides was a rhetorician who hasleft behind him certain orations, entitled _Sacred Discourses_, written in praise of the god Aesculapius. It might be thought thatsuch a writer is but poorly qualified to decide a disputedquestion of chronology. Our readers may have heard of Papias, --oneof the early Fathers, noted for the imbecility of his intellect. Aristides, it seems, was quite as liable to imposition. "Thecredulity of a Papias, " says Dr. Lightfoot, "is more than matchedby the credulity of an Aristides. " [40:1] Such is the bishop'sleading witness. Aristides was an invalid and a hypochondriac;and, in the discourses he has left behind him, he describes thecourse of a long illness, with an account of his pains, aches, purgations, dreams, and visions--interspersed, from time to time, with what Dr. Lightfoot estimates as "valuable chronologicalnotices!" [40:2] The reader may be at a loss to understand how it happens that thiseccentric character has been brought forward as a witness to thedate of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He has been introduced underthe following circumstances. In the postscript to the Smyrnaeanletter--an appendage of very doubtful authority--we are told thatthe martyrdom occurred when Statius Quadratus was proconsul ofAsia. From certain incidental allusions made by Aristides inhis discourses, the bishop labours hard to prove that thisStatius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia somewhere about A. D. 155. The evidence is not very clear or well authenticated; and we havereason to fear that very little reliance can be placed on thedeclarations of this afflicted rhetorician. His sickness is saidto have lasted seventeen years; and it is possible that, meanwhile, his memory as to dates may have been somewhat impaired. Dr. Lightfoot cannot exactly tell when his sickness commenced orwhen it terminated. But he has ascertained that this Quadratus wasconsul in A. D. 142; and, by weighing probabilities as to thelength of the interval which may have elapsed before he becameproconsul, he has arrived at the conclusion that it might haveamounted to twelve or thirteen years. Nothing, however, can bemore unsatisfactory than the process by which he has reached thisresult. According to the usual routine, an individual advanced tothe consulate became, in a number of years afterwards, aproconsul; and yet, as everything depended on the will of theemperor, it was impossible to tell how long he might have to waitfor the appointment. He might obtain it in five years, or perhapssooner, if "an exceptionally able man;" [41:1] or he might be keptin expectancy for eighteen or nineteen years. The proconsulshipcommonly terminated in a year; but an individual might be retainedin the office for five or six years. [41:2] He might become consula second time, and then possibly he might again be made proconsul. Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, has proved that Statius Quadratuswas consul in A. D. 142; and then, by the aid of the dreamerAristides, he has tried to show that he probably became proconsulof Asia about A. D. 154 or A. D. 155. His calculations are obviouslymere guesswork. Even admitting their correctness, it would by nomeans follow that Polycarp was then consigned to martyrdom. Thepostscript of the Smyrnaean letter is, as we have seen, justlysuspected as no part of the original document. Dr. Lightfoothimself tells us, that it is "_generally_ treated as a lateraddition to the letter, and as coming from a different hand;" [42:1]and, whilst disposed to uphold its claims as of high authority, he admits that, when tested as to "external evidence, " thesupplementary paragraphs, of which this is one, "do not standon the same ground" [42:2] as the rest of the Epistle. And yet hiswhole chronology rests on the supposition that the name of theproconsul is correctly given in this probably apocryphal additionto the Smyrnaean letter. Were we even to grant that thispostscript belonged originally to the document, it would supplyno conclusive evidence that Polycarp was martyred in A. D. 155. It is far more probable that the writer has been slightly inaccurateas to the exact designation of the proconsul of Asia about the timeof the martyrdom. [43:1] He was called Quadratus--not perhaps_Statius_, but possibly _Ummidius Quadratus_. [43:2] There isnothing more common among ourselves than to make such a mistake asto a name. How often may we find John put for James, or Robert forAndrew? Quadratus was a patrician name, well known all over theempire; and if Statius Quadratus had, not long before, beenproconsul of Asia, it is quite possible that the writer of thispostscript may have taken it for granted that the proconsul aboutthe time of Polycarp's death was the same individual. The author, whoever he may have been, was probably not very well acquaintedwith these Roman dignitaries, and may thus have readily falleninto the error. Dr. Lightfoot has himself recorded a case in whicha similar mistake has been made--not in an ordinary communicationsuch its this, but in an Imperial ordinance. In a Rescript of theEmperor Hadrian, _Licinius_ Granianus, the proconsul, is styled_Serenus_ Granianus. [43:3] If such a blunder could be perpetratedin an official State document, need we wonder if the penman of thepostscript of the Smyrnaean letter has written Statius Quadratusfor Ummidius Quadratus? And yet, if we admit this very likelyoversight, the whole chronological edifice which the Bishop ofDurham has been at such vast pains to construct, vanishes like thedreams and visions of his leading witness, the hypochondriacAristides. [44:1] Archbishop Ussher and others, who have carefully investigated thesubject, have placed in A. D. 169 the martyrdom of Polycarp. Thefollowing reasons may be assigned why this date is decidedlypreferable to that contended for by Dr. Lightfoot. 1. All the surrounding circumstances point to the reign of MarcusAurelius as the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius has preserved anedict, said to have been issued by Antoninus Pius, in which heannounces that he had written to the governors of provinces "notto trouble the Christians at all, unless they appeared to makeattempts against the Roman government. " [44:2] Doubts--it may be, well founded--have been entertained as to the genuineness of thisordinance; but it has been pretty generally acknowledged that itfairly indicates the policy of Antoninus Pius. "Though certainlyspurious, " says Dr. Lightfoot, "it represents the conception ofhim entertained by Christians in the generations next succeedinghis own. " [45:1] In his reign, the disciples of our Lord, according to the declarations of their own apologists, weretreated with special indulgence. Melito, for example, who wrotenot long after the middle of the second century, bears thistestimony. Capitolinus, an author who flourished about the closeof the third century, reports that Antoninus Pius lived "withoutbloodshed, either of citizen or foe, " during his reign of twenty-twoyears. [45:2] Dr. Lightfoot strives again and again to evadethe force of this evidence, and absurdly quotes the sufferings ofPolycarp and his companions as furnishing a contradiction; but hethus only takes for granted what he has elsewhere failed to prove. He admits, at the same time, that this case stands alone. "_Theonly recorded martyrdoms_, " says he, "in Proconsular Asia duringhis reign [that of Antoninus Pius] are those of Polycarp and hiscompanions. " [45:3] It must, however, be obvious that he cannotestablish even this exception. We have seen that the chronologysupported by the Bishop of Durham is at variance with the expressstatements of all the early Christian writers; and certain factsmentioned in the letter of the Smyrnaeans concur to demonstrateits inaccuracy. The description there given of the sufferingsendured by those of whom it speaks, supplies abundant evidencethat the martyrdoms must have happened in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Dr. Lightfoot himself attests that "persecutions extended throughoutthis reign;" that they were "fierce and deliberate;" and that theywere "_aggravated by cruel tortures_. " [46:1] Such precisely werethe barbarities reported in this Epistle. It states that the martyrs"were so torn by lashes that the mechanism of their flesh was visible, even as far as the inward veins and arteries;" that, notwithstanding, they were enabled to "endure the fire;" and that those who werefinally "condemned to the wild beasts" meanwhile "suffered fearfulpunishments, _being made to lie on sharp shells, and buffeted withother forms of manifold tortures. _" [46:2] These words attestthat, before the Christians were put to death, various expedientswere employed to extort from them a recantation. Such was the modeof treatment recommended by Marcus Aurelius. In an edict issuedagainst those who professed the gospel by this emperor, we havethe following directions: "Let them be arrested, and unless theyoffer to the gods, _let them be punished with divers tortures. _" [46:3]"Various means, " says Neander, "were employed to constrainthem to a renunciation of their faith; and only in the lastextremity, when they could not be forced to submit, was thepunishment of death to be inflicted. " [46:4] This, undoubtedly, was the inauguration of a new system of persecution. In formertimes, the Christians who refused to apostatize were summarilyconsigned to execution. Now, they were horribly tormented invarious ways, with a view to compel them to abandon theirreligion. This new policy is characteristic of the reign ofMarcus Aurelius. Nothing akin to it, sanctioned by Imperialauthority, can be found in the time of any preceding emperor. Its employment now in the case of Polycarp and his companionsfixes the date of the martyrdom to this reign. 2. We have distinct proof that the visit of Polycarp to Rome tookplace _after_ the date assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to hismartyrdom! Eusebius tells us that, in the _first_ year of thereign of Antoninus Pius, [47:1] Telesphorus of Rome died, and wassucceeded in his charge by Hyginus. [47:2] He subsequently informsus that Hyginus dying "_after the fourth year of his office, _"was succeeded by Pius; and he then adds that Pius dying at Rome, "in the _fifteenth_ year of his episcopate, " was succeeded byAnicetus. [47:3] It was in the time of this chief pastor thatPolycarp paid his visit to the Imperial city. It is apparent fromthe foregoing statements that Anicetus could not have entered onhis office until at least nineteen, or perhaps twenty years, afterAntoninus Pius became emperor, that is, until A. D. 157, orpossibly until A. D. 158. This, however, is two or three yearsafter the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for the martyrdom. Surely the Bishop of Durham would not have us to believe thatPolycarp reappeared in Rome two or three years after he expiredon the funeral pile; and yet it is only by some such desperatesupposition that he can make his chronology square with thehistory of the apostolic Father. It is not at all probable that Polycarp arrived in Rome immediatelyafter the appointment of Anicetus as chief pastor. The accountof his visit, as given by Irenaeus, rather suggests that aconsiderable time must meanwhile have elapsed before he made hisappearance there. It would seem that he had been disturbed byreports which had reached him relative to innovations with whichAnicetus was identified; and that, apprehending mischief to thewhole Christian community from anything going amiss in a Church ofsuch importance, he was prompted, at his advanced age, toundertake so formidable a journey, in the hope that, by the weightof his personal influence with his brethren in the Imperial city, he might be able to arrest the movement. It is not necessary nowto inquire more particularly what led the venerable Asiaticpresbyter at this period to travel all the way from Smyrna to theseat of empire. It is enough for us to know, as regards thequestion before us, that it took place sometime during thepastorate of Anicetus; that Polycarp effected much good by hisdealings with errorists when in Rome; and that its chief Christianminister, by his tact and discretion, succeeded in quieting thefears of the aged stranger. That the visit occurred long after thedate assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for his martyrdom, may now beevident; and in a former chapter proof has been adduced to showthat it must be dated, not, as the Bishop of Durham argues, aboutA. D. 154, but in A. D. 161. Neither is there any evidence whateverthat Polycarp was put to death immediately after his return toSmyrna. This supposition is absolutely necessary to give even anappearance of plausibility to the bishop's chronology; but he hasnot been able to furnish so much as a solitary reason for itsadoption. 3. We have good grounds for believing that the martyrdom ofPolycarp occurred not earlier than A. D. 169. This date fulfilsbetter than any other the conditions enumerated in the letter ofthe Smyrnaeans. Archbishop Ussher has been at pains to show thatthe month and day there mentioned precisely correspond to andverify this reckoning. It is unnecessary here to repeat hiscalculations; but it is right to notice another item spoken of inthe Smyrnaean Epistle, supplying an additional confirmatory proofwhich the Bishop of Durham cannot well ignore. When Polycarp waspressed to apostatize by the officials who had him in custody, they pleaded with him as if anxious to save his life--"Why, whatharm is there in saying _Caesar is Lord_, and offering incense?"and they urged him to "_swear by the genius of Caesar_" [50:1]These words suggest that, at the time of this transaction, theRoman world had only one emperor. In January A. D. 169, L. Verusdied. After recording this event in his _Imperial Fasti_, Dr. Lightfoot adds, "M. Aurelius is now _sole emperor_. " [50:2]When he is contending for A. D. 155 as the date of the martyrdom, he lays much stress on the fact that "throughout this Smyrnaeanletter _the singular_ is used of the emperor. " "Polycarp, " hesays, "is urged to declare 'Caesar is Lord;' he is bidden, and herefuses to swear by the 'genius of Caesar. '" "It is, " he adds, "atleast a matter of surprise that these forms should be persistentlyused, if the event had happened _during a divided sovereignty_. " [50:3]The bishop cannot, at this stage of the discussion, decentlyrefuse to recognise the potency of his own argument. The three reasons just enumerated show conclusively that A. D. 155, for which the Bishop of Durham contends so strenuously, cannot beaccepted as the date of the martyrdom. For some years after this, Anicetus was not placed at the head of the Church of the Imperialcity; and he must have been for a considerable time in thatposition, when Polycarp paid his visit to Rome. We have seen thatthe aged pastor of Smyrna suffered in the reign of Marcus Aurelius;and that A. D. 169 is the earliest period to which we can referthe martyrdom, inasmuch as that was the first year in whichMarcus Aurelius was sole emperor. All the reliable chronologicalindications point to this as the more correct reckoning. It has now, we believe, been demonstrated by a series of solid andconcurring testimonies, that Archbishop Ussher made no mistakewhen he fixed on A. D. 169 as the proper date of Polycarp'smartyrdom. The bearing of this conclusion on the question of theIgnatian Epistles must at once be apparent. Polycarp was eighty-sixyears of age at the time of his death; and it follows that inA. D. 107, --or sixty-two years before, --when the Ignatian lettersare alleged to have been dictated, he was only four-and-twenty. The absurdity of believing that at such an age he wrote theEpistle to the Philippians, or that another apostolic Father wouldthen have addressed him in the style employed in the Ignatiancorrespondence, must be plain to every reader of ordinaryintelligence. No wonder that the advocates of the genuineness ofthese Epistles have called into requisition such an enormousamount of ingenuity and erudition to pervert the chronology. Pearson, as we have seen, spent six years in this service; and thelearned Bishop of Durham has been engaged "off and on" for nearlythirty in the same labour. At the close of his long task he seemsto have persuaded himself that he has been quite successful; andspeaking of the theory of Dr. Cureton, he adopts a tone of triumph, and exclaims: "I venture to hope that the discussion which followswill extinguish the last sparks of its waning life. " [51:1] Itremains for the candid reader to ponder the statements submittedto him in this chapter, and to determine how many sparks of lifenow remain in the bishop's chronology. CHAPTER IV. THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS, AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY. 1. _The Testimony of Irenaeus. _ The only two vouchers of the second century produced in support ofthe claims of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, are the letterof Polycarp to the Philippians and a sentence from the treatise ofIrenaeus _Against Heresies_. The evidence from Polycarp's Epistlehas been discussed in a preceding chapter. When examined, it hascompletely broken down, as it is based on an entire misconceptionof the meaning of the writer. The words of Irenaeus can be adducedwith still less plausibility to uphold the credit of these letters. The following is the passage in which they are supposed to beauthenticated: "_One of our people said_, when condemned to thebeasts on account of his testimony towards God--'As I am thewheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of beasts, that I maybe found the pure bread of God. '" [53:1] It is worse than a merebegging of the question to assert that Irenaeus here gives us aquotation from one of the letters of Ignatius. In the extensivetreatise from which the words are an extract, he never oncementions the name of the pastor of Antioch. Had he been aware ofthe existence of these Epistles, he would undoubtedly have availedhimself of their assistance when contending against the heretics--as they would have furnished him with many passages exactly suitedfor their refutation. The words of a man taught by the apostles, occupying one of the highest positions in the Christian Church, and finishing his career by a glorious martyrdom in the verybeginning of the second century, would have been by far theweightiest evidence he could have produced, next to the teachingof inspiration. But though he brings forward Clemens Romanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, [54:1] and others to confront theerrorists, he ignores a witness whose antiquity and weight ofcharacter would have imparted peculiar significance to histestimony. To say that though he never names him elsewhere, hepoints to him in this place as "one of our people, " is to make avery bold and improbable statement. Even the Apostle Paul himselfwould not have ventured to describe the evangelist John in thisway. He would have alluded to him more respectfully. Neither wouldthe pastor of a comparatively uninfluential church in the south ofGaul have expressed himself after this fashion when speaking of aminister who had been one of the most famous of the spiritualheroes of the Church. Not many years before, a terrific persecutionhad raged in his own city of Lyons; many had been put in prison, and some had been thrown to wild beasts; [55:1] and it is obviouslyto one of these anonymous sufferers that Irenaeus here directsattention. The "one of our people" is not certainly an apostolicFather; but some citizen of Lyons, moving in a different sphere, whose name the author does not deem it necessary to enrol in therecord of history. Neither is it to a _written_ correspondence, but to the _dying words_ of the unknown martyr, to which he advertswhen we read, --"One of our people _said_, As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of beasts, that I may be found thepure bread of God. " The two witnesses of the second century who are supposed to upholdthe claims of the Ignatian Epistles have now been examined, and itmust be apparent that their testimony amounts to nothing. Thusfar, then, there is no external evidence whatever in favour ofthese letters. The result of this investigation warrants thesuspicion that they are forgeries. [55:2] The internal evidenceabundantly confirms this impression. Any one who carefully perusesthem, and then reads over the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, theTeaching of the Apostles, the writings of Justin Martyr, and theEpistle of Polycarp, may see that the works just named are theproductions of quite another period. The Ignatian letters describea state of things which they totally ignore. Dr. Lightfoot himselfhas been at pains to point out the wonderful difference betweenthe Ignatian correspondence and the Epistle of Polycarp. "Inwhatever way, " says he, "we test the documents, the contrast isvery striking, --more striking, indeed, than we should haveexpected to find between two Christian writers who lived at thesame time and were personally acquainted with each other. " [56:1]He then proceeds to mention some of the points of contrast. Whilstthe so-called Ignatius lays stress on Episcopacy "as the key-stoneof the ecclesiastical order, " Polycarp, in his Epistle, from firstto last makes "no mention of the Episcopate, " and "the bishop isentirely ignored. " In regard to doctrinal statement the samecontrariety is apparent. Ignatius speaks of "the blood of God" and"the passion of my God, " whilst no such language is used byPolycarp. Again, in the letter of the pastor of Smyrna, there is"an entire absence of that sacramental language which confronts usagain and again in the most startling forms in Ignatius. " [57:1]"Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer thanPolycarp's Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparablymore numerous as well as more precise than in the former. " In theIgnatian letters, of "quotations from the New Testament, strictlyspeaking, there is none. " [57:2] "Of all the Fathers of theChurch, early or later, no one is more incisive or more persistentin advocating the claims of the threefold ministry to allegiancethan Ignatius. " [57:3] Polycarp, on the other hand, has written aletter "which has proved a stronghold of Presbyterianism. " [57:4]And yet Dr. Lightfoot would have us to believe that these variousletters were written by two ministers living at the same time, taught by the same instructors, holding the closest intercoursewith each other, professing the same doctrines, and adhering tothe same ecclesiastical arrangements! The features of distinction between the teaching of the Ignatianletters and the teaching of Polycarp, which have been pointed outby Dr. Lightfoot himself, are sufficiently striking; but hisLordship has not exhibited nearly the full amount of the contrast. Ignatius is described as offering himself voluntarily that he maysuffer as a martyr, and as telling those to whom he writes thathis supreme desire is to be devoured by the lions at Rome. "Idesire, " says he, "to fight with wild beasts. " [57:5] "May I havejoy of the beasts that have been prepared for me . .. I will enticethem that they may devour me promptly. " [58:1] "Though I desire tosuffer, yet I know not whether I am worthy. " [58:2] "I deliveredmyself over to death. " [58:3] "I bid all men know that of my ownfree will I die for God. " [58:4] The Church, instructed byPolycarp, condemns this insane ambition for martyrdom. "We praisenot those, " say the Smyrnaeans, "who deliver themselves up, _sincethe gospel does not so teach us_. " [58:5] In these lettersIgnatius speaks as a vain babbler, drunken with fanaticism;Polycarp, in his Epistle, expresses himself like an humble-mindedPresbyterian minister in his sober senses. Ignatius is made toaddress Polycarp as if he were a full-blown prelate, and tells thepeople under his care, "He that honoureth the bishop is honouredof God; he that doth aught against the knowledge of the bishop, rendereth service to the devil" [58:6] Polycarp, on the otherhand, describes himself as one of the elders, and exhorts thePhilippians to "submit to the presbyters and deacons, " and to be"all subject one to another. " [58:7] When their Church had got intoa state of confusion, and when they applied to him for advice, herecommended them "to walk in the commandment of the Lord, " andadmonished their "presbyters to be compassionate and mercifultowards all men, " [58:8]--never hinting that the appointment ofa bishop would help to keep them in order; whereas, when Ignatiusaddresses various Churches, --that of the Smyrnaeans included, --heassumes a tone of High Churchmanship which Archbishop Laud himselfwould have been afraid, and perhaps ashamed, to emulate. "As manyas are of God and of Jesus Christ, " says he, "they are with thebishop. " "It is good to recognise God and the bishop!" "Give yeheed to the bishop, that God may also give heed to you. " [59:1] The internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles sealstheir condemnation. I do not intend, however, at present to pursuethis subject. In a work published by me six and twenty yearsago, [59:2] I have called attention to various circumstances whichbetray the imposture; and neither Dr. Lightfoot, Zahn, nor any oneelse, so far as I am aware, has ever yet ventured to deal with myarguments. I might now add new evidences of their fabrication, butI deem this unnecessary. I cannot, however, pass from thisdepartment of the question in debate, without protesting againstthe view presented by the Bishop of Durham of the origin ofPrelacy. "It is shown, " says he, referring to his _Essay on theChristian Ministry_, [59:3] "that though the New Testament itselfcontains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localizedepiscopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from themoveable episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titusin Crete, yet there is satisfactory evidence of its development inthe later years of the apostolic age, . .. And that, in the earlyyears of the second century, the episcopate was widely spread andhad taken firm root, more especially in Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its extension in the regions east of theAegaean at this epoch be resisted, _I am at a loss to understandwhat single fact relating to the history of the Christian Churchduring the first half of the second century can be regarded asestablished_. " [60:1] In this statement, as well as in not a few others alreadysubmitted to the reader, Dr. Lightfoot has expressed himself withan amount of confidence which may well excite astonishment. Itwould not be difficult to show that his speculations as to thedevelopment of Episcopacy in Asia Minor and Syria in the earlyyears of the second century, as presented in the Essay to which herefers, are the merest moonshine. On what grounds can he maintainthat Timothy exercised what he calls a "moveable episcopate" inEphesus? Paul besought him to abide there for a time that he mightwithstand errorists, and he gave him instructions as to how he wasto behave himself in the house of God; [60:2] but it did nottherefore follow that he was either a bishop or an archbishop. He was an able man, sound in the faith, wise and energetic;and, as he was thus a host in himself, Paul expected thatmeanwhile he would be eminently useful in helping the lessgifted ministers who were in the place to repress error and keepthe Church in order. That Paul intended to establish neither amoveable nor an immoveable episcopate in Ephesus, is obvious fromhis own testimony; for when he addresses its elders, --as hebelieved for the last time, --he ignored their submission to anyecclesiastical superior, and committed the Church to their ownsupervision. [61:1] And if he left Titus in Crete to takecharge of the organization of the Church there, he certainlydid not intend that the evangelist was to act alone. In those daysthere was no occasion for the services of a diocesan bishop, inasmuch as the Christian community was governed by the commoncouncil of the elders, and ordination was performed "with thelaying on of the hands of the Presbytery. " [61:2] Tituswas a master builder, and Paul believed that, proceeding inconcert with the ministers in Crete, he would render effectual aidin carrying forward the erection of the ecclesiastical edifice. And what proof has Dr. Lightfoot produced to show that "theepiscopate was widely spread in Asia Minor and in Syria" in "theearly years of the second century"? If the Ignatian Epistles bediscredited, he has none at all. But there is very decisiveevidence to the contrary. The Teaching of the Apostles, theShepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Polycarp prove the veryreverse. And yet Dr. Lightfoot is at a loss to understand whatsingle fact relating to the history of the Christian Church duringthe first half of the second century can be regarded asestablished, if we reject his baseless assertion! 2. _The Genesis of Prelacy. _ Jerome gives us the true explanation of the origin of theepiscopate, when he tells us that it was set up with a view toprevent divisions in the Church. [62:1] These divisions werecreated chiefly by the Gnostics, who swarmed in some of thegreat cities of the empire towards the middle of the secondcentury. About that time the president of the Presbyterywas in a few places armed with additional authority, in the hopethat he would thus be the better able to repress schism. The newsystem was inaugurated in Rome, and its Church has ever sincemaintained the proud boast that it is the centre of ecclesiasticalunity. From the Imperial city Episcopacy gradually radiated overall Christendom. The position assumed by Dr. Lightfoot--that itcommenced in Jerusalem--is without any solid foundation. Tosupport it, he is obliged to adopt the fable that James was thefirst bishop of the mother Church. The New Testament ignores thisstory, and tells us explicitly that James was only one of the"pillars, " or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewishcapital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employedto establish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greaterplausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoothimself acknowledges that, about the close of the first century, we cannot find a trace of the episcopate in either of the twogreat Christian Churches of Rome and Corinth. [63:1] "At the closeof the first century, " says he, "Clement writes to Corinth, as atthe beginning of the second century Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter Epistle, so in the former, there is no allusionto the episcopal office. " [63:2] He might have said that, evenafter the middle of the second century, it did not exist either inSmyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that "as late as the close ofthe second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded asdistinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery. " [63:3]"The first bishop of Alexandria, " says he, "of whom any distinctincident is recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporaryof Origen, " [63:4] who flourished in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the same place, that "at Alexandriathe bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelvepresbyters out of their own number. " [63:5] Instead of asserting, as has been done, that no single fact relating to the history ofthe Christian Church during the first half of the second centurycan be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate waswidely spread in the early years of the second century in AsiaMinor and elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at thedate here mentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it wasestablished ANYWHERE. Irenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy, for he lived throughout the period of its original development;but he has taken care not to lift the veil which covers itsmysterious commencement. He could have told what prompted Polycarpto undertake a journey to Rome when burthened with the weight ofyears; but he has left us to our own surmises. It is, however, significant that the presbyterian system was kept up in Smyrnalong after the death of its aged martyr. [64:1] Dr. Lightfoot haswell observed that "Irenaeus was probably the most learnedChristian of his time;" [64:2] and it is pretty clear that hecontributed much to promote the acceptance of the episcopaltheory. When arguing with the heretics, he coined the doctrine ofthe apostolical succession, and maintained that the true faith waspropagated to his own age through an unbroken line of bishops fromthe days of the apostles. To make out his case, he wasnecessitated to speak of the presidents of the presbyteries asbishops, [64:3] and to ignore the change which had meanwhile takenplace in the ecclesiastical Constitution. Subsequent writersfollowed in his wake, and thus it is that the beginnings ofEpiscopacy have been enveloped in so much obscurity. Even in Rome, the seat of the most prominent Church in Christendom, it isimpossible to settle the order in which its early presidingpastors were arranged. "Come we to Rome, " says Stillingfleet, "andhere the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for hereTertullian, Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next toPeter. Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphaniusand Optatus, both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus, with others, make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precedehim. What way shall we find to extricate ourselves out of thislabyrinth?" [65:1] The different lists preserved attest that therewas no such continuous and homogeneous line of bishops as the doctrineof the apostolical succession implies. When Irenaeus speaks ofPolycarp as having "received his appointment in Asia from apostlesas bishop in the Church of Smyrna, " [65:2] he makes a statementwhich, literally understood, even Dr. Lightfoot hesitates toendorse. [65:3] The Apostle John may have seen Polycarp in hisboyhood, and may have predicted his future eminence as a Christianminister, --just as Timothy was pointed out by prophecy [66:1]as destined to be a champion of the faith. When Episcopacy wasintroduced, its abettors tried to manufacture a little literarycapital out of some such incident; but the allegation thatPolycarp was ordained to the episcopal office by the apostles, isa fable that does not require refutation. Almost all of them weredead before he was born. [66:2] CHAPTER V. THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. If, as there is every reason to believe, the Ignatian Epistlesare forgeries from beginning to end, various questions arise as tothe time of their appearance, and the circumstances which promptedtheir fabrication. Their origin, like that of many other writingsof the same description, cannot be satisfactorily explored; and wemust in vain attempt a solution of all the objections which may beurged against almost any hypothesis framed to elucidate theirhistory. It is, however, pretty clear that, in their originalform, they first saw the light in the early part of the thirdcentury. About that time there was evidently something like amania for the composition of such works, --as various spuriouswritings, attributed to Clemens Romanus and others, abundantlytestify. Their authors do not seem to have been aware of theimpropriety of committing these pious frauds, and may even haveimagined that they were thus doing God service. [67:1] Severalcircumstances suggest that Callistus--who became Bishop of Romeabout A. D. 219--may, before his advancement to the episcopalchair, have had a hand in the preparation of these IgnatianEpistles. His history is remarkable. He was originally a slave, and in early life he is reported to have been the child ofmisfortune. He had at one time the care of a bank, in themanagement of which he did not prosper. He was at length banishedto Sardinia, to labour there as a convict in the mines; and whenreleased from servitude in that unhealthy island, he was broughtunder the notice of Victor, the Roman bishop. To his bounty hewas, about this time, indebted for his support. [68:1] On thedeath of Victor, Callistus became a prime favourite withZephyrinus, the succeeding bishop. By him he was put in charge ofthe cemetery of the Christians connected with the Catacombs; andhe soon attained the most influential position among the Romanclergy. So great was his popularity, that, on the demise of hispatron, he was himself unanimously chosen to the episcopal officein the chief city of the empire. Callistus was no ordinary man. He was a kind of original in his way. He possessed a considerableamount of literary culture. He took a prominent part in thecurrent theological controversies, --and yet, if we are to believeHippolytus, he could accommodate himself to the views of differentschools of doctrine. He had great versatility of talent, restlessactivity, deep cunning, and much force of character. Hippolytustells us that he was sadly given to intrigue, and so slippery inhis movements that it was no easy matter to entangle him in adilemma. It may have occurred to him that, in the peculiarposition of the Church, the concoction of a series of letters, written in the name of an apostolic Father, and vigorouslyasserting the claims of the bishops, would help much to strengthenthe hands of the hierarchy. He might thus manage at the same timequietly to commend certain favourite views of doctrine, and aidthe pretensions of the Roman chief pastor. But the business mustbe kept a profound secret; and the letters must, if possible, beso framed as not at once to awaken suspicion. If we carefullyexamine them, we shall find that they were well fitted to escapedetection at the time when they were written. The internal evidence warrants the conclusion that the Epistle tothe Romans was the first produced. It came forth alone; and, if itcrept into circulation originally in the Imperial city, it was notlikely to provoke there any hostile criticism. It is occupiedchiefly with giving expression to the personal feelings of thesupposed writer in the prospect of martyrdom. It scarcely toucheson the question of ecclesiastical regimen; and it closes bysoliciting the prayers of the Roman brethren for "the Church whichis in Syria. " [69:1] "If, " says Dr. Lightfoot, "Ignatius had notincidentally mentioned himself as the Bishop 'of' or 'from Syria, 'the letter to the Romans would have contained no indication of theexistence of the episcopal office" [70:1] Whilst observing thisstudied silence on the subject which above all others occupied histhoughts, the writer was craftily preparing the way for the moreready reception of the letters which were to follow. The Epistleto the Romans tacitly embodies their credentials. It slyly takesadvantage of the connection of the name of Ignatius with Syria inthe letter of Polycarp to the Philippians; assumes that Syria isthe eastern province; and represents Ignatius as a bishop fromthat part of the empire on his way to die at Rome. It does notventure to say that the Western capital had then a bishop of itsown, --for the Epistle of Clemens, which was probably in manyhands, and which ignored the episcopal office there--might thushave suggested doubts as to its genuineness; but it tells thesensational story of the journey of Ignatius in chains, from eastto west, in the custody of what are called "ten leopards. " Thistale at the time was likely to be exceedingly popular. Ever sincethe rise of Montanism--which made its appearance about the time ofthe death of Polycarp--there had been an increasing tendency allover the Church to exaggerate the merits of martyrdom. Thistendency reached its fullest development in the early part of thethird century. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans exhibits it inthe height of its folly. Ignatius proclaims his most earnestdesire to be torn to pieces by the lions, and entreats the Romansnot to interfere and deprive him of a privilege which he covetedso ardently. The words reported by Irenaeus as uttered by one ofthe martyrs of Lyons are adroitly appropriated by the pseudo-Ignatiusas if spoken by himself; and, in an uncritical age, when thesubject-matter of the communication was otherwise so much tothe taste of the reader, the quotation helped to establish thecredit of the Ignatian correspondence. Another portion of theletter was sure to be extremely acceptable to the Church of Rome--for here the writer is most lavish in his complimentaryacknowledgements. That Church is described as "having thepresidency in the country of the region of the Romans, beingworthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthyof praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having thepresidency of love, filled with the grace of God, withoutwavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain. " "The Epistle to the Romans, " says Dr. Lightfoot, "had a widerpopularity than the other letters of Ignatius, both early andlate. It appears to have been circulated apart from them, sometimes alone. " [71:1] It was put forth as a feeler, to discoverhow the public would be disposed to entertain such a correspondence;and, in case of its favourable reception, it was intended to openthe way for additional Epistles. It was cleverly contrived. Itemployed the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians as a kind ofvoucher for its authenticity, inasmuch as it is there stated thatIgnatius had written a number of letters; and it contained littleor nothing which any one in that age would have been disposed tocontrovert. The Christians of Rome had long enjoyed the reputationof a community ennobled by the blood of martyrs, and they would bequite willing to believe that Ignatius had contributed to theircelebrity by dying for the faith within their borders. It is verydoubtful whether he really finished his career there: some ancientauthorities attest that he suffered at Antioch; [72:1] and the factthat, in the fourth century, his grave was pointed out in thatlocality, apparently supports their testimony. [72:2] The accountof his hurried removal as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome, in thecustody of ten fierce soldiers--whilst he was permitted, as hepassed along, to hold something like a levee of his co-religionistsat every stage of his journey--wears very much the appearance ofan ill-constructed fiction. But the disciples at Rome about thisperiod were willing to be credulous in such matters; and thus itwas that this tale of martyrdom was permitted to pass unchallenged. In due time the author of the letters, as they appeared one afteranother, accomplished the design of their composition. The questionof the constitution of the Church had recently awakened muchattention; and the threat of Victor to excommunicate the Christiansof Asia Minor, because they ventured to differ from him as to themode of celebrating the Paschal festival, had, no doubt, led todiscussions relative to the claims of episcopal authority which, at Rome especially, were felt to be very inconvenient anduncomfortable. No one could well maintain that it had a scripturalwarrant. The few who were acquainted with its history were awarethat it was only a human arrangement of comparatively recentintroduction; and yet a bishop who threatened with excommunicationsuch as refused to submit to his mandates, could scarcely beexpected to make such a confession. Irenaeus had sanctioned itsestablishment; but, when Victor became so overbearing, he took thealarm, and told him plainly that those who presided over theChurch of Rome before him were nothing but presbyters. [73:1] Thiswas rather an awkward disclosure; and it was felt by the friendsof the new order that some voucher was required to help it in itshour of need, and to fortify its pretensions. The letters of anapostolic Father strongly asserting its claims could not fail togive it encouragement. We can thus understand how at this crisisthese Epistles were forthcoming. They were admirably calculated toquiet the public mind. They were comparatively short, so that theycould be easily read; and they were quite to the point, for theytaught that we are to "regard the bishop as the Lord Himself, " andthat "he presides after the likeness of God. " [74:1] Who after allthis could doubt the claims of Episcopacy? Should not the words ofan apostolic Father put an end to all farther questionings? Hippolytus, who was his contemporary, has given us much informationin relation to Callistus. He writes, indeed, in an unfriendly spirit;but he speaks, notwithstanding, as an honest man; and we cannot wellreject his statements as destitute of foundation. His account ofthe general facts in the career of this Roman bishop obviously reston a substratum of truth. As we read these Ignatian letters, itmay occur to us that the real author sometimes betrays his identity. Callistus had been originally a slave, and he here representsIgnatius as saying of himself, "I am a slave. " [74:2] Callistushad been a convict, and more than once this Ignatius declares, "I am a convict. " [74:3] May he not thus intend to remind hisco-religionists at Rome that an illustrious bishop and martyrhad once been a slave and a convict like himself? Callistus, when labouring in the mines of Sardinia, must have been wellacquainted with ropes and hoists; and here Ignatius describesthe Ephesians as "hoisted up to the heights through the engineof Jesus Christ, " having faith as their "windlass, " and as"using for a rope the Holy Spirit. " [74:4] Callistus had at onetime been in charge of a bank; and Ignatius, in one of theseEpistles, is made to say, "Let your works be your _deposits_, thatyou may receive your _assets_ due to you. " [75:1] Callistus alsohad charge of the Christian cemetery in the Roman Catacombs; andIgnatius here expresses himself as one familiar with graves andfunerals. He speaks of a heretic as "being himself a bearer of acorpse, " and of those inclined to Judaism "as tombstones andgraves of the dead. " [75:2] It is rather singular that, in thesefew short letters, we find so many expressions which point toCallistus as the writer. There are, however, other matters whichwarrant equally strong suspicions. Hippolytus tells us thatCallistus was a Patripassian. "The Father, " said he, "having takenhuman nature, deified it by uniting it to Himself, . .. And so hesaid that the Father had suffered with the Son. " [75:3] HenceIgnatius, in these Epistles, startles us by such expressions as"the blood of God, " [75:4] and "the passion of my God. " [75:5]Callistus is accused by Hippolytus as a trimmer prepared, asoccasion served, to conciliate different parties in the Churchby appearing to adopt their views. Sometimes he sided withHippolytus, and sometimes with those opposed to him; hence it isthat the theology taught in these letters is of a very equivocalcharacter. Dr. Lightfoot has seized upon this fact as a reasonthat they are never quoted by Irenaeus. "The language approachingdangerously near to heresy might, " says he, "have led him to avoiddirectly quoting the doctrinal teaching. " [76:1] A much betterreason was that he had never heard of these letters; and yet theirtheology is exactly such a piebald production as might have beenexpected from Callistus. It is not easy to understand how Dr. Lightfoot has brought himselfto believe that these Ignatian Epistles were written in thebeginning of the second century. "_Throughout the whole range ofChristian literature_, " says he, "no more uncompromising advocacyof the episcopate can be found than appears in these writings . .. It is when asserting the claims of the episcopal office toobedience and respect that the language is _strained to theutmost_. The bishops established _in the farthest part of theworld_ are in the counsels of Jesus Christ. " [76:2] It is simplyincredible that such a state of things could have existed six orseven years after the death of the Apostle John. All the extantwritings for sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdomof Ignatius demonstrate the utter falsehood of these letters. Itis certain that they employ a terminology, and develop Churchprinciples unknown before the beginning of the third century, andwhich were not current even then. The forger, whoever he may havebeen, has displayed no little art and address in their fabrication. From all that we know of Callistus, he was quite equal to the task. Like the false Decretals, these letters exerted much influence onthe subsequent history of the Church. Cyprian, though he nevermentions them, [77:1] speedily caught their spirit. His assertionof episcopal authority is quite in the same style. Origen visitedRome shortly after they appeared; he is the first writer whorecognises them; and it is worthy of note that, of the threequotations from them found in his works, two are from the Epistleto the Romans. It is quite within the range of possibility thatevidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that they emanated fromone of the early popes. They are worthy of such an origin. Theyrecommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiasticaldictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever sinceinculcated. "It need hardly be remarked, " says Dr. Lightfoot, "how subversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negationof individual freedom and the consequent suppression of directresponsibility to God in Christ, is the _crushing despotism_ withwhich" the language of these letters, "if taken literally, wouldinvest the episcopal office. " [77:2] And yet, having devotednearly thirty years off and on to the study of these Epistles, the Bishop of Durham maintains that we have here the genuinewritings of an apostolic Father who was instructed by the inspiredfounders of the Christian Church!! In this Review no notice is taken of the various forms of theseEpistles. If they are all forgeries, it is not worth while tospend time in discussing the merits of the several editions. APPENDICES. I. LETTER OF THE LATE DR. CURETON. Immediately after the appearance of the second edition of_The Ancient Church_, a copy of it was sent to the lateRev. W. Cureton, D. D. , Canon of Westminster--the well-known authorof various publications relating to the Ignatian Epistles. It wasconsidered only due to that distinguished scholar to call hisattention to a work in which he was so prominently noticed, and inwhich various arguments were adduced to prove that all the lettershe had edited are utterly spurious. In a short time that gentlemanacknowledged the presentation of the volume in a most kind andcourteous communication, which will be read with special interestby all who have studied the Ignatian controversy. I give theletter entire--just as it reached me. It was published severalyears ago, appended to my _Old Catholic Church_. DEANS YARD, WESTMINSTER, _Sept. _ 24, 1861. DEAR SIR, --I beg to thank you very much for your kindness insending me a valuable contribution to Ecclesiastical History inyour book, _The Ancient Church_, which I found here upon my returnto London two or three days ago. How much would it contribute tothe promotion of charity and the advancement of the truth were allwho combated the opinions and views of another to give him themeans of seeing what was written fairly and openly, and not toendeavour to overthrow his arguments without his knowledge. Thiswill indeed ever be the case when truth is sought for itself, andno personal feelings enter into the matter. I have read your chapters on Ignatius, and you will perhaps hardlyexpect that I should subscribe to your views. It is now abouttwenty years since I first undertook this inquiry, and constantlyhave I been endeavouring to add some new light ever since. I onceanswered an opponent in my present brother canon, Dr. Wordsworth, but since that time I have never replied to any adverse views--buthave only looked to see if I could find anything either to showthat I was wrong or to strengthen my convictions that I was right. And I have found the wisdom of this, and have had the satisfactionof knowing that my ablest opponents, after having had more time toinquire and to make greater research, have of their own accordconformed to my views and written in their support. I attach no very great importance to the Epistles of Ignatius. I shall not draw from them any dogma. I only look upon them asevidence of the time to certain facts, which indeed were amplyestablished even without such evidence. I think that in suchcases, we must look chiefly to the historical testimony of facts;and you will forgive me for saying that I think your arguments arebased upon presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and theevidence of appropriateness--all of which, however valuable, musttumble to the ground before one single fact. You notice thatArchbishop Ussher doubted the Epistle to Polycarp. But why? simplybecause its style (not having been altered by the forger) wasdifferent from the rest. But you know he says there was more_historical_ evidence in its favour than for any of the rest. It thus becomes an argument in support of the Syriac text insteadof against it. Can you explain how it happens that the Syriac text, found in the very language of Ignatius himself, and transcribedmany hundreds of years before the Ignatian controversy was thoughtof, now it is discovered, should contain only the _three Epistles_of the existence of which there is any historical evidence beforethe time of Eusebius, and that, although it may contain somethings which you do not approve, still has rejected all thepassages which the critics of the Ignatian controversy protestedagainst? You go too far to say that Bentley rejected the IgnatianEpistles--he only rejected them in the form in which they were putforth by Ussher and Vossius, and not in the form of the Syriac. So did Porson, as Bishop Kaye informed me--but he never denied thatIgnatius had written letters--indeed, the very forgeries were aproof of true patterns which were falsified. A great many of the ablest scholars in Europe, who had refused toaccept the Greek letters, are convinced of the genuineness of theSyriac. But time will open. Believe me, yours faithfully, WILLIAM CURETON. THE REV. DR. KILLEN. Some time after this letter was written, ecclesiastical literaturesustained a severe loss in the death of its amiable andaccomplished author. Though Dr. Cureton here expressed himselfwith due caution, his language is certainly not calculated toreassure the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles. One of their mostlearned editors in recent times--so far from speaking in a tone ofconfidence respecting them--here admits that he attached to them"no very great importance. " Though he had spent twenty yearschiefly in their illustration, he acknowledges that he wasconstantly endeavouring "to add some new light" for his guidance. To him, therefore, the subject must have been still involved inmuch mystery. It is noteworthy that, in the preceding letter, he has not beenable to point out a solitary error in the statement of the claimsof these Epistles as presented in _The Ancient Church_. Healleges, indeed, that the arguments employed are "based uponpresumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the evidence ofappropriateness;" he confesses that these proofs are "valuable;"but, though he contends that they must all "tumble to the aroundbefore one single fact, " he has failed to produce the one singlefact required for their overthrow. Dr. Cureton had obviously not been previously aware that Dr. Bentley, the highest authority among British critics, had rejected theIgnatian Epistles. Had he been cognisant of that fact when hewrote the _Corpus Ignatianum_, he would have candidly announced itto his readers. The manner in which he here attempts to dispose ofit is certainly not very satisfactory. He pleads that, thoughBentley condemned as spurious the letters edited by Ussher andVossius, he would not have pronounced the same decision on theSyriac version recently discovered. Why not? This Syriac versionis an edition of _the same Epistles_ in an abbreviated form. IfBentley denounced _the whole_ as a forgery, it seems to follow, bylogical inference, that he would have pronounced the same verdicton the half or the third part. Dr. Cureton is mistaken when heaffirms in the preceding communication that his Syriac version hasrejected "all the passages" against which "the critics of theIgnatian controversy" had protested. The very contrary has beendemonstrated in _The Ancient Church_. A large number of thesentences which had provoked the most unsparing criticism areretained in the Curetonian edition. It is right to add thatArchbishop Ussher more than "doubted" the Epistle to Polycarp. He discarded it altogether. Without hesitation he set it aside asspurious. Whilst he disliked its style, he felt that it wantedother marks of genuineness. When writing _The Ancient Church_--nownearly thirty years ago--I was disposed to think that the IgnatianEpistles had been manufactured at Antioch; but more matureconsideration has led me to adopt the conclusion that they wereconcocted at Rome. They bear a strong resemblance to several otherspurious works which appeared there; and the servile submission toepiscopal authority which they so strenuously inculcate was firstmost offensively challenged by the chief pastor of the greatWestern bishopric. These Epistles tended much to promote theprogress of ecclesiastical despotism. Any one who studies the two chapters on the Ignatian Epistles in_The Ancient Church_, must see that what is there urged againstthem is something more than "presumptive evidence, negativeevidence, and the evidence of appropriateness. " It is shown thattheir anachronisms, historical blundering, and false doctrineclearly convict them of forgery. II. It has been deemed right to subjoin here a copy of the IgnatianEpistle to the Romans, as some readers may not have it at hand forconsultation. Various translations of this Epistle have beenpublished. The following adheres pretty closely to that given bythe Bishop of Durham:-- "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to her that has obtained mercythrough the might of the Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ Hisonly Son, to the Church which is beloved and enlightened throughthe will of Him who willeth all things that are according to thelove of Jesus Christ our God, to her that has the presidency inthe country of the region of the Romans; being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthyof success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ, and bearing the Father's name, whichI also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, to those that are united both according to the flesh and spirit toevery one of His commandments, being filled inseparably with thegrace of God, and filtered clear from every foreign stain;abundance of happiness unblameably in Jesus Christ our God. "1. Through prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeingyour most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than Irequested, for I hope as a prisoner in Jesus Christ to salute you, if indeed it be the will of God that I be thought worthy ofattaining unto the end. For the beginning has been well ordered, if so be I shall attain unto the goal, that I may receive myinheritance without hindrance. For I am afraid of your love, lestit should be to me an injury; for it is easy for you to accomplishwhat you please, but it is difficult for me to attain to God, ifye spare me. "2. For I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to pleaseGod, as ye do please Him. For neither shall I ever have such anopportunity of attaining to God, nor can ye, if ye be silent, everbe entitled to the honour of a better work. For if ye are silentconcerning me, I shall become God's; but if ye love my body, Ishall have my course again to run. Pray, then, do not seek toconfer any greater favour upon me than that I be poured out alibation to God, while there is still an altar ready; that beinggathered together in love ye may sing praise to the Father throughJesus Christ, that God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthyto be sent for from the east to the west. It is good to set fromthe world to God, that I may rise again to Him. "3. Ye have never envied any one. Ye have taught others, and mydesire is that those lessons shall hold good, which as teachers yeenjoin. Only request in my behalf both inward and outwardstrength, so that I may not only say it, but also desire it; thatI may not only be called a Christian, but really be found one. Forif I shall be found so, then can I also be called one, and befaithful then, when I shall no longer appear to the world. Nothingvisible is good: for our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is withthe Father, is all the more revealed. The work is not ofpersuasiveness, but of greatness, whensoever it is hated by theworld. "4. I write to all the Churches, and I bid all men know that of myown free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me. I exhortyou not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me tobecome food for the wild beasts, that through them I shall attainto God. I am the wheat of God, and I am ground by the teeth ofwild beasts that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Ratherentice the wild beasts that they may become my sepulchre, and mayleave no part of my body behind, so that I may not, when I amfallen asleep, be burdensome to any one. Then shall I be truly adisciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not so much as seemy body. Supplicate the Lord for me, that through theseinstruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not enjoin youas Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am a convict; theywere free, I am a slave to this very hour. But, when I suffer, Ishall be a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and shall rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put away every desire. "5. From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts; by land andsea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even acompany of soldiers, who only become worse when they are kindlytreated. Howbeit through their wrong-doings I am become morecompletely a disciple, yet am I not hereby justified. May I havejoy of the beasts that have been prepared for me; and I pray thatI may find them prompt; nay, I will entice them that they maydevour me promptly, not as they have done to some, refusing totouch them through fear. Yea, though of themselves they should notbe willing while I am ready, I myself will force them to it. Bearwith me, I know what is expedient for me. Now am I beginning to bea disciple. May nought of things visible and things invisible envyme, that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Come fire and cross, andgrapplings with wild beasts, cuttings and manglings, wrenching ofbones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body, come crueltortures of the devil to assail me, only be it mine to attain toJesus Christ. "6. The farthest bounds of the universe shall profit me nothing, neither the kingdoms of this world. It is good for me to die forJesus Christ, rather than to reign over the farthest bounds of theearth. I seek Him who died on our behalf, I desire Him who roseagain for our sake. My birth-pangs are at hand. Pardon me, brethren, do not hinder me from living. Do not wish to keep me ina state of death, while I desire to belong to God; do not give meover to the world, neither allure me with material things. Sufferme to obtain pure light; when I have gone thither, then shall I bea man. Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. Ifany man has Him within himself, let him consider what I desire, and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am straitened. "7. The prince of this world would fain seize me, and corrupt mydisposition towards God. Let not any of you, therefore, that arenear abet him. Rather be ye on my side, that is, on God's side. Do not speak of Jesus Christ and set your desires on the world. Let not envy dwell among you. Even though I myself, when I am withyou, should beseech you, obey me not, but rather give credit tothose things which I now write. My earthly passion has beencrucified, and there is no fire of material longing in me; butthere is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to meinwardly, 'Come to the Father. ' I have no delight in the food ofcorruption, or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread ofGod, which is the flesh of Christ, who was of the seed of David;and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. "8. I desire no longer to live after the manner of men; and thisshall be, if ye desire it. Be ye willing, then, that ye also maybe desired. In a brief letter I beseech you, do ye give credit tome. Jesus Christ will reveal these things to you, so that ye shallknow that I speak the truth--Jesus Christ the unerring mouth bywhich the Father has spoken truly. Pray for me that I may attainthe object of my desire. I write not unto you after the flesh, butafter the mind of God. If I shall suffer, it was your desire; butif I am rejected, ye have hated me. "9. Remember in your prayers the Church which is in Syria, whichhas God for its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone shall beits bishop, He and your love; but for myself, I am ashamed to becalled one of them; for neither am I worthy, being the very lastof them and an untimely birth; but I have found mercy that Ishould be some one, if so I shall attain unto God. My spiritsalutes you, and the love of the Churches which received me in thename of Jesus Christ, not as a mere wayfarer; for even thoseChurches which did not lie on my route after the flesh, wentbefore me from city to city. "10. Now I write these things to you from Smyrna, by the hand ofthe Ephesians, who are worthy of all felicitation. And Crocusalso, a name very dear to me, is with me, with many othersbesides. "11. As touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome, tothe glory of God, I believe that ye have received instructions;whom also apprize that I am near, for they all are worthy of Godand of you, and it becomes you to refresh them in all things. These things I write to you on the 9th before the Kalends ofSeptember. Fare-ye-well unto the end in the patient waiting forJesus Christ. " This letter is a strange mixture of silly babblement, mysticism, and fanaticism; but throughout it wants the true ring of an honestcorrespondence. Why does the writer describe himself as the_Bishop of Syria_, and why does he never once mention _Antioch_from beginning to end? When an apostle was imprisoned, hisbrethren prayed for his release (Acts xii. 5); but this Ignatiusforbade the Christians at Rome to make any attempt to save himfrom martyrdom. Paul taught that he might give his body to beburned, and yet after all be a reprobate (1 Cor. Xiii. 3); butthis Ignatius indicates that all would be well with him, if he hadthe good fortune to be eaten by the lions. His letter is pervaded, not by the enlightened and cheerful piety of the New Testament, but by the gloomy and repulsive spirit of Montanism. BishopLightfoot tells us that it had "a wider popularity than the otherletters of Ignatius" (vol. Ii, § i. P. 186). It was accommodatedto the taste of an age of deteriorated Christianity. Polycarpwould have sternly condemned its extravagance. But, in the earlypart of the third century, the tone of public sentiment in theChristian Church was greatly changed, and the writings ofTertullian contributed much to give encouragement to suchproductions as the Ignatian Epistles. Tertullian, however, in hisnumerous writings, never once names Ignatius. It would appear thathe had never heard of these letters. [ENDNOTES] [2:1] Carwithen, _Hist. Ch. Of England_, i. 554, 2nd ed. [2:2] _Instit. _ I. C. Xiii. § 29. "There is, " says Calvin, "nothing more abominable than that trash which is in circulationunder the name of Ignatius. " [3:1] _The Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. , S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. Revised texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, andTranslations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D. D. , D. C. L. , LL. D. , Bishop ofDurham. London 1885. [4:1] _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 401. London, Hodder & Stoughton. [6:1] Vol. I. P. 316. [6:2] Pref. I. Vii. [6:3] Vol. I. P. 107. [7:1] Monk's _Life of Bentley_, ii. P. 44, ed. 1833. Monk adds, that the affair was "the talk of the Long Vacation"--a clear proofthat the truth of the statement was indisputable. [7:2] See my _Old Catholic Church_, p. 398, Edinburgh 1871; andAppendix No. 1 to this Reply. [7:3] Vol. I. P. 321, note. [8:1] Vol. I. P. 316. [8:2] Vol. I. P. 321. [8:3] Vol. I. P. 320. [9:1] See _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 403. [9:2] Vol. Ii. Sec. I. P. 436. [10:1] Vol. I. P. 345. [11:1] Vol. I. P. 331. [11:2] See Lightfoot, vol. I. P. 131. [12:1] See _Expositor_ for Dec. 1885, p. 404. [13:1] Page v. [15:1] Preface, p. Vi. [16:1] _Contra Haer. _ iii. 3. 4. [16:2] Vol. Ii. Sec. I. P. 446. [16:3] _Ibid. _ [17:1] Vol. I. P. 380. He says elsewhere "almost simultaneously, "vol. I. P. 382. [17:2] § 4, 5, 6. It is worthy of remark that Eusebius notices theletter of Polycarp, not along with the Ignatian Epistles, but inconnection with the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. SeeEusebius, Book IV. Chap. Xiv. [18:1] The words "for kings" of this part of the letter are extantonly in a Latin version. The passage in the Latin stands thus:"Orate etiam, pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus. " [18:2] As the great monarch of Assyria surveyed the potentatesunder his dominion, he was tempted to exclaim vaingloriously, "Arenot my princes all of them kings?" Isa. X. 8, Revised Version. Theemperor of Rome might have uttered the same proud boast. [18:3] Vol. I. P. 576. [18:4] _Ibid. _ In support of this view Dr. Lightfoot appeals to1 Tim ii. 2, where the apostle says that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, " as circumstances required, should be made "for kings and all that are in authority. " Paul ishere giving general directions suited to all time; but Polycarp isaddressing himself to the Philippians, and furnishing them withinstructions adapted to their existing condition. [19:1] Vol. I. P. 407 [21:1] § 13. This part of the letter is only extant in the Latinversion. Its words are: "De ipso Ignatio, et _de his qui cum eosunt_, quod certius agnoveritis, significate. " Dr. Lightfootadmits that "it was made from an older form of the Greek" than anyof the existing Greek MSS. , vol. Ii. § ii. P. 201. He vainly triesto prove that the words "qui cum eo sunt" must be a mistranslation. They do not suit his theory. They imply that Ignatius and hisparty were still living when the letter was written. [21:3] See Dr. Lightfoot, vol. I. P. 23, and Zahn, _Ignatius vonAntiochien_, pp. 28 and 401. [21:4] This road was several hundred miles in length. [22:2] Vol. Ii. Sec. Ii. P. 921, note. [23:1] "Si quis vadit ad Syriam, deferat literas meas, quas feceroad vos. " This is the reading of the old Latin version, which, asDr. Lightfoot tells us, "is sometimes useful for correcting thetext of the extant Greek MSS. " Vol. Ii. Sec. Ii. P. 901. Even someof the Greek MSS. Read, not [Greek: par humon] but [Greek: par haemon]. This reading is found in some copies of Eusebius and in Nicephorus, and is followed by Rufinus. See Jacobson, _Pat. Apost. _ ii. 488, note. [24:1] The apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem directedtheir letters to the brethren "in _Antioch_, and Syria, andCilicia, " Acts xv. 23; but, according to Dr. Lightfoot and hissupporters, Ignatius ignores his own city, though one of thegreatest in the empire, and remembers only the province to whichit belonged! [25:1] Epistle to Polycarp, § 7. [26:1] The words may be literally translated, "If any one is goingto Syria, he might convey to you my letters which I shall havefinished, " that is, which I have ready. Friendly letters were thengenerally much longer than in our day, as the opportunities oftransmitting them were few; and much longer time was occupied intheir preparation. [27:1] [Greek: Psuria]--see the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, by J. B. Friedreich, p. 64. Erlangen 1856. It is mentioned by Homer in the_Odyssey_, lib. Iii. 171. See also Dunbar's _Greek Lexicon_, art. [Greek: Psuria]. [27:2] Mr. Gladstone has remarked that "the [Greek: Suriaenaesos], or Syros, has the same bearing in respect to Delos as[Greek: Psuriae] in respect to Chios. "--_Studies on Homer_, vol. Iii. 333, note. [28:1] See Homer, _Odyssey_, xv. 402. See the note in the_Odyssey_, by F. H. Rothe, pp. 233-34. Leipsic 1834. In the Latinversion of Strabo we have these words: "Videtur sub-Syriae nominementionem facere Homerus his quidem verbis:-- 'Ortygiam supra Syria est quaedam insula. '" Strabo, _Rer. Geog. _ lib. X. P. 711. Oxford 1807. The passage inHomer is thus rendered by Chapman:-- "There is an isle above Ortygia, If thou hast heard, they call it Syria. " The present inhabitants of this island call themselves [Greek: Surianoi]or Syrians. See Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography_, art. "Syros. " [28:2] Bingham's _Origines Ecclesiasticae_, iii. 196. London 1840. [28:3] Smith's _Assyrian Discoveries_, p. 22. London 1875. [29:1] Smith, p. 21. [29:2] Dr. Lightfoot imagines that he has discovered a wonderfulconfirmation of his views in the word "likewise" which here occurs(vol. I. P. 574). It is not easy to see the force of his argument;but, with the explanations given in the text, the word haspeculiar significance. It implies that whilst the messenger was tocarry the letters from Smyrna to Syria, he was _also_, orlikewise, to bring back Smyrna the letters sent to Syria fromPhilippi. [30:1] Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, § 11. [30:2] Zahn speaks of the mission to Antioch as "senseless, evenconsidering the time of the year. "--_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 287. [34:1] I was myself so much impressed at one time by Dr. Lightfoot'sreasoning in the _Contemporary Review_ (May 1875), that I actuallyadopted his reckoning as to the date of Polycarp's death in a lateedition of my _Ancient Church_; but, on more mature consideration, I have found it to be quite untenable. [34:2] Vol. I. P. 629. [34:3] Vol. I. Pp. 629, 630. [35:1] Vol. I. P. 630. [37:1] Lightfoot, vol. I. P. 632. [37:2] _Ibid. _ [37:3] Vol. I. P. 148. [37:4] _Vita Malchi_, Opera iv. Pp. 90, 91. Paris 1706. [38:1] Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, by Plummer, pp. 79, 80. Edinburgh 1876. [38:2] Vol. I. P. 633. [39:1] Dr. Lightfoot is not supported in his chronology by his favouriteZahn, who places the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp after the deathof Peregrinus, in A. D. 165. --_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 517. [40:1] Vol. I. P. 451. [40:2] Vol. I. P. 635. [41:1] Vol. I. P. 640. [41:2] Vol. I. Pp. 639, 640. [42:1] Vol. I. 610. [42:2] _Ibid. _ Even the manuscript authorities of this postscriptdiffer as to the name. According to some, the prenomen was_Statius_; according to others, _Stratius_; according to another, _Tatius_; whilst in another the name is omitted altogether. SeeLightfoot, vol. I. P. 656, note; vol. Ii. Sec. Ii. P. 984; seealso Jacobson, ii. P. 593. [43:1] It is probable that the postscript was written many yearsafter the event; and, under these circumstances, the writer mayhave mistaken the name of the proconsul at the time. Eusebiusseems to have known nothing of this postscript, and it is nowimpossible to tell when it was added. [43:2] Ummidius Quadratus, in A. D. 167, was associated with theEmperor Lucius Verus in the consulship; and it would appear thatabout A. D. 169--on the ground of exceptional ability andinfluence--he was appointed to the proconsulship of Asia. [43:3] Vol. I. Pp. 460, 463. In another case we find the proconsul_Sergius_ Paulus styled incorrectly _Servillius_ Paullus, vol. I. P. 494. See also i. P. 508. [44:1] It is stated in this same postscript, that "Philip of Tralleswas high priest, " or Asiarch, at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp. From this fact Dr. Lightfoot has endeavoured to derive support forhis chronology. His argument is, however, quite inconclusive. Thedignity of Asiarch could be enjoyed only by the very rich, as noneothers could sustain the expense of it; and the same individualmight hold it for years together, as well as again and again. The Philip of whom Dr. Lightfoot speaks, had a son of the samename, who may also have been high priest or Asiarch. See Lightfoot, vol. I. Pp. 612, 613, 615, 616. [44:2] Euseb. Iv. [45:1] Vol. I. P. 443. [45:2] Vol. I. P. 343. [45:3] Vol. I. Pp. 443-44. [46:1] Vol. I. P. 510. [46:2] § 2. [46:3] See Neander, i. P. 147. Edinburgh 1847. [46:4] Neander, i. P. 146. [47:1] Antoninus Pius became emperor in A. D. 138. --Lightfoot, i. P. 703. Hadrian died on the 10th of July of that year. --_Ibid. _ [47:2] Book iv. 10. [47:3] Book iv. 11. Dr. Lightfoot states that Eusebius had listsof Roman and Alexandrian bishops, "giving the lengths of theirrespective terms of office, " vol. Ii. Sec. I. P. 451. It is saidthat Hippolytus was the first who ever made a chronological listof the Bishops of Rome. --Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, p. 337. [50:1] § 8, 9. [50:2] Vol. I. P. 703. [50:3] Vol. I. P. 650. [51:1] Vol. I. P. 273. [53:1] _Contra Haer. _ lib. V. C. 28. §4. [54:1] Dr. Lightfoot seems to have been in a condition of strangeforgetfulness when he asks, "Why does not Irenaeus quote Polycarp'sEpistle?"--vol. I. P. 328. The simple answer is that he mentionsthe Epistle, and quotes Polycarp by name as a witness against theheretics. _Contra Haer. _ book iii. C. 3. § 4. [55:1] Eusebius, v. C. I. The writer here mentions a number ofindividuals by name, who were at this time "led into the amphitheatreto the wild beasts. " [55:2] Professor Harnack says: "If we do not retain the Epistle ofPolycarp, then we must allow that _the external evidence on behalfof the Ignatian Epistles is exceedingly weak, and hence is highlyfavourable to the suspicion that they are spurious. "--Expositor_for Jan. 1886, p. 11. We have seen, however, that the Epistle ofPolycarp furnishes no evidence in their favour. See Chap. II. [56:1] Vol. I. P. 578. [57:1] Vol. I. P. 579. [57:2] Vol. I. P. 580. [57:3] Vol. I. P. 39. [57:4] Vol. I. P. 583. [57:5] To the Trallians, § 10. [58:1] To the Romans, § 5. [58:2] To the Trallians, § 4. [58:3] To the Smyrnaeans, § 4. [58:4] To the Romans, § 4. [58:5] Letter of the Smyrnaeans relating to the death of Polycarp, § 4. [58:6] To the Smyrnaeans, § 9. [58:7] Polycarp to the Philippians, Section § 1, 5, 10. [58:8] § 4, 6. [59:1] To the Philad. § 3. To the Smyrnaeans, § 9. To Polycarp, § 6. [59:2] _The Ancient Church_, Period II. Sec. Ii. Chap. Ii. , iii. [59:3] _Epistle to the Philippians_, pp. 181-269. [60:1] Vol. I. P. 377. [60:2] 1 Tim. I. 3, iii. 5. [61:1] Acts xx. 28, 31. [61:2] 1 Tim. Iv. 14. [62:1] _Comment. In Titum_. [62:2] Gal. Ii. 9. [63:1] _Philippians. _ Essay, pp. 216, 218. [63:2] Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, here completely mistakesthe date of the Epistle of Polycarp. [63:3] _Philippians_, p. 226. [63:4] _Ibid. _ p. 227. [63:5] _Ibid. _ p. 226. [64:1] See my _Ancient Church_, 4th edition, pp. 470-71. New York 1883. [64:2] Vol. I. P. 377. [64:3] It is quite clear that the bishops of whom Irenaeus speakswere not a distinct order from presbyters. Thus he says, "It isincumbent to obey the _presbyters_ who are in the Church, thosewho possess the succession from the apostles, and who togetherwith the _succession of the episcopate_ have received the certaingift of truth. " . .. "It behoves us . .. To adhere to those who . .. Hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with _theorder of the presbytery_, display sound speech and blamelessconduct. "--_Contra Haer. _ lib. Iv. C. 26, § 2, 4. [65:1] _Irenicum_, part ii. Chap. 7. [65:2] _Contra Haer. _ iii. 3, 4. [65:3] "It is, " says he, "at all events _not likely_, " vol. I. P. 425. [66:1] 1 Tim. I. 18. [66:2] If he was eighty-six years of age at the time of his martyrdomin A. D. 169, he was born A. D. 83. [67:1] Even Eusebius has given some countenance to this practice. See his _Evangelical Preparation_, xii. C. 31. [68:1] Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_, p. 113. [69:1] § 9. See this letter in Appendix II. [70:1] Vol. I. P. 383. It is worthy of note that, in this Epistleto the Romans, Antioch is not named. Ignatius speaks of himself as"the bishop from Syria, " § 2. He thus seeks to identify himselfwith the Ignatius mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, who speaksof sending letters to Syria. [71:1] Vol. Ii. Sec. I. P. 186. [72:1] Lightfoot, vol. Ii. Sec. I. Pp. 435, 445. [72:2] Vol. I. P. 46. [73:1] Euseb. V. C. 24. [74:1] Eph. § 6; Magn. § 6. [74:2] Rom. § 4. [74:3] Eph. § 12; Rom. § 4; Trallians, § 3. [74:4] Eph. § 9. [75:1] Polycarp, § 6. [75:2] Smyrnaeans, § 5; Philad. § 6. [75:3] _Philosophumena_, Book IX. [75:4] Eph. § 1. [75:5] Rom. § 6. [76:1] Vol. I. P. 329. [76:2] Philippians, p. 236. [77:1] Cyprian could not sympathize with this Ignatius in hispassion for martyrdom. The Bishop of Carthage incurred some odiumby retiring to a place of safety in a time of persecution. [77:2] Philippians, Essay 237.