Full text of "The Apostolic Fathers"

COLL, CHWTt REGIS 

BIB, M* 1 
TOKONTON 



THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



SECOND PART 

VOL. I. 



PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SON, 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 



THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 



PART II. 

S. IGNATIVS. 
S. POLYCARP. 



REVISED TEXTS 

WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, DISSERTATIONS, 
AND TRANSLATIONS. 



BY 
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., 

BISHOP OF DURHAM. 



COLL CHRISTI REGIS 

BIB, MA,). 
VOL. I. TORONTON 



Uonfcon : 
MACMILLAN AND CO. 

1885 . fr& 

{All Rights reserved.] 
( 



PREFACE. 



present work arose out of a keen interest in the 
A- Ignatian question which I conceived long ago. The sub 
ject has been before me for nearly thirty years, and during this 
period it has engaged my attention off and on in the intervals 
of other literary pursuits and official duties. Meanwhile my 
plan enlarged itself so as to comprehend an edition of all the 
Apostolic Fathers; and the portion comprising S. Clement 
(1869), followed after the discovery of Bryennios by an 
Appendix (1877), was the immediate result. But the work 
which I now offer to the public was the motive, and is the 
core, of the whole. 

When I first began to study the subject, Cureton s discovery 
dominated the field. With many others I was led captive for 
a time by the tyranny of this dominant force. I never once 
doubted that we possessed in one form or another the genuine 
letters of Ignatius. I could not then see, and I cannot see 
now, how this conclusion can be resisted, except by a mode of 
dealing with external evidence which, if extensively applied, 
would reduce all historical and literary criticism to chaos. 
If therefore the choice had lain between the seven Vossian 
Epistles and nothing, I should without hesitation have ranged 

b 



IG. I. 



VI PREFACE. 

myself with Ussher and Pearson and Rothe, rather than with 
Daille and Baur. Though I saw some difficulties, they were 
not to my mind of such magnitude as to counterbalance the 
direct evidence on the other side. 

When however the short Syriac of Cureton appeared, it 
seemed to me at first to offer the true solution. I was not 
indeed able to see, as others saw, any theological difference 
between the Curetonian and Vossian letters ; but in the 
abridged form some extravagances of language at all events 
had disappeared, and this was a gain. For a time therefore I 
accepted the Curetonian letters as representing the genuine 
Ignatius, and this opinion was expressed in some of my pub 
lished works. Subsequent investigation however convinced me 
of the untenableness of this position. At an early stage an 
independent investigation of the relations between the Armenian 
and the Syriac assured me that there had existed at one 
time a complete Syriac version of the seven Vossian Epistles, 
of which fragments still remained, and of which the Curetonian 
recension was either the abridgement or the nucleus. The theory 
of the priority of the Curetonian letters, which I then held, re 
quired me to regard it as the nucleus, which had been afterwards 
expanded into a complete version of the seven Epistles by 
translating the additional parts from the Greek. This was not 
the prima facie explanation of the facts, but still it then seemed 
to me possible. Afterwards Zahn s monograph, Ignatius von 
Antiochien, was published (1873). This appears to me to be 
quite the most important contribution which has been made 
to the subject since the publication of the Curetonian letters. 
I could have wished indeed that he had adopted a more 
conciliatory attitude towards opponents. Moreover his main 
tenance of untenable positions in other departments of early 
Christian literature may have created a prejudice against his 
labours here. But these drawbacks ought not to blind us to 
the great value of the book. His historical discussions have 
not only removed difficulties, but have discovered or suggested 



PREFACE. vil 

harmonies, which are a highly important factor in the solution 
of the question. I must therefore assign to this work a dis 
tinct place in the train of influences which led to my change 
of opinion. Meanwhile, in revising my own exegetical notes, 
which had been written some years before, I found that to 
maintain the priority of the Curetonian letters I was obliged 
from time to time to ascribe to the supposed Ignatian forger 
feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill, and self-restraint, 
which transcended all bounds of probability. At this stage 
I gave expression publicly to my growing conviction that 
after all the seven Vossian Epistles probably represented the 
genuine Ignatius. Afterwards I entered upon the investigation, 
which will be found in this volume (p. 282 sq.), into the language 
of the two recensions. This dispelled any shadow of doubt 
which might have remained ; for it showed clearly that the 
additional parts of the Vossian Letters must have proceeded 
from the same hand as the parts which were common to the 
Curetonian and Vossian Recensions. 

I have explained thus briefly the history of my own change 
of opinion, not because the processes of my mind are of any 
value to any one else, but because the account places before 
the reader the main points at issue in a concrete form. 

For reasons therefore which will be found not only in the 
separate discussion devoted to the subject, but throughout these 
volumes, I am now convinced of the priority and genuineness of 
the seven Vossian Letters. Indeed Zahn s book, though it has 
been before the world some twelve years, has never been 
answered ; for I cannot regard the brief and cursory criticisms 
of Renan, Hilgenfeld, and others, as any answer. Moreover 
there is much besides to be said which Zahn has not said. 
We have indeed been told more than once that all impartial 
critics have condemned the Ignatian Epistles as spurious. 
But this moral intimidation is unworthy of the eminent writers 
who have sometimes indulged in it, and will certainly not be 
permitted to foreclose the investigation. If the ecclesiastical 

b2 



vill PREFACE. 

terrorism of past ages has lost its power, we shall, in the interests 
of truth, be justly jealous of allowing an academic terrorism to 
usurp its place. Only when our arguments have been answered, 
can we consent to abandon documents which have the un 
broken tradition of the early centuries in their favour. 

For on which side, judging from the nature of the question, 
may we expect the greater freedom from bias ? To the dis 
ciples of Baur the rejection of the Ignatian Epistles is an 
absolute necessity of their theological position. The ground 
would otherwise be withdrawn from under them, and their re 
constructions of early Christian history would fall in ruins on 
their heads. On the other hand those, who adopt the tra 
ditional views of the origin of Christianity and of the history of 
the Church as substantially correct, may look with comparative 
calmness on the result. The loss of the Ignatian Epistles 
would be the loss of one buttress to their fabric ; but the with 
drawal would not materially affect the stability of the fabric 
itself. 

It has been stated already that a long period has elapsed 
since this edition was first conceived. But its execution likewise 
has been protracted through several years. Nor were the pages 
passed through the press in the same order in which they appear 
in the volumes as completed. It is necessary to state these facts, 
because in some places the absence of reference to works which 
have now been long before the public might create surprise. In 
these cases my work has at least the advantage of entire inde 
pendence, which will enhance the value of the results where they 
are the same. The commentary on the genuine Epistles of Igna 
tius and the introduction and texts of the Ignatian Acts of Mar 
tyrdom, which form the greater part of the first section of the 
second volume, were passed through the press before the close 
of 1878. Some portions of the Appendix Ignatiana had been 
already in type several years before this, though they remained 
unpaged. In the early part of the year 1879 I removed to 
Durham, and thenceforward my official duties left me scanty 



PREFACE. ix 

leisure for literary work. For weeks, and sometimes for months 
together, I have not found time to write a single line. Indeed 
the book which is now at length completed would probably 
have appeared some three or four years before, if I had re 
mained in Cambridge. For the most part the first volume has 
been written and passed through the press after the second ; 
but in the later parts they have often proceeded pari passu, and 
elsewhere an occasional sheet in either volume was delayed for 
special reasons. 

The long delay in the publication has had this further result, 
that some of the materials which were here printed for the first 
time have been anticipated and given to the world meanwhile. 
This is the case for instance with the Coptic fragments recently 
published by Ciasca, and with the readings of the Munich and 
Constantinople MSS of the Long Recension collated by Funk for 
his edition (1881). So in like manner the text of the Anglo- 
Latin version in the Caius MS has been anticipated by this 
latter editor in a separate work (1883). But over and above 
these, other materials appear now for the first time, such for 
instance as Ussher s collation of the important Montague MS of 
the Anglo-Latin version for the Ignatian Epistles, the collation 
of the Vatican MS of the Syriac version for the Antiochene 
Acts of Ignatius, and the Coptic version, together with the 
collation of the hitherto unnoticed Paris MS, for the Roman 
Acts. Altogether I have striven to make the materials for 
the text as complete as I could. But I have discarded mere 
secondary authorities, as for instance several Greek MSS of 
the Long Recension, because they had no independent value, 
and I should only have been encumbering my notes uselessly, 
if I had recorded their readings. Of the use which I have 
made of the critical materials thus gathered together, I must 
leave others to judge. Of the introductions, exegetical notes, 
and dissertations, I need say nothing, except that I have 
spared no pains to make them adequate, so far as my know 
ledge and ability permitted. The translations are intended not 



x PREFACE. 

only to convey to English readers the sense of the original, but 
also (where there was any difficulty of construction) to serve as 
commentaries on the Greek. My anxiety not to evade these 
difficulties forbad me in many cases to indulge in a freedom 
which I should have claimed, if a literary standard alone had 
been kept in view. 

I must not conclude without fulfilling the pleasant task of 
expressing my obligations to many personal friends and others 
who have assisted me in this work. My thanks are especially 
due to Dr W. Wright, who has edited the Syriac and Arabic 
texts (ll. p. 657 sq.), and whose knowledge has been placed 
freely at my disposal wherever I had occasion to consult him ; 
to Professor Guidi who, though an entire stranger to me, 
transcribed for me large portions of Coptic texts from manu 
scripts in the Vatican; to Mr P. le Page Renouf, the well-known 
Egyptian scholar, who has edited the Coptic Version of the 
Ignatian Acts of Martyrdom from Professor Guidi s transcript 
(ll. p. 865 sq.); and to Bryennios the Metropolitan of Nico- 
media, whose name has recently gathered fresh lustre through 
the publication of the Didache, and to whom I owe a collation 
of the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles from the same manuscript which 
contains that work. I am also indebted for important services, 
chiefly collations and transcripts, which will be noted in their 
proper places, to Dr Bollig the Sublibrarian of the Vatican, to 
Dr Zotenberg the Keeper of the Oriental Manuscripts in the 
Paris Library, to Professor Wordsworth of Oxford, and to 
Dr Oscar von Gebhardt the co-editor of the Patres Apostolici. 
Nor should I be satisfied without recording my obligations to 
the authorities and officials of the great public libraries at home 
and abroad. The courtesy and attention with which my trou 
blesome importunities have been almost uniformly met deserve 
my sincerest gratitude. Other not inconsiderable obligations will 
be mentioned from time to time throughout these volumes ; but 
it would have been impossible for me, at every point in the 
progress of the work, where I have consulted private friends, to 



PREFACE. xi 

note the fact. One name however I cannot pass over in silence. 
I am only one of many who have profited by the characteristic 
unselfishness which led the late Mr A. A. VanSittart to devote 
ungrudgingly to his friends the time which might well have been 
given to independent literary work of his own. Those sheets 
which were printed while I was still in Cambridge had the 
advantage of his careful supervision. Lastly; I have been 
relieved of the task of compiling the indices by my chaplain the 
Rev. J. R. Harmer, Fellow of King s College, Cambridge, to 
whom my best thanks are due. 

The Ignatian Epistles are an exceptionally good training 
ground for the student of early Christian literature and history. 
They present in typical and instructive forms the most varied 
problems, textual, exegetical, doctrinal, and historical. One who 
has thoroughly grasped these problems will be placed in pos 
session of a master key which will open to him vast store 
houses of knowledge. 

But I need not say that their educational value was not the 
motive which led me to spend so much time over them. The 
destructive criticism of the last half century is, I think, fast 
spending its force. In its excessive ambition it has o erleapt 
itself. It has not indeed been without its use. It has led to a 
thorough examination and sifting of ancient documents. It has 
exploded not a few errors, and discovered or established not a 
few truths. For the rest, it has by its directness and persist 
ency stimulated investigation and thought on these subjects 
to an extent which a less aggressive criticism would have failed 
to secure. But the immediate effect of the attack has been to 
strew the vicinity of the fortress with heaps of ruins. Some 
of these were best cleared away without hesitation or regret. 
They are a rallying point for the assailant, so long as they 
remain. But in other cases the rebuilding is a measure de 
manded by truth and prudence alike. I have been reproached 
by my friends for allowing myself to be diverted from the more 
congenial task of commenting on S. Paul s Epistles ; but the 



xil PREFACE. 

importance of the position seemed to me to justify the ex 
penditure of much time and labour in repairing a breach not 
indeed in the House of the Lord itself, but in the immediately 
outlying buildings. 

S. PETER S DAY, 
1885. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
FIRST VOLUME. 



S. IGNATIUS. 

PAGE 

1. IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 149 
Clement and Ignatius contrasted [i, 2]. The fathers on Trajan s con 
duct towards the Christians [2] ; Story of Gregory the Great [2 6]. View 

of recent critics respecting Trajan s action discussed [7 17]. His real atti 
tude ; his dread of guilds [17 21]. Martyrdoms during his reign [22]. 
The names Ignatius [2225] and Theophorus [25 28]. Early life of 
Ignatius [28]. His Apostolic education and ordination [28 30]. An- 
tiphonal singing [30, 31]. His condemnation, journey, and death [31 37]. 
Fame of his martyrdom [37 39]. His teaching on doctrine and Church- 
order [39, 40]. His fame temporarily eclipsed by Babylas [40 44]. Later 
glory, translation of reliques, and panegyrics pronounced over him [45 48]. 
Reputation in East and West [48, 49]. 

NOTICES RELATING TO PERSECUTIONS UNDER TRAJAN. 6069 

Pliny and Trajan [5056]; Tertullian [57, 58]; Eusebius [5862]; 
Joannes Malalas [6265] J Chronicon Paschale [65, 66] ; Acts of Sharbel 
and Barsamya [66 69]. 

2. MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 70126 

Preliminary statement [70, 71]. (i) Short Form [72, 73]. (2) Middle 
Form, (i) Greek [7376]. (ii) Latin ; History and character of this ver 
sion [76 8 1] ; Manuscripts [8184]. (Hi) Armenian. Date and character 
of this version [8486] ; a translation from the Syriac [8688]. Acts of 
Martyrdom translated from the Greek [89]. (iv) Syriac ; fragments of lost 
version from which the Armenian was taken [89 99]. Acts of Martyrdom, 
a separate translation [99101]. (v) Copto-Thebaic [101, 102]. (3) Long- 
Form, (i) Greek [102117]. () Latin. Date and contents [117, 118]; 
manuscripts [118125]; Character of the version [125, 126]. 



xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

3 . Q UOTA T/ONS AND REFERENCES. 1 2 72 * i 
i Polycarp [127, 128]. 2 Martyrdom of Polycarp [129]. 3 Lucian 

[129133]. 4 Melito [133]- 5 Churches of Vienna and Lyons [133]. 
6 Athenagoras [134]. 7 Theophilus of Antioch [134]. 8 Irenseus [135]. 
9 Clement of Alexandria [135]. 10 Acts of Perpetua [135]. n Ter- 
tullian [135]. 12 Origen [136]. 13 Apostolic Constitutions [136, 137]. 
14 Peter of Alexandria [137]. 15 Eusebius of Csesarea [137140]. 
16 Cyril of Jerusalem [141]. 17 Athanasius [141]. 18 Syriac Mar- 
tyrology [141]. 19 Ephrem Syrus [142]. 20 Basil of Ca;sarea [142]. 
21 John the Monk [142146]. 22 Hieronymus [147149]. 23 Chrys- 
ostom [149159]- 24 Cyrillonas [159]. 25 Rufinus [160, 161]. 26 Theo- 
doret [161 164]. 27 John of Antioch [164]. 28 Socrates [164, 165]. 
29 Timotheus of Alexandria [165168]. 30 Gelasius of Rome [168]. 
31 Dionysius the Areopagite [169]. 32 Philoxenus of Hierapolis [169]. 
33 Severus of Antioch [169185]. 34 Anonymous Syriac writers [186 
192]; Merx on Syriac versions [192 194]. 35 Ephraem of Antioch [194]. 
36 Jovius the Monk [194]. 37 John Malalas [195]. 38 Gregory of Tours 
[195]- 39 Evagrius [195]. 40 Stephanus Gobarus [195]. 41 Anastasius 
of Antioch [196]. 42 Gregory the Great [196]. 43 Leontius of By 
zantium [197]. 44 Antiochus the Monk [197201]. 45 Chronicon Pas- 
chale [201, 202]. 46 Theodorus the Presbyter [202]. 47 Maximus the 
Confessor [202, 203]. 48 Anastasius of Sinai [203]. 49 Andreas of Crete 
[203]. 50 John of Damascus [204210]. 51 Theodorus of Studium 
[210212]. 52 Joseph the Hymnographer [212]. 53 Michael Syncellus 
[213]. 54 Nicephorus of Constantinople [213, 214]. 55 Georgius Ha- 
martolus [214]. 56 Ado of Vienne [214, 215]. 57 Antonius Melissa 
[ 2I5 _2i7], 58 Severus of Ashmunin [217 219]. 59 Solomon of Bassora 
[219, 220]. 60 Gregory Barhebrreus [220]. Concluding remarks [220, 
221]. 

4. SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 222266 
Table of contents of different recensions [222]. Correspondence with 

5. John and the Virgin [223226]. Long Recension; doubts and contro 
versies respecting it [227231]. Ussher s discovery and its sequel [231 
234]- Connexion of the Seven Additional Epistles with the Long Re 
cension as shown by (i) Internal Evidence [234237]. () External Evi 
dence [237241]. The Epistle to the Philippians [241245]. Date and 
purpose of the Long Recension ; (i) External testimony [245, 246]; (ii) In 
ternal testimony: (a) Ecclesiastical status [246248]; (/3) Persons and 
places [248, 249]; (7) Plagiarisms, relation to the Apostolic Constitu 
tions [249254]; (8) Doctrinal teaching [254260]. Conclusions [260, 
261]. Fate of this Recension [261, 262]. Arabic and yEthiopic frag 
ments [262]. Zahn s theory respecting the Epistle to the Romans discussed 
[263266]. 

5. THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 267314 

Progress of the Ignatian controversy [267]. Discovery of the Cure- 
tonian Syriac and controversy thereupon [267271]. Cureton s method 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV 

PAGE 

discussed [271, 272]. Recent opinion unfavourable to his view [272, 273]. 
Examination of the Curetonian Letters, (i) External evidence : (i) Quota 
tions [273 277]; (ii) Manuscripts and authorities for the text [277 280]; 
(iii) Historical relations of the two recensions [280 282]. (2) Internal 
evidence: (i) Diction [282 301]; (ii) Connexion of thought [301 306]; 
(iii) Topics, theological, ecclesiastical, and personal [306 309]. Summing 
up of this investigation [309, 310]. Motive of Curetonian Abridgement 
[310 312]. Probable date [312 314]. 

6. THE GENUINENESS. 315414 

The question narrowed to the Seven Epistles [315]. Progress of the 
controversy since Ussher s time; Daille and Pearson [315 321], (i) Ex 
ternal Evidence: Polycarp, Irenaeus, Letter of the Smyrnceans, Letter of 
Gallican Churches, Lucian, Origen, Eusebius [322 336]. Nicephorus 
not adverse [336 340]. (2) Internal Evidence: (i) Historical and geo 
graphical circumstances [340 359]. (ii) Theological polemics ; (a) Posi 
tive side, Docetism and Judaism [359368], (/3) Negative side [368375]. 
(iii) Ecclesiastical conditions [375 387]. (iv) Literary obligations [387 
390]- (v) Personality of the writer [391 394]. (vi) Style and character 
of the Letters ; Compounds [394 396], Latinisms [396], Reiterations [396, 
397], Supposed anachronisms ( Leopard , Catholic , Christian ) [397 
404]. Indications of genuineness [404 407]. The case summed up [407 
409]. Sylloge Polycarpiana [409 414]. 



S. POLYCARP. 

i. POLYCARP THE ELDER. 417 459 

The Pionian legend [417 420]. The name Polycarp [420, 421]. Date 
of his birth [421, 422]. Contemporary events [422]. He was a Christian 
from his birth, and probably a man of substance [423]. Was he married ? 
[423, 424]. His relations with (i) S. John and other Apostles [424 426]; 
(2) Ignatius and other contemporaries [426 428] ; (3) a younger gene 
ration, especially Irenaeus, Florinus, Pothinus, and the founders of the 
Gallican Churches [428 433]. His old age [433]. Visit to Rome [433, 
434]. The Roman Church at this time [435, 436]. Apprehension and 
martyrdom [436 440]. Attitude of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and 
M. Aurelius, towards the Christians [440 446]. The early Church of 
Smyrna and its rulers; the message in the Apocalypse [446 448]. Con 
temporary religious opinion ; revival of paganism ; Caesar-worship [448 
452]. The Jews at Smyrna [452 454]. The reliques and festival of 
Polycarp [454 456]. No local tradition of sites [456]. Writings ascribed 
to Polycarp [45?]- Contemporary veneration of Polycarp [457, 458]. His 
significance to the later Church, as the Elder [458, 459]. 



xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE UNDER HADRIAN, Pius, AND MARCUS. 460529 

(i) Imperial Letters and Ordinances, (i) HADRIAN, (a) Rescript 
to Minucius Fundanus [460 464]; (/3) Letter to Servianus [464, 465]. 
(ii) ANTONINUS Pius. Letter to the Commune Asiae [465 469]. 
(iii) M. AURELIUS. (a) Letter to the Roman People and Senate on the 
Thundering Legion [469 476]; () Letter to Euxenianus and Epitaph of 
Abercius [476 485] ; (7) Decree against Superstitious Rites [486]. 

(i) Ads and Notices of Martyrdoms, (i) HADRIAN, (a) Telesphorus 
Bishop of Rome [486] ; (/3) Symphorosa and her Seven Sons [486 489] ; 
(7) Dionysius the Areopagite [489] ; (5) Alexander Bishop of Rome and 
others [489, 490] ; (e) Other martyrs [490492]. (ii) ANTONINUS Pius, 
(a) Publius Bishop of Athens [492] ; (/3) Ptolemreus, Lucius, and another 
[492, 493] ; (7) Polycarp and his companions [493]- (iii) M. AURELIUS. 
(a) Justin and his companions [493, 494] ; () Thraseas, Sagaris, and 
others [494, 495] ; (7) Felicitas and her Seven Sons [495 499] ; (8) The 
Gallican martyrs [499, 500] ; (e) Csecilia and her companions [500 506] ; 
(f) The Madaurian martyrs [506, 507] ; (77) The Scillitan martyrs [508, 
509]. Severity of the persecutions under M. Aurelius [509 511]. 

(3) Heathen writers ; (i) Epictetus, (ii) Phlegon, (iii) Fronto, (iv) Celsus, 
(v) Galen, (vi) Apuleius, (vii) Lucian, (viii) Aristides, (ix) M. Antoninus 
[512517]. 

(4) Christian writers ; (i) Epistle to Diognetus, (ii) Hernias, (iii) Justin, 
(iv) Minucius Felix, (v) Melito, (vi) Athenagoras, (vii) Theophilus of 
Antioch, (viii) Tertullian, (ix) Hieronymus, (x) Sulpicius Severus, (xi) Oro- 
sius, (xii) Xiphilinus, (xiii) Oracula Sibyllina [517 529]. 

2. MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 53 535 

Connexion of the Epistle with the Ignatian Letters [530,531]. (i) Greek 
Manuscripts [531534] 5 () Latin Version [534, 535]. 

3 . QUOTA TIONS AND REFERENCES. 5 3656 1 

i Ignatius [536]. 2 Letter of the Smyrnocans [536]. 3 Lucian [537]. 
4 Irenams [537539]- 5 Polycrates [540]. 6 Tertullian [540]. 7 Acts 
of Pionius [540, 541]. 8 Apostolical Constitutions [541]. 9 Eusebius 
[541543]. 10 Syriac Martyrology [544]. ii Life of Polycarp [544]. 
12 Pseudo-Ignatius [544]. 13 Hieronymus [544, 545]. 14 Rufinus [545]. 
15 Macarius Magnes [545, 546]. 16 Socrates [546]. 17 Theodoret [546]. 
1 8 Sozomen [547]. 19 Timotheus of Alexandria [547]. 20 Dionysius the 
Areopagite [548]. 21 Philoxenus of Hierapolis [548]. 22 Severus of 
Antioch [548, 549]. 23 Anonymous Syriac Writers [549, 550]. 24 An- 
tiochene Acts of Ignatius [550]. 25 Roman Acts of Ignatius [551]. 
26 Gregory of Tours [551, 552]. 27 Chronicon Paschale [552, 553]. 
28 Early Roman Martyrologies [553, 554]. 29 Warnaharius [554, 555]. 
30 Maximus the Confessor [555, 556]. 31 Michael Syncellus [556]. 
32 Nicephorus of Constantinople [556]. 33 Photius [556, 557]. 34 Geor- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. xvil 

PAGE 

gius Hamartolus [557]. 35 Florus-Beda [558]. 36 Ado of Vienne [559, 
560]. 37 Anthologia Palatina [560]. 38 Pseudoprochorus [560, 561]. 
39 Mensea [561]. 

4 . GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 562587 

Attacks on its genuineness and integrity [562 564]. Twofold in 
vestigation, (i) External Evidence [564 566]. (ii) Internal Evidence. 
(i) Position of Polycarp [566, 567] ; (2) References to S. Paul [567, 568] ; 
(3) Supposed allusion to Marcion, involving two points, the character of 
the heresy attacked and the reiteration of a phrase [568 572] ; (4) Refer 
ences to Ignatius, involving two points of objection, irreconcilability of 
statements, and suspiciousness of the references themselves [572 575]; 
(5) Prayer for kings [576]. Arguments for the genuineness [577]. Con 
nexion with supposed Ignatian forgery, excluded by manifold contrasts 
[577, 578]: (i) Ecclesiastical order [578]; (2) Doctrinal statement [579, 
580]; (3) Scriptural quotations [580] ; (4) Style and character [580, 581]; 
(5) Individual expressions [581, 582]. Other considerations affecting the 
relation to the Ignatian Epistles [582, 583]. Incidental tests of authen 
ticity [584]. Ritschl s theory of interpolation considered [584 586]. Per 
plexities of Kenan s point of view [586, 587]. 

5. LETTER OF THE SMYRN^ANS. 588628 

(1) THE MAIN DOCUMENT. Recent attacks on its genuineness or 
integrity [588, 589]. External Testimony [589 593]. Internal Testi 
mony. Claim to be written by eye-witnesses [593, 594]. Points of objec 
tion considered, (i) Parallelism to our Lord s history [594 598]; (2) Mi 
raculous element [598, 599] ; (3) Prophetic insight [599, 600] ; (4) Keim s 
postmark [600, 601] ; (5) Estimate of martyrs and martyrdom [601 
604] ; (6) The expression Catholic Church [605 607]. Verisimilitude 
of the narrative [607 609]. Hilgenfeld s theory of an interpolation [609, 
610]. 

(2) THE SUPPLEMENTARY PARAGRAPHS, (i) The Chronological Ap 
pendix. Parallelism to Clement s Epistle [610, 611]; dates and persons 
[611, 612], especially Philip the Trallian [612 618] ; supposed anachronism 
of the reign of Christ [619, 620] ; silence of Eusebius [620, 621]. (ii) The 
Commendatory Postscript [621]. (iii) The History of the Transmission 
[621, 622]. THE TRUE AND THE FALSE PiONius. (i) The true Pionius. 
Acts of Pionius their genuineness and date [622 625]. Acts of Carpus 
and Papylus [625, 626]. (ii) The false Pionius; the author of this last 
postscript [626 628]. 

6. DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 629702 

(i) THE YEAR OF THE MARTYRDOM. The notice in Eusebius con 
sidered [629 632]. Subsequent writers (Jerome, Chronicon Paschale, 
Idatius, Georgius Hamartolus, Socrates, Menaea) [632 634]. Modern 
critics before Masson [634 636]. Masson s chronology of Aristides [636 
638]. Revolt of Letronne and Borghesi against Masson [638], carried 



xvni TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

further by Waddington [639]. Interval between the consulate and Asiatic 
pro-consulate [639 641]. Waddington s chronology and date for Quad- 
ratus [641 644]. The war with Vologesus [645 647]. Waddington s 
chronology tested in various ways [647 650]. Its general acceptance 
[650]. Slight modifications possible. Readjustment of Lipsius and Hil- 
genfeld considered, and Waddington confirmed [650 655]. Refutation of 
attacks on Waddington s system by Wieseler [655 658] and by Keim 
[658660]. 

(2) THE DAY OF MARTYRDOM. Data of the authorities [660]. 
Different days adopted: (i) February 23, the traditional date, confirmed 
by the Asiatic and Ephesian solar calendars [661 663], by the state 
ment of Galen [663 665], and by notices in the inscriptions [665, 666]. 
Differences in the names of the months considered [666 670]. (ii) April 6, 
Wieseler s view, refuted [670, 671]. (iii) March 23. Statement of Sal 
mon s view [672]. The arguments for the use of a lunar calendar at this 
time discussed and rejected [673 678]. A solar calendar alone consistent 
with the evidence [678]. Probable introduction of the solar calendar 
under Augustus [678 680] by Paullus Fabius Maximus [680 682]. 
(iv) March 26, the date in the Paschal Chronicle [682]. Its adoption by 
older critics discussed [683, 684], The Syro-macedonian calendar [685]. 
Hilgenfeld s advocacy of this day considered [685 688]. Account of the 
statement of Paschal Chronicle [688]. (v) January 16, the day in the 
Latin Church, accounted for by a comparison of calendars [688, 689]. 
Explanation of the Great Sabbath [690 693]. The heathen festival 
which synchronized [693 695]. 

ON THE DATE OF PlONIUS MARTYRDOM. 

The consulships at this epoch [695]. Acts of Pionius in the Collection 
of Eusebius [695, 696]. The two extant recensions [696, 697]. The 
notices of dates in these [697, 698]. The year of the martyrdom [698, 
699]. The day (a) of the apprehension [699, 700], and (/3) of the martyr 
dom [700, 701]. Aube s vi ew [701, 702]. The day kept by the Western 
Churches [702]. 

IMPERIAL FASTI. 703, 704 

INDEX. 705-736 



Map illustrating the route of S. Ignathts. End of volume 



S. IGNATIUS. 



I. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



transition from the first to the second Apostolic father from 
Clement to Ignatius is rapid; but, when it is made, we are con 
scious that a wide chasm has been passed. The interval of time indeed 
is not great. Twenty years at the outside separate the Epistle of Cle 
ment to the Corinthians from the letters of Ignatius. But these two 
decades were a period of exceptionally rapid progress in the career of the 
Church in the outward extension of the Christian society, in its internal 
organization and government, in the progress and ramifications of theo 
logical opinion. There are epochs in the early history of a great insti 
tution, as there are times in the youth of an individual man, when the 
increase of stature outstrips and confounds by its rapidity the expecta 
tions founded on the average rate of growth. 

But lapse of time is not the only element which differentiates the 
writings of these two Apostolic fathers. As we pass from Rome and 
Corinth to Antioch and Asia Minor, we are conscious of entering into a 
new religious and moral atmosphere. The steadying influence of the 
two great classical peoples more especially of the Romans is dimin 
ished; and the fervour, the precipitancy, of oriental sentiment and 
feeling predominate. The religious temperament has changed with the 
change of locality. This difference impresses itself on the writings of 
the two fathers through the surrounding circumstances; but it appears 
to a very marked degree in the personal character of the men them 
selves. Nothing is more notable in the Epistle of Clement than the 
calm equable temper of the writer, the cTrietKcia, the sweet reasonable 
ness, which pervades his letter throughout He is essentially a mode 
rator. On the other hand, impetuosity, fire, headstrongness (if it be 
not an injustice to apply this term to so noble a manifestation of 

IG. I. I 



2 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

fervid zeal and self-devotion), are impressed on every sentence in the 
Epistles of Ignatius. He is by his very nature an impeller of men. 
Both are intense, though in different ways. In Clement the intensity 
of moderation" to adopt his own paradox of language twice-repeated 
dominates and guides his conduct. In Ignatius it is the intensity of 
passion 2 passion for doing and suffering which drives him onward. 

Not less striking is the change which has passed over the imperial 
government meanwhile. The letter of Clement synchronizes with the 
persecution of Domitian; the letters of Ignatius were evoked by the 
persecution of Trajan. The transition from Domitian to Trajan is a 
stride in the social and constitutional life of Rome, of which the mere 
lapse of time affords no adequate measurement. Centuries, rather than 
decades of years, seem to have intervened between the one and the 
other. 

The attitude of Trajan towards the Christians has been represented 
in directly opposite lights in ancient and modern times. To the fathers 
who wrote during the latter half of the second century, as to Christian 
writers of subsequent ages generally, Trajan appears as anything rather 
than a relentless persecutor. His lenity is contrasted with the wanton 
cruelty of a Nero and the malignant caprice of a Domitian. He inter 
poses to modify the laws and so to assuage the sufferings of the perse 
cuted sect. If he does not altogether revoke the persecuting edicts of 
his predecessors, he at least works them in such a spirit that they shall 
press as lightly as possible on the unoffending people of God 3 . 

- 1 Clem. Rom. 58, 62, pera tKrevovs crov, Kal o~ov TO. Travra (rvvSioiKovvTos 

twieiKelas. See the note on the former (a-6tJ.Tra.vTa SIOIKOVVTOS MSS) avr$, rats 

of these two passages. ir6\e&lt;ri vepl rov fj.-r)5tv veureplfeiv irepl 

2 See especially Rom. i, i, 4, 5, 6, TJ/AUV typa^ev K.T.\. Here indeed there 
7, Philad. 5, Smyrn. 4. In Rom. 7 he de- is no direct mention of Trajan, but he 
scribes himself as enamoured of death must be included in Iv oh, as one who 
(tpuv TOV a.TTodave ii }. protected the Christians. Perhaps a re- 

3 Melito, writing about A. D. 1 70, collection of the Bithynian persecution 
and addressing M. Aurelius, says (Euseb. deterred Melito from a direct mention, 
H. E. iv. 26) fj,6voi iravruv . . . rbv /ca0 which could not have been made without 
ij/xas iv 5ta/3oXf? KaTaaTrj&lt;rai \6yov rjdt- qualifications and explanations. Ter- 
\riffav Ntpuv Kal Aofj.eTiav6s...d\\a -rrfv tullian, who otherwise copies Melito, 
tKelvwv ayvoiav ol aol evaepfts irar^es supplies the omission ; Apol. 5 repe- 
twrivupQucravTO, TroXXdm TroXXots eirnr\T)- rietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam 
Zavres tyypd&lt;f&gt;us, Scroi wepl rovruv veu- cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano 
repivai er6\fj.-r]ffav ev oh 6 /JLV TrctTTTros gladio ferocisse ... temptaverat et Domi- 
aov ASpiavbs iroXXots ^v /cat aXXots Kal tianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate... 
&ovvdav$...ypa&lt;t&gt;ut &lt;paii&gt;erai, 6 8e irar^p Tales semper nobis insecutores, injusti, 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



This favourable estimate of Trajan culminates in medieval legend. 



impii, turpes, quos et ipsi damnare con- 
suestis...Ceterum de tot exinde principi- 
bus ad hodiernum divinum humanumque 
sapientibus edite aliquem debellatorem 
Christianorum...Quales ergo leges istae 
quas adversus nos soli exercent impii, 
injusti, turpes, truces, vani, dementes? 
quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est 
vetando inquiri Christianos, quas nullus 
Hadrianus, quamquam omnium curiosi- 
tatum explorator, nullus Vespasianus, 
quamquam Judaeorum debellator, nullus 
Pius, nullus Verus, impressit. Lactan- 
tius (de Mart. Persec. 3, 4) passes on 
from Domitian to Decius, omitting all 
the intermediate persecutions, as if they 
had never taken place. The passage is 
quoted below, p. 8, note. Eusebius 
(H.E. iii. 31 33) studiously exculpates 
the memory of Trajan himself. He 
cannot ignore the persecutions which 
took place in this emperor s reign, but 
he says that they were partial and local 
(c. 31 /jLfpiK&s KO.I Kara woXfis, c. 33 
fj-epiKovs KO.T 1 etrapxio-v), and were brought 
about either by an uprising of the 
people or by the hostility of individual 
magistrates (c. 31 e ^TrapaoTacrews 8t]fjt,uv, 
C. 33 tffd OTT-TI fj.i&gt; T&V STJ/JLUV, &r0 oirij 
8 KO.I TUV Kara x^pas dpxovTUv K.r.X.) ; 
while the emperor himself interposed 
to mitigate their violence by laying 
down the rule for Pliny s guidance that 
the Christian community (j.r) e/cftyretcrtfcu 
/j.tv, t/jLireaov d KoXdfcffdai. To a certain 
extent, adds Eusebius, the menace of the 
persecution, which pressed with exceeding 
rigour, was quenched; yet nevertheless 
as good pretexts as ever remained for 
those who desired to do us (Christians) 
an ill turn. The estimate of Eusebius, 
read either in the original text or in the 
translation of Ruffinus, for the most part 
set the fashion to subsequent writers. 
Sulpicius Severus indeed goes further and 
represents Trajan as stopping the per 
secution (Chron. ii. 31 Tertia perse- 



cutio per Trajanum fuit ; qui cum tor- 
mentis et quaestionibus nihil in Chris- 
tianis morte aut poena dignum reperisset, 
saeviri in eos ultra vetuit ) ; but his lan 
guage may easily be explained. In the 
original form of the Chronicon of Euse 
bius the words seem to have run irpos 
TO.VTO. avr^ypa^fv [Tpal avbs] TO ruv 
~KpicrTiai&gt;uv &lt;j&gt;v\ov p.?) ^K^relffdai, the 
latter clause t^ireffov 8 Ko\aea6a.i, being 
absent, as in the Armenian translation 
(see Schoene n. p. 162) and in the Syriac 
Abridgment (ib. p. 214) likewise. In 
Jerome s recension (ib, p. 165) the se 
cond clause is restored direct from the 
text of Tertullian, inquirendos non esse, 
oblatos vero puniri oportere ; but Sul 
picius Severus seems here to have had 
the original of the Chronicon before 
him (comp. Bernays Ueber die Chronik 
des Sulpic. Sever, p. 46) and to have 
known nothing of the qualifying anti 
thetical clause. 

This favourable view of Trajan how 
ever, though it predominates, more es 
pecially in writers of reputation, is by 
no means universal. As Uhlhorn re 
marks (Conflict of Christianity with 
Heathenism p. 258), His edict was by 
one party viewed as a sword, by the 
other as a shield. In truth it was both. 
The authors who represent Trajan in an 
unfavourable light are chiefly martyrolo- 
gists and legend-mongers, to whom this 
dark shadow was necessary to give effect 
to the picture. Thus in the Acts of 
Ignatius, more especially the Roman Acts 
(see n. p. 496 sq.), and in the Acts 
of Sharbil and his companions preserved 
in Syriac (Moesinger Act. Syr. Sarbel. 
p. 4), he appears as a brutal persecutor, 
at least until the receipt of Pliny s letter. 
So too in the spurious letter of Tiberi- 
anus the governor of Palestine, pre 
served by John Malalas (Chron. xi. p. 
273, ed. Bonn), and in the narrative of 
John Malalas himself (p. 276 sq.). Simi- 

I 2 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



Gregory the First so runs the story 1 walking through the forum of 
Trajan and admiring the magnificent buildings, was struck among other 
memorials of this emperor s clemency with one incident more especially 
which he found commemorated 2 . The emperor, surrounded by his 
legions, was setting out on a foreign expedition, when he was accosted 
by an aged widow in tears. She complained that her only son, the 
staff and solace of her declining years, had been slain by his soldiers, 
and that she had failed to obtain redress. The emperor, already on the 
march, put her aside; When I return, said he, tell me thy story, and 
I will do thee entire justice. Sire, she replied, and if thou returnest 
not, what is to become of me 3 ? The emperor, notwithstanding the 

stantine (whither it was transferred from 
the Arch of Trajan), Trajan is repre 
sented as supplying the people with pro 
visions; on another, recently discover 
ed in the Forum Romanum, he seems 
to be issuing the edict relating to the 
alimenta (see Burn s Rome and the Cam- 
pagna, Appendix, p. 452). The incident 
in question is not related of Trajan by 
any classical writer, but Dion Cassius 
(Ixix. 6) has a somewhat similar story of 
Hadrian ; ywctt/cos irapi&vTos avrov 65w 
Tcvi deo^vrjs, TO [MI&gt; irp&rov elirev avTrj 
6Yi Ou crxoXafoj, ireiTa, wr ^Kelvi] ava.- 
Kpayovcra ?&lt;pr) Kat /UT; fiacriXeve, ire- 
o~Tpa&lt;j&gt;r) re Kal \6yov avT-rj i-SuKev. It 
seems not unlikely that the representa 
tion to which Gregory s biographer re 
fers may have been some allegorical 
figure (like the Italy who is presenting 
a child to Trajan in the bas-relief of the 
alimenta already mentioned). A sculpture 
of this kind might easily be mistaken 
as representing the incident in question, 
when by a lapse of memory this incident 
was transferred from Hadrian to Trajan. 
It is worthy of remark that the later 
biographer John, who lived at Rome, 
omits all mention of these sculptures 
and says simply judicii ejus, quo viduam 
consolatus fuerat, recordattis. 1 

* The story is spoilt by the addi 
tion of the later biographer John, who 
continues the conversation : My suc 
cessors in the empire, rejoins Trajan, 



larly in the Armenian Version of the 
Chronicon of Eusebius (Schone II. p. 
162) the negative is omitted from Tra 
jan s order pr) ^K^Tflffdai, and he is re 
presented as commanding the Christians 
to be hunted out. From this version of 
the Chronicon doubtless was derived the 
notice in the Chronique de Michelle Grand 
Patriarche des Syriens Jacobites (Venise 
1868, translated by Langlois from the 
Armenian) p. 105, L empereur lui fit 
repondre, Exterminez-les sans pitied 

1 It is told by both the biographers 
of Gregory Paul the Deacon ( Vit. 
Greg. 27, Greg. Op. XV. p. 262 sq., 
Venet. 1775), who flourished towards 
the close of the eighth century, and 
John the Deacon ( Vit. Greg. ii. 44, Greg. 
Op. xv. p. 305 sq.), who wrote by the 
command of Pope John VIII (A. D. 
872882). 

8 The earlier biographer Paul writes, 
Cum quadam die per forum Trajani 
procederet, et insignia misericordiae 
ejus conspiceret, inter quae memorabile 
ilhid comperiret, videlicet quod etc. 
This implies not only that Gregory 
saw in the forum of Trajan memorials 
of Trajan s clemency generally, but that 
his eye lighted upon a representation of 
this particular incident. A probable ex 
planation of this account suggests itself. 
Memorials of Trajan s clemency, such 
as this story supposes, are still extant. 
On one bas-relief on the Arch of Con- 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 5 

entreaties of his counsellors, stayed his march, paid the widow a com 
pensation from the imperial treasury, and put the offenders in chains, 
only releasing them on their giving proof of sincere penitence. The 
great pope was moved to tears by this act of clemency in the great 
emperor. He betook himself to the tomb of S. Peter, where he wept 
and prayed earnestly. There, rapt in an ecstasy, he received a revela 
tion to the effect that the soul of Trajan was released from torments in 
answer to his intercessions; but he was warned never again to presume to 
pray for those who had died without holy baptism. The miracle, says 
John Damascene 1 (if indeed the discourse attributed to him be genuine), 
was attested by the whole East and West. The noble charity which 
underlies this story may well exempt it from rigorous criticism. But 
its doctrine has not escaped censure. The tale, writes one of Gregory s 
biographers 2 , John the Deacon, is told by English writers. The Romans 
themselves, while accepting other miracles recorded of Gregory by these 
Saxons, hesitate to credit this one story, because it cannot be supposed 
that Gregory would have prayed for a pagan. He himself however 
thinks it a sufficient answer to this objection, that Gregory is not said to 



will see to it. And what will it 
profit thee says the widow, if another 
shall do me justice? Why nothing at 
all, answers Trajan. Well then, says 
she again, is it not better for thee, 
to do me justice thyself and get thy 
reward for this, rather than transfer it 
to another? Thus the motive is no 
longer the inherent sense of mercy and 
righteousness in Trajan, but his fear of 
personal consequences. In this last form 
however the story is repeated by John of 
Salisbury and by Dante. 

1 Joann. Damasc. In Fide Dormient. 
16 (Op. I. p. 591, Lequien) ort TOVTO 
yvriffiov w\fi Kal a.Siaj3\riTOv, /j.aprvs 77 
e(^a TTcLcra Kal i) ecrTr^pios. The genuine 
ness of this work is questioned by Le 
quien and other older critics on various 
grounds. It is condemned also by a 
recent writer, Langen (Johannes von 
Damascus p. 182 sq.). His main argu 
ment is the impossibility of this story of 
Trajan and Gregory being already known 
to John Damascene ; but he has much 
over-stated the difficulty. Thus he speaks 



of John the Deacon in the ninth century 
as the earliest authority, whereas it is 
related a century before by Paul. Wiiether 
genuine or not, this passage is already 
quoted as from John Damascene by 
Aquinas. 

2 Vit. Greg. ii. 41, 44, Quae autem 
de Gregorii miraculis penes easdem An- 
glorum ecclesias vulgo leguntur, omit- 
tenda non arbitror...Legitur etiam penes 
easdem Anglorum ecclesias, quod Gre- 
gorius etc....Sed cum de superioribus 
miraculis Romanorum sit nemo qui du- 
bitet, de hoc quod apud Saxon.es legitur, 
hujus precibus Trajani animam ab in- 
ferni cruciatibus liberatam, ob id vel 
maxime dubitari videtur quod etc. The 
intercourse between England and Rome 
during and after the lifetime of Gregory 
gives weight to the English tradition. 
Nevertheless I cannot find any traces of 
the story in English writers of this early 
date. Later authors, as John of Salis 
bury and Henry of Huntingdon, ob 
viously borrow it directly or indirectly 
from Gregory s Italian biographers. 



6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

have prayed for Trajan, but to have wept for him (such was the form 
of the story known to his biographer), and that Trajan s soul is not 
reported to have been translated from hell to Paradise which could 
have been incredible but only to have been released from the torments 
of hell which was possible without his removal thence. The legend 
seems to have had a strange fascination for the medieval mind. In the 
East the authority of John of Damascus doubtless secured its currency. 
It appears in a Greek Euchologium, as a notable example of the effi 
cacy of importunate prayer 1 , though it is not admitted to a place in 
the Mensea on S. Gregory s day (March 12). In the West its reception 
was still more cordial. To a famous English writer John of Salisbury 
it served as the climax of a panegyric on this pagan emperor, whom he 
does not hesitate to prefer to all other sovereigns that have reigned on 
earth 2 . To the most illustrious of the schoolmen, Thomas of Aquinum, 
it suggested an anxious and perplexing problem in theology. He did 
not question the truth of the story, he could not disparage the authority 
of the chief agent concerned therein. But the direct recovery of a lost 
soul above all a lost soul of an unbelieving heathen could not be 
brought within the range of theological possibility. There was only one 
escape from the difficulty. He conceived that the dead emperor was 
restored to life in answer to Gregory s prayer; that his soul was thus 
permitted to animate another body and to work out its period of pro 
bation anew. Thus having made a fresh start and passed through a 
second earthly life as a devout Christian, he was received into the joys of 
heaven 3 . Lastly of all, this legend received its crowning triumph, when 
it found a home in Dante s poem 4 , and the great victory of Gregory 
over death and hell was handed down to all time enshrined in his un 
dying verse 5 . 

1 Euchol. Grace, c. 19 ws (Xvcras TTJS 1612), Quaest. Disput. vi. Art. vi (Op. 
fjLiicrTiyos Tpaiav^v di txrevovs tvreij- VIII. 688) ; comp. Summa Theol. Part. 
ews TOV 8o\j\ov ffov Tprjyoplov TOV Am- Tert. Suppl. Qusest. Ixxi. Art. v (iv. 
\6yov, ^TrdKovaov xal T^WC Seo^vuv ffov, 1242, ed. Migne). 

quoted by Ussher (see below). 4 Purg. x. 73 L alta gloria Del 

2 Joann. Saresb. Polycraticus viii. 8 roman prince, lo cui gran valore Mosse 
Quare Trajanus videatur omnibus prae- Gregorio alia suagran vittoria, etc. See 
ferendus. After relating the story of also Farad, xx. 44 sq. , 106 sq., in which 
Gregory he ends, Unde et merito prae- passage Dante adopts the solution of 
fertur aliis, cujus virtus prae caeteris ita Thomas Aquinas, that Trajan was re- 
sanctis placuit, ut eorum meritis solus sit stored to a second life in the flesh, 
liberatus. 5 The intense and general interest 

3 The references to Thomas Aquinas which gathered about this story, even at 
are In iv Libr. Sentent. Distinctio xlv. a later date, may be inferred from the 
Quaest. ii. Art. ii (Op. vn. 223, ed. elaborate disquisition of Baronius Annal. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



On the other hand recent criticism delights to view Trajan s con 
duct towards the Christians in a directly opposite light. So regarded, 
he is the first systematic persecutor of Christianity 1 . Nero and Domi- 
tian, it is maintained, assailed individuals in fewer or larger numbers, 
from caprice or in passion ; but the first imperial edict issued against 



Eccles. sub ann. 604, in which he refutes 
at great length the truth of the story. It 
is related also in Ussher s Answer to a 
Jesuit (Works III. p. 249 sq.), and in 
Bacon s Advancement of Learning \. 7. 5 
(Works in. p. 304, ed. Ellis and 
Spedding). It appears in Piers Plough- 
marfs Vision 6857 6907 (ed. Wright), 
and in Hans Sachs (Overbeck Ueber 
die Gesetze etc. p. 154). In Henry of 
Huntingdon, Hist. Angl. i (Man. Hist. 
I. p. 699), the offender is Trajan s own 
son, and he is punished accordingly, Hie 
est ille qui causa justitiae oculum sibi 
et oculum filio eruit; quern Gregorius 
ab inferis revocavit etc. ; an embellish 
ment of the story which he may have 
got from the A urea Legenda. 

1 This view is enunciated by Gie- 
seler, Eccles. Hist. I. p. 62 sq. (Engl. 
Transl.), who speaks of Trajan s as the 
first edict issued with respect to the 
Christians ; but he does not develope it. 
Its currency in very recent times is 
largely due to a paper by Overbeck 
Ueber die Gesetze der Romischen Kaiser 
von Trajan, etc., in his Studien zur 
Geschichte der Alten Kirche I. p. 93 sq. 
(1875), who discusses the question at 
length. About the same time Aube in 
his Persecutions de VEglise etc. p. 186 sq. 
(1875) advocated the same view. Some 
years before (1866) he had written a 
paper De la legalite du Christianisme 
dans r Empire Remain pendant le premier 
siecle, in the Acad. des Inscr. Comptes 
Rendus Nouv. Ser. II. p. 184 sq. (re 
printed in his later work, p. 409 sq.), 
which tended in the same direction, and 
he was followed by Dierauer (1868) 
Geschichte Trajans p. 118 sq. in Bii- 
dinger s Untersuchungen zitr Romischen 



Kaisergeschichte Band i . Friedlander also 
(1871) regards Trajan as the first to 
legalise the persecution of the Christians 
(Sittcngeschichte Rams III. p. 518). Over- 
beck s view has also been accepted by 
Gorres in his Beitrdge zur dlteren Kir- 
chengeschichte in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschr. 
f. Wissensch. Theol. XXI. p. 35 sq. 
(1877), an d again in his Christenthum 
u. der Romische Staat zur Zeit des Kaisers 
Vespasianus in this same periodical XXII. 
p. 492 sq. (1878). This also seems to be 
the view of Uhlhorn Conflict of Chris 
tianity with Heathenism p. 257 sq. 
(Engl. Transl.). On the other hand it 
is opposed by Wieseler Christenverfol- 
gungen der Cdsaren p. i sq. (1878), by 
Boissier Revue Archeologique Fevr. 1876, 
by C. de la Berge Essai sur le Regne de 
Trajan p. 208 sq. (1877), and (to a 
certain extent) also by Keim Aus dem 
Urchristenthum p. 171 sq. (1878), in 
so far as he strongly maintains the early 
distinction of Jews and Christians. 
Wieseler s refutation is the fullest ; but 
Keim has treated the particular point 
to which he addresses himself very satis 
factorily. [In his posthumous work Rom 
u. das Christenthum p. 512 sq. (1881), 
which appeared while these sheets were 
going through the press, he takes a view 
substantially the same as my own.] 
Renan (Les Evangiles p. 470) says, 
Trajan fut le premier persecuteur syste- 
matique du christianisme, and again he 
writes (p. 480) A partir de Trajan, le 
christianisme est un crime d Etat; but 
these statements are materially qualified 
by his language elsewhere (p. 483), La 
reponse de Trajan a Pline n etait pas une 
loi ; mais elle supposait des lois et en 
fixait 1 interpretation. 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the Christians, as Christians, was due to Trajan. According to this view 
the rescript of the emperor to the propraetor of Bithynia inaugurated a 
new era ; and the policy so initiated ruled the procedure of the Roman 
magistrates from that day forward during the whole of the second 
century till the age of Septimius Severus. Hitherto Jews and Christians 
had been confounded together ; and, as the Jewish religion was recog 
nized and tolerated by Roman law, Christianity escaped under the 
shield of this toleration. By Trajan for the first time Christianity was 
distinguished from Judaism, and singled out as a religio illicita. 
Then at length the outcry against the Christians took the shape which 
became familiar in later persecutions, Non licet esse 7&gt;os, The law does 
not allow you to exist. 

This sharp line, which recent criticism has drawn between Trajan 
and his predecessors as regards their treatment of Christianity, does not 
seem to be justified in any degree by the evidence before us. It may 
indeed be allowed that the early fathers were under some temptation to 
represent the attitude of this emperor towards their brothers in the 
faith in too favourable a light. Sentiment would lead them by an 
apparently direct road to the conclusion that the good emperors of 
Rome must of necessity have looked favourably on a cause so essentially 
good as Christianity. Moreover sentiment was fortified herein by policy. 
The earlier apologists, writing under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aure- 
lius, were pleading their cause before the direct heirs of the traditions 
and principles of Trajan, so that it was a matter of vital moment with 
them to represent the great predecessor of these emperors as leniently 
disposed towards the cause which they advocated ; and the arguments 
of these earlier apologists would be adopted without question and 
repeated without misgiving by the later. A Tertullian would necessarily 
follow in the track where a Melito had gone before 1 . 

It will be prudent therefore not to lay too much stress on the repre 
sentations of Christian writers, however early. But even when their 
evidence has been duly discounted, the recent theory fails to make good 
its position ; for it does not satisfy the most obvious tests which can be 
applied to it. The two questions which it occurs to us to ask, are 

1 .The passages of Melito and Ter- imperii clavum regimenque tenuerunt, 

tullian are quoted above, p. 2, note 3. The nullos inimicorum impetus passa [ec- 

motives of these writers, as suggested in clesia] Sed enim postea longa pax 

the text, are sufficiently apparent from rupta est : extitit enim post annos pluri- 

their language. See also Lactantius de mos execrabile animal Decius, qui vex- 

Mort. Pers. 3, 4 secutisque temporibus aret ecclesiam. Quis enim justitiam, 

quibus multi ac boni principes Romani nisi malus, persequatur ? 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 9 

these. First; Do the heathen accounts of the times previous to Trajan 
exhibit this confusion between Jew and Christian which would secure 
for the two religions the same treatment at the hands of Roman law, 
and which therefore is essential to the theory in question ? Secondly ; 
Do the records of Trajan s own acts imply any consciousness on his 
part that he was inaugurating a new policy when he treated the mere 
fact of their being Christians as a sufficient ground for punishment? 
Unless these two questions can be answered clearly in the affirmative, 
the ground is cut away from beneath the theory of modern critics. 

i. The first of these questions does not admit a simple answer. 
In the earliest stage of Christianity this confusion of Jew and Christian 
is an indisputable fact. The first Christian teachers were Jews by 
birth ; they addressed themselves to Jews ; they taught in Jewish syna 
gogues ; they founded their teaching on Jewish records : and therefore 
the heathen could hardly do otherwise than regard them as a Jewish 
sect. Hence the complaint of the impostors at Philippi, These men, 
being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city (Acts xvi. 20). Hence 
the attitude of Gallio at Corinth in treating the dispute between S. 
Paul and his opponents as a mere question of Jewish law (Acts xviii. 
15). Hence also the necessity of the step taken by the Jews at Ephesus 
in putting forward Alexander as their spokesman to dissociate their 
cause from the new teaching (Acts xix. 33). Moreover this confusion 
underlies the famous notice of Suetonius respecting Messianic distur 
bances at Rome in the reign of Claudius 1 . But from the first moment 
when the Christians began to be troublesome to others and to get them 
selves into trouble in consequence, it became a matter of the highest 
concern to the Jews to emphasize the distinction between themselves 
and the new religion ; and they had ample means of doing so. Accord 
ingly we find from the records of the Neronian persecution that at that 
time the Christians were commonly known as a distinct sect with a 
distinct name. Quos...vulgus Christianos appellabat, are the words of 
Tacitus, describing the new religionists (Ann. xv. 44). Modern critics 
have endeavoured to invalidate the force of this testimony by supposing 
that Tacitus is here injecting into the incidents of the reign of Nero the 
language and experience that belong to the age of Trajan. But this 
assumption is wholly gratuitous. Tacitus himself betrays no signs of 
confusing the two. His knowledge of the origin of Christianity is 
decidedly more accurate than his knowledge of the origin of Judaism. 
In the very expression which has been quoted, the tense is directly 

1 Sueton. Claud. 25 ; see Philippians p. 16. 



10 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

opposed to the hypothesis in question ; not the common people calls? 
but the common people called them Christians. He lived sufficiently 
near to the time of the events related to obtain accurate information. If 
he was only eight or ten years old when the Neronian persecution broke 
out 1 , he must at all events have grown up among those who were eye 
witnesses of the terrible scenes. Again when Domitian raised his hand 
against the Church, he was a Roman magistrate of some standing 2 , 
having held several important offices of state. It is therefore a highly 
improbable hypothesis that his account of the persecution of the Chris 
tians under Nero is a violent anachronism a hypothesis which would 
only then deserve serious consideration, if it were supported by some 
really substantial evidence. 

But no such evidence is forthcoming. On the contrary all the 
authentic notices of this first persecution point in the same direction. 
The testimony of Tacitus is confirmed by the testimony of Suetonius. 
Suetonius was a contemporary younger probably by a few years ; but he 
was grown or growing up at the time when Domitian stretched out his 
hand to vex the Church. It is an important fact that both these writers 
regard Christianity as a new religion. Tacitus relates that its founder 
Christ suffered capital punishment at the hands o the procurator Pon 
tius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius (Ann. xv. 44). Suetonius describes 
it as a novel and malignant superstition (Nero 16). These represen 
tations are supplemented by the statements of a later writer, Sulpicius 
Severus. After describing the tortures and executions of the Christians, 
he proceeds ; In this way commenced the savage onslaught on the 
Christians. Afterwards also laws were promulgated and the religion 
was forbidden. Then Paul and Peter were condemned to death : the 
former was beheaded, and Peter crucified 3 . No great stress can be laid 
on the statements of an author who wrote at the close of the fourth 
century. But Sulpicius commonly follows good authorities for these 
times ; and his account of the sequence of events here is at least consis 
tent and probable in itself. The edict would not be the first, but the 
second stage in the persecution. If, as is quite possible, a certain 
number of Jews, from malice or ignorance on the part of the officers who 
conducted the persecution, suffered in its earlier stages 4 , this confusion 

1 Teuffel Gesch. d. Rom. Liter. 315, edictis propositis Christianum esse non 
p. 671 sq. licebat. Turn Paulus ac Petrus capitis 

2 Ib. p. 672. damnati; quorum uni cervix gladio de- 

3 Chron. ii. 29 Hoc initio in secta, Petrus in crucem sublatus est. 
Christianos saeviri coeptum; post etiam 4 See Philippians pp. 24, 331 sq. 
datis legibus religio vetabatur, palamque 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. II 

would soon be cleared up. The Jews had a powerful advocate at head 
quarters. If Nero ruled the world, Poppaea ruled Nero. Her power 
with the emperor was never so great as it was about the time when 
these incidents occurred. Whether she would have cared to persecute 
the Christians, may be a question 1 ; but she would certainly have cared 
to save the Jews. She herself was a proselytess. She had intimate 
relations with Jews resident in Rome. Through one of these, an actor 
Aliturus by name, the historian Josephus obtained access to her, appa 
rently in the very year of the fire ; and through her intercession with the 
emperor he secured the release of certain Jewish priests on whose 
behalf he had undertaken his journey to Rome, while the empress 
herself loaded him with presents 2 . The Jews therefore were in the 
ascendant at the imperial court at this moment. Thus they had every 
opportunity, as it is certain they must have had every motive and every 
desire, to separate their cause from that of the Christians. An 
edict or edicts against the new sect would be the probable con 
sequence. 

But it is a matter of comparatively little importance to the question at 
issue, whether any distinct edict was issued. The mere negative fact, that 
the Christian religion had not been recognized as lawful, would be an 
ample justification for proceedings against the Christians, as soon as it 
came to be recognized that Christianity was something distinct from 
Judaism. No positive prohibition was needed. Here was a religion 
rampant, which had never been licensed by the state, and this fact 
alone was sufficient to set the law in motion. It is quite possible there 
fore that no edict was issued against the Christians before the rescript 
of Trajan ; and yet for the forty or fifty preceding years, they were 
equally exposed to persecution, as adherents of an unlawful religion 8 . 

When we pass from Nero to Domitian, we find the notices of the 
later persecution more vague and difficult to interpret, but they con 
tain nothing inconsistent with the inferences drawn from the records 
of the earlier. It may indeed be allowed that the exaction of the 
capitation-fee from the Jews under Domitian 4 was exercised in such a 

1 See Philippians, pp. 39, 41, 330. was originally paid by every Jew for the 

2 Joseph. Vit. 3 ; see Philippians maintenance of the temple-worship at 
p. 5, note 4. Jerusalem (Matt. xvii. 24), was diverted 

3 This aspect of the matter seems by the Romans after the destruction of 
sufficiently obvious, and yet it has been the holy city, and ordered by Vespasian 
strangely overlooked by writers on both to be paid to the Capitoline Jupiter : 
sides. Joseph. B. J. vii. 6. 6 &lt;j&gt;6pov 8 ro?j 

4 The didrachm, or half-shekel, which oTrovdrjiror ovffiv lovdaiois tirtfidhe 5tfo 



12 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

manner as to be vexatious to many a Jewish Christian also 1 . As the 
net was spread widely, to catch as many as possible, and as the evidence 
of circumcision was resorted to as a test, it can hardly have failed to be 
otherwise 2 . But this plea for the exaction of money stands quite apart 
from the religious question. If the plea was allowed by the magistrate 
and the payment exacted from the Jewish Christian, this was done on 
the ground of his nationality, not of his religion circumcision being 
accepted as a test of nationality. His religion still remained an object 
of attack, if any one were disposed to put the law in motion. In this 
way the Jewish Christian might be a double sufferer. But in these 
proceedings there is nothing at all which suggests that, as religions, 
Judaism and Christianity stood on the same level, so that the latter 
should enjoy the immunity accorded by law to the former. 

The account of Dion Cassius however respecting the proceedings 
taken by this emperor against Flavius Clemens and Domitilla seems at 
first sight to favour the view that the two religions were identified at 
this time. After mentioning the execution of Clemens, this historian, 
or rather his epitomator, goes on to say : Against both of them [Clemens 
and his wife Domitilla] a charge of atheism was brought, under which 
many others also who were perverts to the practices of the Jews were 
condemned ; of these some were put to death, and others had their pro- 



dpaxjJ.a.&lt;i tKavTov K t\ttffas Avd wav trot e/s Judaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est ; ad 

TO KaTTirwXioi &lt;j&gt;tpav, diffirep Trpbrepov els quern deferebantur, qui vel improfessi 

TOV lv lepwoXtnois vewv crvvertXaw, Dion Judaicam viverent vitam vel dissimulata 

Cass. Ixvi. 7 xal &ir titeivov didpaxnov origine imposita genti tributa non pepen- 

tr6.-x.Bt] roi&gt;s rd irdrpia avruv #77 irepurr^- dissent. The first class would include 

\ovras T$ KcurtrwX^ Ait rar fros d- proselytes of the gate and other loose 

&lt;t&gt;tpeiv. It was exacted with every aggra- hangers on of Judaism ; under the second 

vation of rigour and unseemliness by class would fall those Judaic Christians 

Domitian (Sueton. Dom. 12, see the next who pleaded exemption on the ground 

note). These aggravations ceased under that they were not Jews, and were sup- 

Nerva, whence the well-known medals of posed accordingly to be denying their 

this emperor with the inscription riser nationality. Many recent critics how- 

JVDAICI CALVMNIA . SVBLATA (Cohen ever, as Hilgenfeld (Einleitimg in das 

Med. hnper. Rom. i. p. 47 6, Eckhel Nate Test. p. 541), Aube (Persecutions de 

Num. Vet. vi. p. 404 sq. ) ; but it is clear FAglise etc. p. 423), and Gorres (Zeitschr. 

that he did not do away with this capita- / Wissensch. Theol. xxi. p. 500), find 

tion tax on the Jews, for it still existed in the Judaic Christians in the former clause, 

the time of Origen ; ad African. 14 (Op. qui vel improfessi Judaicam etc. Gratz 

i. p. 28, Delarue) ical vvv yovi&gt; "Pu^aLtav (Geschichte der Juden iv. p. 79) would 

pa&lt;n\fv6vrui&gt; xai lovSaiuv TO Si5pa.xjj.ot&gt; read vel uti professi for vel impro- 

ai/roij TeXoiWwc. fessi. 

1 Sueton. Domit. 12 Praeter ceteros 2 Sueton. Domit, 12. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 13 

perty confiscated at the very least 1 . If Christian historians are correct, 
as they appear certainly to be, in assuming that Flavius Clemens and 
his wife were Christians, there is here at all events a prima facie plea 
for the confusion of Judaism with Christianity. But we must remember 
that these are not the words of the historian himself. It is just in 
incidents of this kind that an epitome is most likely to mislead ; and 
even the epitomator does not distinctly say that Flavius Clemens and 
Domitilla were themselves among the perverts to Jewish practices. 
The notice is entirely satisfied by the supposition that offences not 
identical, but similar in kind offences namely which the Roman law 
regarded as atheism are classed together in a rough way. When for 
instance Tacitus (Ann. ii. 85) says, A debate was held on the expulsion 
of Egyptian and Judaic religious ceremonies (de sacris ^Egyptiis Judaicis- 
que pellendis) ; and a decree of the Senate was passed ordering that 
four thousand persons of the class of freedmen, tainted with that super 
stition (ea superstitione infecta), who were of a proper age, should be 
transported to the island of Sardinia, no one infers from this passage 
that either the authors of the decree themselves, or the historian who 
records it, identified the worship of Isis and Serapis with the religion of 
the Jews, though from a Roman point of view the association of the two 
would appear in the highest degree natural. Attaching therefore the 
utmost weight which it is possible to attach to this passage and inter 
preting it in the sense most unfavourable to the view which is here 
maintained, we cannot regard it as in any way counterbalancing or 
invalidating the inferences already drawn from the distinct notices of 
the Neronian persecution. 

2. Nor again does the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny 2 
betray any signs that a new policy was inaugurated at this period. 
Neither in the appeal of the provincial governor nor in the reply of the 
emperor is there any even the faintest suggestion that Christianity 
now for the first time was promoted to the unenviable distinction of an 
unlawful religion. On the contrary the impression left by the cor 
respondence is that, so far as the law itself was concerned, the Christians 
continued to be regarded now, as they had been regarded heretofore, 
but that the humane and upright characters of the emperor and his 
servant secured some mitigation in the enforcement of the law. 



1 Dion Cass. Ixvii. 44 tict\vtyj)i] 5 vov ot S TWV yovv ovcriuv 

afi^olv gyK\-rj/j,a adebrriTos, v&lt;p rjs Kal The bearing of the passage is discussed 

aXXoi et s TO. louSaiwv Hdy e^o/cAXoires in Philippians p. 22 sq. 
iroAXoi Ka.Tf8iKdff6r)ffai&gt;, Kal ol /j.v airfda- - Plin. Ep. X. 97, 98. 



H EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Pliny consults the emperor according to his custom in difficult 
matters. He had never himself been present, he writes, at judicial 
proceedings against the Christians ; therefore he was ignorant what 
matters were usually made subjects of punishment or of investigation, 
and to what extent. He did not know whether the bare name, even if 
free from crime, was visited with punishment, or only the crimes which 
attached to the name. Meanwhile his method of procedure had been 
this. When information was laid against persons as Christians, he 
enquired whether they were so or not. If they confessed, he asked 
them a second and third time, threatening them with punishment. If 
they were obstinate, he ordered them to be put to death : for he did not 
doubt that, whatever might be the nature of their confession, their per 
sistence and inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment. Those who 
denied that they then were or had been Christians, he released when at 
his dictation they had called upon the gods and made supplication to 
the emperor s image with incense and wine, and had cursed Christ. It 
is said, he adds, that the Christians cannot be forced to do any of these 
things. He reports these renegades as stating that the Christians had 
given up their common evening meal in consequence of an edict issued 
by him, in which in pursuance of the emperor s command he had 
forbidden the existence of clubs. 

The emperor s reply is still more emphatic by its silence. He 
answers that Pliny had acted rightly in his manner of conducting these 
judicial proceedings against the Christians. No rule of universal ap 
plication, he adds, can be laid down. The Christians are not to be 
sought out, but, if accused and convicted, they must be punished. Yet 
if a man denies himself to be a Christian and follows up his denial by 
sacrificing to the gods, his repentance is to acquit him. An anonymous 
accusation is not to be entertained. It is a precedent of the worst 
kind and unworthy of Trajan s age. 

All this is intelligible enough, if intended to convey instructions for 
carrying out an existing law. But could any language more vague and 
futile be conceived, if the emperor s purpose had been to inaugurate a 
wholly new policy and to declare the Christian religion, which had 
hitherto been recognized by the law, to be henceforward illegal ? Yet 
Trajan was a man who not only knew his own mind, but could declare 
it in plain soldierly language. Pliny, though he confesses his want of 
personal experience in this matter, evidently supposes himself to be 
acting on the same legal principles as his predecessors; and Trajan 
says not a word to undeceive him. He enunciates no new law. He 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 15 

contents himself with saying that in the application of the law no 
absolute rule can be laid down, but the magistrate must exercise his 
own discretion. The refusal to accept anonymous accusations is the 
only point in this rescript which suggests the appearance of novelty. 

There seems to be only one escape from this conclusion. Trajan 
may have inaugurated his new policy at a previous stage. The pro 
ceedings against the Christians, which Pliny mentions as having taken 
place before this time, may refer, not as is commonly supposed, to the 
persecution of Domitian, but to earlier transactions in the reign of 
Trajan himself. This however is not contended by those who maintain 
the theory which I am combating. Nor would it afford any support 
for their hypothesis, which has no other basis but this rescript of Trajan. 

But, it will be said, if from the time of Nero Christianity was a 
forbidden religion, how is it that from that date to the age of Trajan 
a period of nearly half a century the Church enjoyed unbroken peace, 
only disturbed for a moment by the capricious onslaught of the last 
Flavius ? How do we account for the fact that, under Vespasian and 
Titus more especially, the laws lay dormant and were never put 
into force? The answer is twofold. In the first place we do not 
know that they were never put in force. Our information with respect 
to these early ages of the Church is singularly defective and capricious. 
We shall see presently by what a slender thread of accident the record 
of the sharp and fierce persecution in Bithynia under Trajan has been 
preserved to us. But we may go further than this. Hilary of Poitiers 
ranks Vespasian between Nero and Decius as a persecutor of the 
faith 1 . What may be the ground of this exceptional notice in the 

1 Hilar. Pictav. c. Arian. c. 3, Op. Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tol- 

II. p. 594 (ed. Bened., Veron. 1730). leretur: quippe has religiones, licet con- 

Quibusnam suffragiis ad praedicandum trarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus 

evangelium apostoli usi sunt ? anne profectas : Christianos ex Judaeis exti- 

aliquam sibi assumebant e palatio dig- tisse : radice sublata stirpem facile peri- 

nitatem, hymnum Deo in carcere inter turam. If Sulpicius Severus has bor- 

catenas et post flagella cantantes? e- rowed from Tacitus here, as Bernays 

dictisque regis Paulus, cum in theatre (Ueber die Chronik d. Sulpic. Sever. 

spectaculum ipse esset, Christo ecclesiam p. 57) supposes, and as seems probable, 

congregabat ? Nerone se credo aut Ves- his statement deserves some attention ; 

pasiano aut Decio patrocinantibus tue- but it does not go far. The case is dif- 

batur, quorum in nos odiis confessio ferent with the testimony of Hilary, 

divinae praedicationis effloruit, etc. See Gorres (Das Christenthum unter Ves- 

also Sulpic. Sev. Chron. ii. 30 At con- pasianus p. 503, in Zeitschr.f. IVissensch. 

tra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in Theol. xxi. 1878), while attempting to 

primis templum censebant, quo plenius invalidate this testimony, betrays a naive 



i6 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



Galilean father, we do not know. Possibly it may be an error. More 
probably it is based on some facts known to Hilary, but since oblite 
rated by time from the permanent records of history. It is no answer 
to this view to allege that Melito 1 by his silence exempts Vespasian 
from the list of persecutors, for Melito equally exempts Trajan and 
Antoninus Pius, though a fierce persecution raged in Bithynia under 
the former, and though Polycarp and his fellow martyrs suffered in 
Smyrna under the latter. Neither again is it of any avail to insist 
that Tertullian in direct words exculpates this emperor from any share 
in the sufferings of the Christians 2 , for Tertullian not only expressly 
exculpates M. Aurelius, but even ranks him among the protectors of 
the Gospel, though the arenas of Vienne and Lyons were watered with 
the blood of martyrs executed in this reign 3 . The fact is that no 
systematic record was kept of the persecutions. The knowledge pos 
sessed by each individual writer was accidental and fragmentary. And 
it can hardly be pronounced less probable that a persecution under 
Vespasian, which had escaped Eusebius, should have been known to 
Hilary, than that a persecution under M. Aurelius, which was wholly 
unknown to Tertullian, though it occurred within his own life-time, 
should have been recorded for the information of posterity, in extracts 
from a contemporary record, by Eusebius who wrote a century and a 
half after the occurrence. 

In the second place, the difficulty of accounting for this period 
of undisturbed peace if such it was on the hypothesis that Chris 
tianity was all the while an unlawful religion, is not greater than meets 
us again and again during the succeeding ages. During the second 
century and the first half of the third it is allowed on all hands that 
Christianity was prohibited by law. Yet the intervals between persecu 
tion and persecution during this period are, as a rule, decidedly longer 
than the intervals between Nero and Domitian, and between Domitian 
and Trajan. The explanation is the same in both cases. The law 



unconsciousness that he is begging the 
question throughout. Secondly, he 
writes, this father of the Church pro 
ceeds from the unhistorical assumption 
that Christianity was already a rdigio 
illicita in the Apostolic age. Thirdly, 
with this fundamental error is connected 
the fact that Nero, the partial persecutor 
of Christianity from the transient caprice 
of a despot, is placed on the same level 
with Decius the first systematic foe oi 



the Christians. Fourthly, the assertion, 
that the first Flavius had persecuted the 
Church in the manner of a Decius, con 
tradicts the historical connexion, that is 
to say, the political situation of Chris 
tendom generally before Trajan s time. 

1 In Euseb. //. E. iv. 26, quoted 
above, p. 2, note 3. 

2 Afol. 5, quoted above, p. 2, note 3. 

3 Euseb. H. E. v. i. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. I 7 

was there, if any one were disposed to call it into action. But for 
long periods it lay dormant. Only now and then the panic of a 
populace, or the bigotry of a magistrate, or the malice of some in 
fluential personage, awoke it into activity. Sometimes it was enforced 
against one or two individuals, sometimes against collective numbers. 
But, as a rule, there was no disposition to deal hardly with the Chris 
tians, who were for the most part peaceful and industrious citizens. 
In this respect Christianity was on the same footing with other pro 
hibited religions. The unrecognized rites of Syria or Babylonia or 
Egypt might be practised in the Roman Empire, even in the metropolis 
itself, without molestation for long periods. It was only when some 
accidental circumstance excited an alarm or awoke a prejudice, that 
they were made to feel the perilous insecurity of their position. 

It appears therefore that, as regards Trajan s attitude towards Chris 
tianity, the view of the earliest Christian fathers was less wide of the 
truth than the view of recent modern critics. Still it was very far from 
correct in itself. The good emperors, as a rule, were not more friendly 
to Christianity than the bad. Their uprightness might exclude caprice ; 
their humanity might mitigate extreme rigour. But, as straightforward, 
patriotic, law-loving Roman statesmen, they were invited by the 
responsibilities of their position to persecute. The Roman religion 
was essentially political. The deification of the dead emperor, the 
worship of the genius of the living emperor, were the direct logical 
result of this political religious system. An arbitrary, unscrupulous 
prince might disregard this system ; a patriotic Roman could not. 
Hence the tragic fact that the persecutions of Trajan and M. Aurelius 
were amongst the severest on record in the early Church. On the 
other hand, the Christians had almost as much to hope, as to fear, 
from the unscrupulousness of the bad emperors. If the caprice of a 
Nero persecuted them, the caprice of a Commodus not only spared 
but favoured them. 

One other important consideration is suggested by the records of 
this Bithynian persecution. It is generally supposed that the historian 
of the early Church, in order to arrive at the truth with regard to the 
extent of the persecutions, has only to make deductions for the exag 
gerations of Christian writers. In other words, it is assumed that the 
Christians forgot nothing, but magnified everything. This assumption 
however is shown to be altogether false by the history of the manner 
in which the record of this Bithynian persecution has been preserved. 
With the possible exception of the Neronian outbreak, it was the most 
severe of all the persecutions, of which we have any knowledge, during 
IG. I. 2 



1 8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the first and second centuries. Yet no record whatever was preserved 
of it in any Christian sources. Tertullian derived his knowledge of it 
from the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan ; Eusebius from Tertul 
lian ; later Christian writers from Tertullian and Eusebius, one or 
both. The correspondence of a heathen writer is thus the sole ultimate 
chronicle of this important chapter in the sufferings of the early 
Church. What happened in this case, is not unlikely to have happened 
many times. Again and again the Christians may have undergone 
cruel persecutions in distant provinces, without preserving any special 
record of what was too common an occurrence with them. If therefore 
large deductions must be made (as confessedly they must) for the 
exaggeration of Christian records on the one hand, yet very consider 
able additions are probably due in compensation for the silence of 
Christian tradition on the other, if we would arrive at a correct estimate 
of the aggregate amount of suffering undergone. 

Amidst many spurious and questionable stories of persecutions 
alleged to have taken place during the reign of Trajan 1 , only three 
are reported on authority which can be trusted. Of these three two 
are concerned with the fate of individual Christians of Symeon at 
Jerusalem and of Ignatius at Antioch. The third only the Bithynian 
persecution, of which I have been speaking was in any sense general. 

For this last alone, so far as our authentic information goes, Trajan 
was personally responsible. In what spirit, and on what grounds, he 
came forward as the persecutor of the Church on this occasion, will 
have been sufficiently obvious from what has been said already. It 
was as a statesman and a patriot that he conceived himself obliged 
to suppress Christianity. As the guardian of the constitution and the 
champion of the laws, he was constrained to put down unlawful 
gatherings. On no point does this humane and righteous emperor 
manifest more sensitiveness than in the suppression of clubs or guilds. 
Whether the avowed object of such a guild were religious or com 
mercial, convivial or literary, it mattered not. There was always the 
danger that it might be perverted to political ends ; and therefore it 
must be suppressed at all hazards. In the correspondence between 

1 These fictitious persecutions under authority of John Malalas, I have dis- 

Trajan are discussed and refuted by cussed elsewhere in this work (n. p. 438). 

Gorres Kaiser Trajan u. die Christliche The Syriac Acts of the Edessene Martyrs 

Tradition in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Sharbil, Barsamya, and others, are shown 

Theol. XXI. p. 35 sq. (1877). The alleged to be unauthentic by Gorres. See also 

persecution in Palestine under Tiberi- the appendix to this chapter (p. 62 sq.). 
anus, together with others given on the 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 19 

Pliny and Trajan, which .precedes the letters relating to the Christians, 
two occasions arose on which the propraetor solicits the emperor s 
instructions with regard to such gatherings; and the light thrown by 
these on his dealings with the Christians is striking. 

(i) 

A destructive fire had broken out in Nicomedia. It had found 
the people wholly unprepared. There was no hose nor engine, nor 
apparatus of any kind. Pliny is anxious to guard against the recur 
rence of such a calamity. Accordingly he puts this question to the 
emperor 1 : 

It is for you, Sire, to consider whether you think a guild of work 
men should be organized, consisting of not more than a hundred and 
fifty strong. I will take care that none but workmen are admitted, 
and that they do not use the privilege for any other purpose. Nor 
will it be difficult to exercise surveillance, the numbers being so 
small. 

We should regard this as an excess of caution, but it is far from 
satisfying the emperor. Here is his reply. 

TRAJAN TO PLINY GREETING. 

It has occurred to you, following the precedents of many other 
cases, that a guild of workmen could be organized among the Nico- 
medians. But we must remember that this province and especially 
those cities are harassed by party associations of that kind. Whatever 
name we may give to them, and whatever may be the purpose, those 
who have been brought together will form themselves into clubs all the 
same 2 . It will therefore be better that apparatus should be procured 
which may be useful to put out fires, and that the owners of estates 
should be admonished to keep them in check themselves ; and, if the 
occasion should require, that recourse should be had to a general muster 
of the people for the purpose. 

(ii) 

Amisa was a free city under a special treaty. The people presented 
a petition to Pliny respecting certain convivial gatherings where there 

1 See Plin. Ep. x. 42 (33), 43 (34)- i nserts sodalitates before que ; others 

2 Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque insert other words ; others alter que 
causa dederimus iis, aui in idem contract! brevi into quamvis breves ; but plainly 
fuerint, hetaeriae que (or quae) brevi fient. it should be read hetaeriae aeque brevi 
So the passage stood in the MS. Doring fient, the ae being repeated. 

2. 2 



20 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

was a subscription supper. I have appended it, writes Pliny 1 , to 
this letter, that you, Sire, might consider in what respects and to what 
extent they should be allowed or prohibited. 
To this the emperor answers as follows. 

TRAJAN TO PLINY GREETING. 

As regards the Amisenes, whose petition you attached to your 
letter, if they are allowed by their laws, which they enjoy by virtue of the 
treaty, to hold a subscription supper (benefit club), it is competent for us 
to abstain from preventing their holding it ; and this the more easily, if 
they employ such a contribution not for making disturbances or for 
unlawful gatherings, but to support the needs of the poorer members. 
In all the other cities, which are subject to our laws, anything of the 
kind must be prohibited. 

The letters relating to the Christians follow almost immediately after 
this correspondence about Amisa; and Pliny not unnaturally, when 
this new emergency arose, viewed it in the light of the emperor s pre 
vious instructions. Of certain apostates from the faith, whom he 
examined, he writes (Ep. x. 97 [96]) : 

They asserted that this v/as the sum and substance of their fault 
or their error ; namely that they were in the habit of meeting before 
dawn on a stated day and singing alternately (secum invicem) a hymn 
to Christ as to a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath, not to 
the commission of any wicked deed, but that they would abstain from 
theft and robbery and adultery, that they would not break their word, 
and that they would not withhold a deposit when reclaimed. This 
done, it was their practice, so they said, to separate, and then to meet 
together again for a meal, which however was of the ordinary kind and 
quite harmless. But even from this they had desisted after my edict, 
in which in pursuance of your commands I had forbidden the existence 
of clubs (hetaerias). 

Lawful religions held a license from the state for worship or for 
sacrifice, and thus these gatherings were exempted from the operation of 
the laws against clubs. Christianity enjoyed no such privilege. The 
first form, in which any Christian body was recognized by the law, was 
as a benefit-club with special view to the interment of the dead 2 . Even 
this however implied no recognition of the religion, as a religion. But 
in the time of Trajan it had not, so far as we know, even the indirect 

1 See Plin. Ep. X. 93 (92), 94 (93). p. iosq., to whom we are indebted for 

2 See De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea i. bringing this fact into prominence. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 21 

protection which was accorded afterwards to its burial clubs. If there 
fore the character of these Christian gatherings had been entirely neutral 
in themselves, they could not even then have been tolerated. But 
this was far from being the case. When the individual Christian was 
examined, he was found to be obstinate on points of vital importance. 
He would not swear by the genius of the emperor ; he would not offer 
incense on the altar. The religious offence was bound up with the 
political offence. He stood self-convicted of impiety, of atheism, of 
high treason 1 . Only by some wholly illogical decision of a magistrate 
more humane than consistent, could he be saved from the penalties 
of the law. 

Trajan himself seems to have had no interest in the religious aspects 
of Christianity. He was only anxious to suppress secret associations 
which might become dangerous to the state. He would not care to 
hunt down individuals. In the Bithynian persecution therefore he 
took an active part ; but in the two authentic instances of individual 
martyrs who suffered during his reign, there is no reason to think that 
he manifested any personal concern. 

The incidents relating to Symeon of Jerusalem are told on the 
authority, and for the most part in the very words, of the early Jewish 
Christian historian Hegesippus 2 . Symeon was the reputed cousin ot 
our Lord, being son of Clopas the brother of Joseph. On the death of 
James the Just he had been chosen unanimously to fill the vacant see. 
He was now 120 years old, and Trajan was emperor. He was accused 
by certain Jewish sectarians on a twofold charge : first, that he was a 
descendant of David and therefore a claimant for the kingdom ot 
Israel ; secondly, that he was a Christian and therefore the adherent of 
an unlawful religion. Atticus was then proconsul, and before Atticus 
he was tried. For many days he was tortured, to the astonishment of 
all beholders, not least of the proconsul himself, who marvelled at this 
endurance in a man of such venerable age. Last of all he was crucified. 
Whether this occurred before or after the Bithynian persecution, we 
are not informed 3 . There is obviously an exaggeration in the age 
assigned to Symeon; and the fact that he was a son of the Clopas 
mentioned in the Evangelical records suggests that his death should be 
placed early rather than late in the reign of Trajan. 

1 The different offences, of which a 1866, p. 358 sq. 

Christian might be guilty, are investi- 2 In Euseb. H, E. iii. 32. 

gated by Leblant Sur les bases juridiques 3 See II. p. 447, on the relative 

des poursuites dirigees centre les martyrs chronology of these persecutions, 
in the A cad. des Snscr., Comptcs-rendus 



22 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

There is no reason for questioning the grounds of accusation against 
Symeon as reported by Hegesippus. Strange as the first charge seems 
at first sight, it is not at all improbable. From the day when the Jewish 
mob clamoured in the ears of Pilate We have no king but Caesar 
(John xix. 15), it was always the policy of the Jews in these agitations 
to work upon the political sensibilities of their Roman masters. There 
was at least a plausible pretext for such a charge in the vivid expecta 
tion of an approaching kingdom which was ever present to the minds, 
and not seldom heard from the lips, of the Christians. The Jews of 
Thessalonica, who denounced Paul and Silas as acting contrary to the 
decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus (Acts 
xvii. 7), set a fashion which doubtless had many imitators in later ages. 
Moreover in this particular case the insinuation of family interests, of 
dynastic pretensions, in a descendant of the royal house would give an 
additional colour to the accusation. But, though it is highly probable 
that the Jews would advance this charge, it is by no means likely that 
the proconsul would seriously entertain it. The saving common sense, 
which distinguished the Roman magistrates as a class, would rescue 
him from such a misconception. The Jews had not misled Pilate, 
and they were not likely to mislead Atticus. Even the emperor 
Domitian is said to have seen through the flimsiness of this charge, 
when it was brought against other members of this same family, the 
grandsons of Judas the Lord s brother 1 . But the second accusation 
was not so easily set aside. If, when questioned, Symeon avowed 
himself to be a Christian, if he declined the test of swearing by the 
genius of Caesar and throwing a few grains of incense on the altar, 
nothing remained for the magistrate but to carry out the law. 

Of the circumstances which led to the condemnation of Ignatius on 
the other hand we know absolutely nothing. The two legendary Acts 
make the emperor himself the prime mover the one at Antioch, the 
other at Rome 2 . But it has been shown that both these documents 
alike are absolutely valueless. We are therefore thrown back on the 
incidental references which occur in the martyr s own letters. The 
bearing of these will be considered lower down. 

The name of the saint is Roman, or rather ancient Italian, not 
Greek or Syrian, as might have been expected. In the third Samnite 
war (B.C. 298) the ability and daring of the Samnite general, Gellius 

1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. unauthentic character of these two mar- 
* Mart. Ign. Ant. i (n. p. 477), tyrologies, see n. p. 376 sq. 
Mart. Ign. Rom. 2 (ll. p. 496). For the 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 23 

Egnatius, foiled the Romans for a time, till the struggle was ended by 
his death on the battle-field of Sentinum (Liv. x. 18 29). Again 
two centuries later, in the last great conflict of the Romans with the 
neighbouring Italian nations, the Marsian war (A.D. 90), another general 
bearing the same name, Marius Egnatius, likewise a Samnite, inflicted 
heavy losses on the Romans, till he too met with a similar fate (Liv. 
Epit. Ixxv, Appian Civ. i. 40, 41, 45). From this time forward the 
distinction of Roman and Italian ceases; and Egnatius appears as a 
not uncommon Roman name. It occurs for instance not less than 
five times in a single inscription belonging to the age of Vespasian 
(Gruter Inscr. ccxl, ccxli). At a later date it was borne by one of 
the Roman emperors (Orelli Inscr. 1004 P. Licinio Egnatio Gallieno ; 
comp. 1008). The form Ignatius has many analogies in the language. 
Thus we have Deana, Dometius, Fabrecius, Menerva, Opemius, 
Paperius, etc., in the older inscriptions (Corp. Inscr. Lat. i. p. 605), 
where the later forms are Diana, Domitius, Fabricius, Minerva, 
Opimius, Papirius, etc. Nor is this exchange of vowels confined to 
proper names; e.g. fuet, mereto, tempestatebus, etc. (see Roby s Latin 
Grammar i. 234). As a rule, the substitution of the I for E had 
taken place in the language long before, but in some proper names, 
e.g. Vergilius, Verginius (Ritschl Opusc. n. p. 779), the older forms 
still prevailed. The name with which we are concerned seems to 
have been written indifferently Egnatius or Ignatius, though doubtless 
there was a greater tendency to the latter form in Greek than in Latin l . 
Thus the Samnite general in the Marsian war appears persistently as 
lyvcmos in Appian (Civ. i. 40, Schweighaeuser s note), though written 
Egnatius in Livy. So too the lieutenant of Crassus is called lyvanos 
by Plutarch (Vit. Crass. 27), though a Latin writer would doubtless 
write the name Egnatius. The name of the Carthaginian saint again 
is written in both ways in the manuscripts of Cyprian Ep. xxxix. 3, and 
elsewhere (see Zahn, I. v. A. p. 28). There is however no persistence 
either in the Greek or the Latin orthography of the name. Thus for 
instance Eyvcmos appears in inscriptions (e.g. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Grcec. 
Index p. 85 ; Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. p. 85), and coins (Mionnet in. p. 16), 
and in Dion Cassius (liii. 24, Ixii. 26). On the other hand, Ignatius, 
Ignatia, occur in Latin (e.g. Corp. Inscr. Lat. n. 1457, if correctly so 
read), though rarely, until a comparatively late date. - There is there 
fore no ground for supposing with Wieseler (Christenverfolg. d. Cdsaren 
pp. 122, 133) that Ignatius and Egnatius are two separate names. 

The name was not unknown in these parts. The Stoic, P. Egnatius 
1 So evocatus becomes IOVOKO.TOS in Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iii. 20). 



24 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Celer, who under Nero won for himself an exceptional place in the 
annals of crime (Juv. Sat. iii. 114 sq., Tac. Ann. xvi. 32, Hist. iv. 
10, 40), was a native of Beyrout (Dion Cass. Ixii. 26). At a later 
date again, during the joint reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, we 
have an inscription at Phseno or Phaena in Palestine, which mentions 
one Egnatius Fuscus, a tribune stationed there (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 

4544 $aivr/orioi ae^tepwcrav e^ecrTOJTO? x[&lt;Aiapxov] Xey[fa5vos] y FafAAjiK^s; 

comp. 4542). Moreover it was sometimes borne by Jews, as appears 
from another inscription (ib. 4129), where it is found in connexion 
apparently with the name Esau and the symbol of the golden candle 
stick. In Christian circles also, during the early centuries, it appears 
more than once. The African martyr Egnatius or Ignatius, comme 
morated by Cyprian, has been mentioned already. In a sepulchral 
monument also at Rome, which being written in Greek must belong 
to an early date, we find the name, though in the abbreviated form, 
lyva Ti? (Boeckh Inscr. Grtzc. 9694). 

Connected herewith is the name Nurono (r^Jicu), by which the 
martyr is not unfrequently designated in Syriac (Gregor. Barhebr. 
Chron. i. p. 42, ed. Abbeloos et Lamy ; Assem. Bibl. Orient, in. p. 
1 6 sq.). Tentzel (Exerc. Sel, i. p. 46 sq.), misled by Pocock s render 
ing of the words of Barhebrseus (Hist. Dyn. vii. p. 119), Ignatius 
Nuraniensis, supposed that the saint was a native of Nora or Nura in 
Sardinia ; and this explanation has found favour with others (e.g. Grabe 
Spicil. ii. p. i sq., Fabric. Bibl. Grcec. vii. p. 32 sq., ed. Harles). The 
true derivation was divined by Pearson (Ign. Epist. Gen. p. i, annot.), 
who called attention to a passage of Epiphanius (Har. xxvi. i), where 
vovpa is given as the Syriac equivalent to irvp, and by others (e.g. 
Wesseling Itin. Anton, p. 84 sq.). A passage in Severus the Mono- 
physite patriarch of Antioch, first published by Cureton (C. I. pp. 216, 
247) from a Syriac version, removes all doubt as to the meaning of 
the word. In his 65th Epithronian Oration, delivered in the Church 
of Ignatius, the ancient Temple of Fortune at Antioch, Severus, as 
represented by his Syriac translator, states that Ignatius was appro 
priately so named by a certain prescience; that the. Latin ignis is 
equivalent to the Syriac nuro or flame ; and that he was called 
Nurono or Inflamed, because the torch of divine love blazed in him 1 . 

1 There is some corruption in the Sy- cause he foreknew things future ; for any 

riac text here, as Zahn (7. v. A. p. 555) one who is only moderately acquainted 

has noticed. As it stands, Severus is with the language of the Romans knows 

made to say that the saint was appro- that Nurono, that is, Inflamed, as we also 

priately named Ignatius from facts, be- say, was derived from hence; for the 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 25 

It seems probable therefore that the appellative Nurono is due to 
this passage in the Epithronian Orations. The great reputation of 
Severus would give currency to this interpretation of the name 
Ignatius, and the Syriac equivalent Nurono would pass into general 
use in the Syrian Churches. The wide popularity of these Epithronian 
Orations is shown by the fact that two Syriac versions of them are 
extant. It is not likely that Severus, writing in Greek, used the 
word Nurono himself, and Zahn (/. v. A. p. 73 sq.) is probably right 
in conjecturing that it was introduced by the Syriac translator to 
explain the meaning 1 . It is needless to add that the derivation of the 
name Ignatius from ignis is altogether false. Not improbably, 
like Gnatius, it is connected with gnascor (nascor), gnatus (natus). 

Around the other name Theophorus, likewise borne by Ignatius, 
much superfluous controversy has gathered. A significance has been 
assigned to it which the facts do not warrant. It has been regarded 
as a title of honour bestowed upon the saint by his admirers, and 
allusions have been discovered in several passages of his epistles to 
this imaginary glorification of the martyr (see the notes on Magn. i, 
Trail. 4, Smyrn. 5). All such references melt away in the light of 
criticism. On the other hand, an attempt has been made 2 to discredit 
it altogether as a later interpolation in the addresses of the epistles. 
This view disregards the evidence of manuscripts and versions, which is 
absolutely unanimous in favour of the word at every occurrence. Its 
only plea is the fact that the earliest fathers take no notice of this 
designation of the saint. No doubt, if it had possessed the signi 
ficance which some late fathers and many modern critics have assigned 
to it, this silence, though it would have little weight against the unani- 

Romans call the fire which is lighted up nicus ?), which must have been nearly 
and in flames, ignis. Who then is he that contemporary with Severus, and of which 
has in himself the flame, that is to say, extant MSS bear the dates A.D. 563, 569, 
the lamp of divine love, and is inflamed 576, is preserved in great part in MSS 
by the desire to suffer for Christ? The in the British Museum (Wright s Catal. 
same who also in writing to the Romans p. 546 sq.) and the Vatican (Assem. 
says, etc. (Cureton C. I. p. 247). The Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. MSS. Catal. ill. 
prescience evidently should not be as- p. 241 sq.), but the portion containing 
cribed to Ignatius himself, as in the this homily is wanting. Otherwise a corn- 
present text, but to God or to the person parison of the two translations might 
who gave him the name. have enabled us to arrive approximately 
1 The translation of Severus, which at the original words of Severus. A 
is here quoted, was made by Jacob of translator would have to deal freely with 
Edessa, A.D. 701 (Wright s Catal. of the Greek here, and the insertion of a 
Syr. MSS in the Brit. Mus. p. 534 sq.). word like Nurono was a necessity. 
The older version (by Paul of Calli- 2 See n. p. 22. 



26 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

mous testimony of all the direct authorities, might have demanded an 
explanation. But in fact Theophorus was a second name of Ignatius, 
and nothing more. Examples of these second names, introduced in the 
very form which we find in the openings of the Ignatian Epistles (d KCU 
eo&lt;/&gt;dpos), abound in the inscriptions. A few of these have been given 
in the notes (n. p. 22); but, if it were necessary, instances might be multi 
plied manifold. Illustrations also might be gathered from extant authors. 
Thus a nearly contemporary writer, Aristides, mentions a certain 
praetor, Sedatus by name, but originally Theophilus (Orat. 26 Sr/Saros 
ovo/ta, TO S dpxalov O(^tAo9, Op. i. p. 506, ed. Dindorf). So too Jose- 
phus speaks in one place of Diodotus also surnamed Tryphon (Ant. xiii. 
5. i AtoSoros d KCU TpucjW 7riK/\.T7#i s), in another of Joseph also called 
Caiaphas (Ant. xviii. 3. 2 IWO-^TTOS d KGU Kaunas), besides several other 
examples which this author alone could furnish. And so again in later 
writers, both Greek and Latin. Thus Eusebius (as reproduced by 
Syncellus) speaks of the Roman emperor as MCI/DKOS Avp^ Aios d mi 
Ovrjpos (Chron. n. p. 170, Schone), and elsewhere describes him as 
M. AvpifAios Ov^pos d KCU AVTCOVIVOS (H. E. iv. 14). In like manner 
Socrates (H. E. i. 30) tells of A^aa/3 d KCU IwaVvr?s, and Jerome (Catal. 
80) of Firmianus qui et Lactantius ; while Cyprian (Epist. 66) styles 
himself Cyprianus qui et Thascius, at the same time addressing a 
friend who is designated Florentius qui et Puppianus." 

The reasons for assuming another name either in place of or in addi 
tion to the original name may be various. In some cases it was a mark 
of personal affection or respect for some friend or patron. Thus Josephus 
mentions one of his sons Simonides also surnamed Agrippa (Jos. Vit. 
76 J&gt;,i[juDvi8r)&lt;;...6 KCU AypiTrTras ViKA.?7$eis), doubtless so called after the 
Jewish prince of that name. Sometimes a man adopted a professional 
name. Thus a martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, when asked who 
he was, replied, If you want the name in common use, I am called 
Tarachus by my parents; but when I was in the army, I was called 
Victor (Act. Tar. et Prob. i, Ruinart p. 452, Ratisb. 1859). Not unfre- 
quently the change was dictated by a religious motive. So Jerome tells 
us that Cyprian took the name of Caecilius from the presbyter to whom 
he owed his conversion (Catal. 67). And a still more notable example 
of an adopted name may perhaps be explained by the desire to comme 
morate a critical incident in his career, Saulus who is also called 
Paulus (Acts xiii. 9 2avAos...d KCU HaCAos). Of the Palestinian martyrs 
again it is related (Euseb. Mart. Pal. n), that they assumed the names 
of the old prophets, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel, Daniel, instead of 
1 See also Marquardt Privatleben der Romer p. 25. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 27 

their original names, which in some cases were derived from idols (etSw- 
XIKCOV OVTWV d Tux 01 )- ^ n like manner, in the absence of any definite 
information, we may conjecture that Ignatius assumed the name Theo- 
phorus, the God-bearer/ at the time of his conversion or his baptism, 
desiring thereby to keep continually before his mind the duties and 
privileges of his newly acquired position. 

But whatever may have been the cause of its assumption in the first 
instance, the name itself gave rise to more than one mythical legend, 
according as it was interpreted the God-borne (0o&lt;opos) or the God- 
bearer (0eo&lt;opos). 

(1) As the God-borne, it not unnaturally suggested the story that 
Ignatius was the very child whom our Lord took in his arms (Mark ix. 
36, 37). In the Menaea for Dec. 20, this legend is repeated several 
times, and the surname of the martyr is so explained (pp. 137, 140, 141, 
143, ed. Venet. 1877). The story however was unknown in the early 
centuries, as the silence of Eusebius shows. Indeed S. Chrysostom 
says distinctly that, unlike the Apostles, he had not even seen the Lord, 
and regards his readiness to die for Christ as a more convincing proof of 
the truth of the resurrection on this very account (Horn, in Ign. Mart. 
4). It appears first at the end of the ninth century in Anastasius Biblio- 
thecarius (Op. m. p. 42, Migne) where it is introduced as a tradition, 
and is found in Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. ii. 35), in Symeon the 
Metaphrast (Mart. Ign. i), in Solomon of Bassora (Cureton Corp. Ign. 
pp. 220, 251), and in other later writers. The story doubtless seemed 
to gain confirmation from a passage in the martyr s own letter to the 
Smyrnseans ( 3), where he was wrongly interpreted as saying that he 
had known Jesus Christ in the flesh even before the resurrection. The 
legend of S. Christopher has its origin in a similar rebus, as explained in 
Vida s couplet, 

Christophore, infixum quod eum usque in corde gerebas, 
Pictores Christum dant tibi ferre humeris 

(see M. Miiller, Science of Language, 2nd Ser. p. 552 sq.). In the older 
accounts he is a converted heathen, who takes the name Xpio-To^opos at 
his baptism. Like Ignatius, he was an Antiochene; and like him also 
he suffered a martyr s death (see Smith s Diet, of Christ. Biogr. i. 
p. 496 s. v.). The story which is familiarly connected with his name 
does not appear till a very late date. 

(2) In the West another story was told of Ignatius, founded, like the 
former, on a literal interpretation of the name 6eo&lt;j&gt;6po&lt;;, which however 
in this instance was correctly taken in an active sense. Vincentius of 



28 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Beauvais (Spec. Hist. x. 57) relates how when his heart was cut into 
small pieces (minutatim) the name of the Lord Jesus Christ was found 
inscribed in golden letters on every single piece, as we read (ut legitur) ; 
for he had said that he had Christ in his heart. We cannot fail to be 
reminded by this of the sad saying of the English Queen, that when she 
was dead the name of Calais would be read engraven on her heart. 
This latter legend of Ignatius however seems never to have gained 
any wide currency like the former. 

Of the origin, birth, and education of Ignatius we are told absolutely 
nothing. The supposition that he was a slave is a very uncertain infer- 
ence from his own language (see Rom. 4, with the note). It may be 
conjectured however with probability from expressions in his letters, 
that he was not born of Christian parentage; that he was brought up a 
pagan and converted in mature life to Christianity; and that his youth 
had been stained by those sins of which as a heathen he had made no 
account at the time, but which stung his soul with reproaches in the 
retrospect, now that it was rendered sensitive by the quickening power 
of the Gospel. Thus he, like S. Paul, speaks of himself (Rom. 9) as an 
?KTpu))u.a, a child untimely born to Christ. There had been something 
violent, dangerous, and unusual in his spiritual nativity. Coupled with 
this expression is another, which he likewise uses elsewhere (Ephes. 21, 
Trail. 13, Smyrn. 1 1). He speaks of himself as the last (eo-^aTos) of the 
Antiochene Christians, as unworthy therefore to have a place among them. 
It cannot indeed be safely inferred that this expression signifies in itself 
latest in time ; but the loss of precedence which it implies is best 
explained by supposing that his conversion was comparatively late in 
date. Indeed not a few expressions in his epistles, otherwise hardly 
explicable, become full of life and meaning, when read by the light of 
this hypothesis. His was one of those broken natures out of which, as 
Zahn has truly said (/. v. A. p. 404), God s heroes are made. If not a 
persecutor of Christ, if not a foe to Christ, as seems probable, he had at 
least been for a considerable portion of his life an alien from Christ. 
Like S. Paul, like Augustine, like Francis Xavier, like Luther, like John 
Bunyan, he could not forget that his had been a dislocated life; and the 
memory of the catastrophe, which had shattered his former self, filled 
him with awe and thanksgiving, and fanned the fervour of his devotion 
to a white heat. 

But, if this be so, what must be said of the tradition which represents 
him as ordained, or at least taught, by Apostles? What claim has he to 
the title of an apostolic father? 

The earliest tradition represents Ignatius as the second of the Antio- 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 29 

chene bishops, or (if S. Peter be reckoned) the third 1 . Of extant writers 
our first authority for this statement is Origen (Horn, vi in Luc. i, Op. 
m. p. 938 A), who however does not give the name of Ignatius predeces 
sor. This missing name, Euodius, is supplied by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 
22; Chron. n. pp. 152, 158, ed. Schone), who doubtless followed some 
older tradition. Whether his authority was Julius Africanus (c. A. D. 220) 
or another, is a question which will be fully discussed in its proper 
place (n. p. 450 sq.). On the other hand S. Chrysostom seems to speak 
as though Ignatius were the immediate successor of S. Peter, though his 
language is not quite explicit 8 ; and Theodoret appears to have thought 
the same, for he describes him as having received the grace of the high- 
priesthood at the hand of the great Peter 3 . In the Apostolical Constitu 
tions (vii. 46) the matter is differently represented; In Antioch, says 
the prince of the Apostles, Euodius (was ordained bishop) by me Peter, 
and Ignatius by Paul. No weight attaches to a statement given on 
such authority. It is obviously a constructive inference built upon three 
data: (i) That Euodius was the first and Ignatius the second of the 
Antiochene bishops; (2) That two Apostles were connected in history or 
tradition with the foundation of the Antiochene Church, of whom Peter 
was the elder and Paul the younger; (3) That Ignatius, though the 
second bishop of Antioch, was nevertheless an apostolic man, this 
term being interpreted narrowly, so as to signify that he was ordained 
bishop by some Apostle. In all the accounts hitherto mentioned Igna 
tius is connected with the chief Apostle of the Circumcision or with the 
Apostle of the Gentiles; but in the more widely spread, though later, 
tradition he appears as a disciple of S. John. The source of this state 
ment seems to have been the Chronicon of Eusebius, not however in 
its original form, but as it appears in Jerome s revision and elsewhere, 
where the name of Ignatius of Antioch is added to those of Papias of 
Hierapolis and Polycarp of Smyrna as scholars of the beloved disciple. 

1 He is styled the second, with or elSov ir\eKo/j.fvoi&gt; euros 5^ &lt;rri TO /JLCT 
without additions, by Origen (1. c. fiera txelvov TOVTOV SiadtfaffOat TTJC apxyv... 
rov (j-aKapiov ll^rpov), Eusebius (Chron. ourw 17 (cat Rtrpov /j.t\\oi&gt;Tos ivrevBev 
II. p. 213, ed. Schone; H. E, iii. 22, 36 a.wo5rnj.t1v, Zrepov avrippoirov Iltrpov 5i- 
r^s /car" Avrtoxeta^ Htrpov diaSoxys ; 5cuTKa\ov 17 rod Trvevfj.a.TOS dvrficryyaye 
Quczst. ad Steph. i utrd roiis aTrooroXous), X&lt;V ts K.T.\. Thus Euodius is altogether 
and others ; the third, with a mention of ignored. 

S. Peter, by Jerome (Vir. III. 16 post 3 Epist. 151 (Op. IV. p. 1312, ed. 

Petrum apostolum ) and Socrates (H. E. Schulze) lyvdrios fKeivoso iro\v&pv\\r]Tos, 

vi. 8 d7r6 rov airoffroXov Yltrpov). 6 5td rrfs TOV /jieyaXov Iltrpov deicis rrfv 

2 Op. II. p. 597 eireiSij 8 

KO.I TT^/J.TTTOf f| (LIITOV 



30 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

The origin and spread of this form of the tradition is discussed below 
(n. p. 473 sq.). All these different attempts to name his teacher are 
excrescences on the earliest tradition, which is content to speak of him 
as an apostolic man. 

Still less can be learnt from the dates assigned by tradition to his 
episcopate. These are discussed in their proper place (n. p. 446 sq.). 
It is sufficient to say here, that his accession is represented as taking 
place about A.D. 69, while the commonest date assigned to his martyr 
dom is about A. D. 107. But neither the one nor the other has any claim 
to respect, as authentic history. Of his accession we know nothing at 
all. His martyrdom may with a high degree of probability be placed 
within a few years of A.D. 1 1 o, before or after. 

The traditions therefore relating to his date and apostolic teaching 
may be safely dismissed from the consideration of the question before 
us. They are neither authoritative enough, nor consistent enough, to 
have any value for our purpose. Having thus cleared the way, we have 
only to ask whether there is any chronological inconsistency in the 
supposition that Ignatius was a disciple of some Apostle, though not 
converted till he had reached mature age. And the answer must be in 
the negative. If we place his martyrdom about A. D. no, and suppose 
(as there is fair reason for supposing) that he was an old or elderly man 
at the time, he may have been born about A. D. 40. If his apostolic 
master were S. Peter or S. Paul, his companionship with either may have 
fallen as late as A.D. 65, so that he would have been twenty-five years of 
age at the time. If his teacher were S. John (and there is no improba 
bility in this supposition, though the tradition, as a tradition, is value 
less), the epoch of his conversion might be advanced to A.D. 90 or later, 
which would make him some fifty years of age. Nor is his apostolic 
discipleship contradicted by his own statement in Ephes. n, as Zahn 
seems disposed to think. Even though o-vvf/aav were the correct read 
ing in this passage, he would not, when he commends the Ephesians as 
c always associating with the Apostles, tacitly contrast himself as never 
associating with them. If any tacit contrast were implied, which is 
more than doubtful, it would rather be with his own brief or infrequent 
companionship with them. But the reading o-vvyvea-av consented unto 
seems slightly more probable than a-wrjcrav associated with. 

Of his administration, as a bishop, only one tradition has been 
preserved ; and this refers to a matter of ritual. The historian Socrates 
(H. E. vi. 8) relates that Ignatius saw a vision of angels, praising the 
Holy Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and left the fashion of his vision as 
a custom to the Church in Antioch (rov rpoirov TOV 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 31 

Trape ScoKev), whence this custom spread likewise 
throughout all the churches . This story is repeated also by later 
writers, more especially Syrian ; e. g. by Solomon of Bassora (Cureton 
C.I. pp. 221, 251), by Gregory Barhebrseus (Patr. Ant. 3, i. p. 42, 
ed. Abbeloos et Lamy), by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. xiii. 8), and by 
Amr of Tirhani (Assem. Bibl. Orient, n. p. 397). A tradition which 
appears so late does not deserve consideration, as containing any 
element of historical fact ; but it is a matter of some little interest to 
speculate on its origin. It seems then to be founded partly on the 
boast of Ignatius (Trail. 5) that he could comprehend heavenly things, 
yea the arrays of the angels and the musterings of the principalities, 
and partly on his directions (not however intended in this literal sense) 
to one and another church (Ephes. 4, Rom. 2), that they should form 
themselves into a chorus and chant to the Father through Jesus 
Christ. Antiphonal singing indeed did not need to be suggested by a 
heavenly vision. It existed already among the heathen in the arrange 
ments of the Greek chorus. It was practised with much elaboration 
of detail in the psalmody of the Jews, as appears from the account 
which Philo gives of the Egyptian Therapeutes 1 . Its introduction into 
the Christian Church therefore was a matter of course almost from the 
beginning 2 ; and, when we read in Pliny (Epist. x. 97) that the Chris 
tians of Bithynia sang hymns to Christ as to a god alternately (secum 
invicem), we may reasonably infer that the practice of antiphonal sing 
ing prevailed far beyond the limits of the Church of Antioch even in 
the time of Ignatius himself 3 . 

The pitchy darkness, which envelopes the life and work of Ignatius, 
is illumined at length by a vivid but transient flash of light. If his 
martyrdom had not rescued him from obscurity, he would have 
remained, like his predecessor Euodius, a mere name, and nothing 
more. As it is, he stands out in the momentary light of this event, a 
distinct and living personality, a true father of the Church, a teacher and 
an example to all time. 

It has been shown elsewhere (n. p. 376 sq.) that the Martyrologies 
of Ignatius cannot be accepted as authentic history. With these the 



1 Philo de Vit. Cont. n (II. p. 485) XP e &lt;? Ka * L cb Ttarpo^ovj iroiov^evoi K.T.\. 
eT.ro. $5owi Treiroi.i)p.tvovs et s TOV Qebi&gt; 2 See Harnack ChristL Gemeindegot- 

vfj-vovs TroXXots fitrpois Kal fj.t\e&lt;TL, ry ptv tesdienst p. 221 sq. 

awr]xovi&gt;Tes, rrj 8 di/Ti^wj ots apuo- 3 Theodoret, H. E.\\. 24 (19), ascribes 

vial s tiri-xti.povoiJ.o\ivTes Kal eTropxovfj.fvoi, this mode of singing to Flavianus and 

Kal ^wiOfid^ovres rare fj.kv TO. TrpoadSia, Diodorus in the reign of Constantius. 

rare 5 TO. &lt;rrcUri/u.a., ffrpo(f&gt;a.s re raj ev But see the note of Valois on Socr. 1. c. 



32 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

interview with Trajan, which forms the main feature in the popular 
tradition, falls to the ground. We have therefore no trustworthy infor 
mation respecting the circumstances of his trial and condemnation 
beyond the notices in his own letters. 

From these notices it appears that the peace of the Antiochene 
Church was disturbed at this time ; but there is no reason to believe 
that a fierce persecution raged here as in the Churches of Pontus and 
Bithynia. No mention is made of any individual sufferer besides him 
self, though such there may have been. What was the occasion of the 
disturbance in the Church of Antioch whether popular excitement or 
magisterial caprice we know not. What definite charge was brought 
against him, it is vain to speculate. One thing only seems certain. He 
did not go to Rome, like S. Paul, on an appeal to the Imperial Court. 
He speaks of himself more than once as condemned to death already 
(Ephes. 12, Trail. 3, Rom. 4). He has no wish or intention to appeal. 
On the contrary his one fear is that persons of influence may obtain the 
emperor s ear and thus procure a pardon or at least a mitigation of his 
sentence (Rom. i, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8). This alarm is quite decisive. An 
appeal must have been his own act ; but his every word contradicts the 
suggestion that he could have been a party to any steps which would 
rob him of his crown. 

He goes to Rome therefore for the execution of his sentence. He 
has been condemned to the wild beasts by the provincial magistrate ; 
and in the Flavian amphitheatre he must meet his bloodthirsty execu 
tioners. The sports of the arena in Trajan s reign were on a gigantic 
scale gigantic even for the prodigality of imperial Rome. The whole 
sale butchery of wild beasts demanded a corresponding sacrifice of 
human life. The provinces therefore were put under requisition to 
supply convicts, who might be 

Butcher d to make a Roman holiday. 

We can well imagine moreover that in the case of Ignatius there were 
special reasons why it was thought desirable by his enemies that he 
should be sent to Rome and not executed in his own city Antioch. He 
himself is a more than willing victim. His bones shall be ground to 
powder by the teeth of the wild beasts, that they may be as fine wheat- 
flour, fit for the sacrificial offering. If the wild beasts are timid and 
reluctant, he himself will rush upon them, will irritate them, will 
compel them to devour and entomb him (Rom. 5). The altar is ready, 
and he longs for the time when the libation of his blood shall be poured 
upon it (Rom. 2). With an almost fierce enthusiasm he forecasts the 



IGNATIUS, THE MARTYR. 33 

supreme moment, when the mangling of his limbs and the crunching of 
his bones shall at length confer upon him the coveted honour of disci- 
pleship (Rom. 4, 5). 

It is clear from his mode of punishment that he was not a Roman 
citizen. As a Roman citizen, he would have been spared the worst 
horrors of the amphitheatre, and would, like S. Paul according to the 
ancient tradition, or like those martyrs of Vienne and Lyons of whom 
we read, have been beheaded by the sword 1 . If elsewhere he mentions, 
as possibilities which he was prepared to meet, the fire, the sword, the 
wild beasts (Smyrn. 4 ; comp. Rom. 5), if he adds, nigh to the sword 
nigh to God, encircled by wild beasts, encircled by God, the fire is 
only mentioned as an alternative which might have been his fate, as it 
was Polycarp s afterwards, and the sword which he contemplates is not 
the guillotine of the executioner, but the knife of the confector, who 
would be ready at hand to give him the coup de grace in case the wild 
beasts did their work imperfectly . 

Thus condemned to the wild beasts, he sets out on his journey 
Romeward in the custody of a maniple or company of ten soldiers 
(Rom. 5). Of the earlier part of his route we have no notice direct or 
indirect. It is not improbable that he would take ship at Seleucia, the 
port town of Antioch, and sail thence to some harbour on the Cilician 
or Pamphylian coast (see n. p. 211). From this point onward he must 
have travelled across the continent of Asia Minor, if indeed his whole 
journey from Antioch to Smyrna was not performed by land. His 
route would be determined mainly by the duties of his guards ; for the 
custody of this one prisoner can only have formed a small part of the 
functions assigned to them on this long journey. Not improbably they 
were charged with gathering up other prisoners on their route through 
Asia Minor ; for the silence of Ignatius about any such fellow-captives 
is not a proof, or even a presumption, that there were none. It will be 
seen presently that, at all events after they reached Europe, he was 
joined by others who, like himself, were travelling Romeward to seek 
the crown of martyrdom. 

The earliest point at which we are able to determine his route 
with any degree of probability is in the heart of Asia Minor. Near 
to the junction of the Lycus and the Mseander, the road which 

1 For S.Paul see Tertull.Aw/. 15 Tune and Lyons, the original document pre- 

Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur na- served in Euseb. H. E. v. i 43 6Vot 

tivitatem, cum illic martyrii renascitur fttv tdoicovv TroXiTeiav Pw/j-aluv 

generositate ; for the martyrs of Vienne TOVTUV d^re/upe ras Keca\as K .r.\. 

IG. I. 



34 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

traverses Asia Minor from East to West bifurcates 1 . The northern 
branch crosses the Dervend pass into the valleys of the Cogamus and 
Hermus, and passing through Philadelphia and Sardis conducts the 
traveller to Smyrna. The southern road keeps along the valley of the 
Meander, passing through Tralles and Magnesia; from which latter 
city it crosses the depression in the mountain-range of Messogis north 
ward and reaches Ephesus (see n. pp. 2, 241). At this bifurcation 
Ignatius must have taken the northern road ; for we hear of him at 
Philadelphia. Of his sojourn there occasional notices are preserved in 
his subsequent letter to the Church of Philadelphia (n. p. 241). His 
reception there had not been in all respects satisfactory. From Phila 
delphia he would go to Sardis, where doubtless he halted, though this 
city is not named in his extant letters. From Sardis he would travel to 
Smyrna. At Smyrna he was hospitably received by Polycarp and the 
Church. 

It would appear that, while Ignatius himself took the northern road 
at the bifurcation, tidings travelled along the southern road to the 
churches situated thereon, Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus, informing 
them that the saint would make a halt at Smyrna, so that any delegates 
whom they might send would have an opportunity of conferring with 
him there. Accordingly on or soon after his arrival at Smyrna, he 
was joined by representatives from all these churches. Ephesus, the 
nearest of the three, sent the bishop Onesimus (Ephes. i, 5, 6), a deacon 
Burrhus, and three other delegates, Crocus, Euplus, and Fronto, of whose 
rank or office the saint says nothing (Ephes. 2). Through this large 
representation he seemed to see the whole church with the eyes of love. 
These Ephesian delegates were a great comfort and refreshment to him 
(Ephes. 21, Magn. 15, Trail. 13, Rom. 10). Of Onesimus he speaks in 
terms of the highest admiration and love. Burrhus was so useful to him, 
that he prayed the Ephesians to allow him to remain in his company 
(Ephes. 2). This prayer was granted ; and Burrhus afterwards accom 
panied him as far as Troas, where he acted as his amanuensis (Philad. 
n, Smyrn. 12). Of Crocus also he speaks in affectionate terms (Rom. 
10). Of the remaining two, Euplus and Fronto, the names only are 
recorded. At the same time Magnesia, lying only a few hours farther 
off than Ephesus, sent an equally adequate representation, her bishop 
Damas, her presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and her deacon Zotion 
(Magn. 2). Of all these Ignatius speaks in language of high commen- 

1 Herod, vii. 31 u 51 IK TTJS ^piry/jjj (pfpovffrjs, rrjs 81 & Se^v ^j Sd/&gt;Sts K.T.\. 
tff{j3a\e Is Tyv A.v8lrjv, ffx&lt;-fr/j.tvi)s T^J Xerxes, like Ignatius, took the road 
68ov, ical TIJJ (iv is apiffTepfjv tnl Kaplrjs through Sardis. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 35 

dation. Tralles, being more distant, was not so largely represented; 
but her bishop Polybius came, and he was in himself a host (Trail, i). 

Of the members of the Smyrnsean Church, with whom he came in 
contact during his sojourn there, the martyr mentions several by name. 
First and foremost is the bishop Polycarp a prominent figure alike in 
the history of the early Church and in the career of Ignatius. What 
strength and comfort he drew from this companionship may be gathered 
from his own notices (Ephes. 21, Magn. 15, Smyrn. 12, Polyc. i, 7, 8). 
Next in order of prominence comes Alee, beloved name to me 
(Smyrn. 13, Polyc. 8) Alee herself a devout servant of Christ, but 
sister of Nicetes and aunt of Herodes, who are destined half a century 
later to take an active part in the martyrdom of the bishop Polycarp 
himself (Mart. Polyc. 8, 17). He mentions by name likewise Eutecnus, 
Attalus his beloved, and Daphnus the incomparable, besides the 
wife (or widow) of Epitropus with her whole household and those of her 
children, and (if this be not the same person) the household of Gavia 
also (see Smyrn. 13, Polyc. 8, with the notes). 

While sojourning at Smyrna, he wrote four letters which are extant. 
Three of these are addressed to the three churches whose dele 
gates he had met at Smyrna the Ephesians, the Magnesians, and 
the Trallians. The fourth is written to the community among whom 
he hopes to find his final resting place to the Church of the Romans. 
Beyond occasional references to personal matters the first three are 
occupied almost wholly in enforcing lessons of doctrinal truth and eccle 
siastical order. The last stands apart from these, and indeed from all 
the other letters of Ignatius. It deals neither with doctrine nor with 
order, but is occupied almost entirely with the thought of his approach 
ing martyrdom. He was no longer writing to the Churches of Asia 
Minor, with whose dissensions or whose heresies he had been brought 
into more or less direct personal contact. The one topic which he had 
in common with the Romans was the closing scene of his life s drama, 
which was soon to be enacted in their great amphitheatre. The letter 
to the Romans is the only one which bears a date. It was written on 
the 24th of August. It appears from the closing sentences that he was 
preceded on his journey to Rome by certain friends, to whom he sends 
a message ; so that the Romans would be fully apprised of his circum 
stances. 

Meanwhile he was treated with rigour by his guards, whom he com 
pares to ten leopards (Rom. 5). His conflict with these human 
monsters was an anticipation of his approaching struggle in the amphi 
theatre. From the moment when he left the Syrian shore by land and 

32 



36 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

by sea night and day he had been fighting with wild beasts . The 
gratuities, by which he or his friends sought to appease them, served 
only to whet the edge of their cruelty, doubtless as suggesting pleas for 
fresh exactions. 

From Smyrna he was led to Alexandria Troas, whence, like the 
great Apostle in whose footsteps he was treading (Acts xvi. 8, 9), he 
would first look upon the shores of Europe. Hither he was accom 
panied by Burrhus, as the representative not only of the Ephesians, his 
fellow-citizens, but also of the Smyrnseans, his recent hosts. Here too 
he was gladdened by two fresh arrivals from his own country and neigh 
bourhood. Philo a deacon of Cilicia, and Rhaius Agathopus a deacon 
(so it would seem) of his own Syrian Church, had followed in his track. 
They had been hospitably welcomed both at Philadelphia and at 
Smyrna; though some persons in the former place had treated them 
contemptuously, as might have been expected from their attitude 
towards the saint himself. They were now at Troas ministering to him 
in the word of God (Philad. n, Smyrn. 10, 13). From them doubt 
less he had received the welcome intelligence that his dear Church of 
Antioch was once more in enjoyment of peace. 

From Troas the saint wrote three letters. These three letters differ 
from all the preceding in this respect, that they were written to those 
whom he had visited personally on his route. The first and second 
were addressed to the Churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna respectively, 
the third to Polycarp the bishop of the last-mentioned Church. The 
general topics in these are the same as in the previous letters (the 
Epistle to the Romans alone excepted). But the altered circumstances 
of the Church of Antioch give occasion to a special charge. He desires 
that the churches with whom he communicates should send delegates 
or (where delegates are not possible) at all events letters to Syria to 
congratulate and exhort the Antiochene brotherhood (Philad. 10, 
Smyrn. n). More especially Polycarp is enjoined to select an excep 
tionally trustworthy representative, to act in this capacity of God s 
courier (Polyc. 7). The letter to Polycarp was written on the eve of 
his departure from Troas to Neapolis. The sailing orders had been 
sudden, and he had not had time to write, as he had intended, to all the 
churches to this same effect. He begs Polycarp to supply the omis 
sion (Polyc. 8). 

At Neapolis he, like S. Paul, first set foot on the shores of Europe. 
From Neapolis he went to Philippi. The Philippians welcomed and 
escorted on their way Ignatius and others who like himself were 
entwined with saintly fetters, the diadems of the truly elect (Polyc. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 37 

Phil. i). Of these others two are especially mentioned by name, Zosi- 
mus and Rufus (ib. 9). Whether the persons thus named had any direct 
connexion with Ignatius, or whether they were Bithynian Christians who 
had joined his escort at Philippi, having been sent to Rome by Pliny 
the proprastor, and were conducted from that point onward under 
custody of the same ten leopards , or what may have been their 
history, we can only speculate. 

.Ignatius charged the Philippians, as he had charged other churches, 
to send a letter to the brethren of Antioch (Polyc. Phil. 13). They had 
accordingly written to Polycarp, requesting that their letter might be 
conveyed to Antioch by the same messenger who should be entrusted 
with the letter from Smyrna. It is from Polycarp s extant reply to the 
Philippians that we learn the few scanty facts respecting the martyr s 
sojourn at Philippi which are here given. The Philippians had also 
accompanied this request with another. They desired Polycarp to send 
them copies of the letters that Ignatius had addressed to himself or to 
his church (see the note On 13 ras e7rtcrToXcts...Ta? 7re/x&lt;0et cra5 ?7//.tv) 
together with any other letters of the martyr which he might have by 
him. With this request he complied. It is not improbably to this cir 
cumstance that we owe the preservation of the seven letters of Ignatius. 

Here the curtain drops on the career of the martyr. When Polycarp 
writes in reply to the Philippians, he knows nothing about the subse 
quent moments of Ignatius and his companions, though he suspects that 
the Philippians, as lying some stages nearer to Rome, may have later 
news (Phil. 9). If Polycarp obtained the information which he sought, 
it has not been preserved to us. On everything which happened after 
this point history is silent, though legend, as usual, is busy and loqua 
cious. He would naturally follow the great Egnatian road from Phil 
ippi to Dyrrhachium. Whether, when he arrived at the shores of the 
Hadriatic, he crossed over direct to Beneventum and travelled to Rome 
by the Appian way, or took the longer sea voyage through the straits of 
Messina, whether in the latter case he landed in the bay of Naples, like 
S. Paul, or at the mouth of the Tiber, as represented in one of his Mar- 
tyrologies (Mart. Ign. Ant. 6), it is idle to enquire. Rome was at length 
reached. In the huge pile, erected for the colossal display of these inhu 
man sports by the good emperors of the Flavian dynasty, Ignatius the 
captain of martyrs fell a victim under the good emperor Trajan. 
Tragic facts these, on which it is wholesome to reflect. 

So fought and so conquered this brave general officer in the noble 
army of martyrs. After S. Stephen, the leader of the band, no martyr- 



38 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

dom has had so potent an influence on the Church as his. The two 
chief Apostles, S. Peter and S. Paul, (there is good reason to believe) 
died a martyr s death; but of the circumstances we know nothing 
beyond an uncertain tradition. Their martyrdom was only a small and 
comparatively insignificant incident in their career. It was by their 
lives, rather than by their deaths, that they edified the Church of God. 
But Ignatius was before all things the Martyr. Everything conspired to 
concentrate men s thoughts on his martyrdom the sudden flash of 
light following upon the comparative obscurity of his previous life the 
long journey across two continents from the far East to the far West 
the visits to many churches and the visits from many others the col 
lection of letters in which his own burning words are enshrined the 
final scene of all in the largest, most central, and most famous arena of 
the world. Hence his Epistle to the Romans his paean prophetic of 
the coming victory became a sort of martyr s manual. In all the 
earliest authentic records of martyrdom in the letter of the Church of 
Smyrna on the death of Polycarp, in the contemporary account of the 
persecutions at Vienne and Lyons, and in the Acts of Perpetua and 
Felicitas at Carthage alike its influence is seen. The earliest direct 
quotation from Ignatius (Iren. v. 38. 4) is the passage in which he 
describes himself as the wheat-flour ground fine for the sacrificial offering 
(Rom. 4). The diction and imagery of martyrology follow henceforth in 
the tracks of Ignatius. It is quite possible indeed that he himself in 
many points merely adopted language already familiar when he wrote. 
All we can say is, that among extant writings many thoughts and expres 
sions, current in later martyrologies, occur here for the first time. 

It is a cheap wisdom which at the study table or over the pulpit desk 
declaims against the extravagance of the feelings and language of Igna 
tius, as the vision of martyrdom rose up before him. After all it is only 
by an enthusiasm which men call extravagance that the greatest moral 
and spiritual triumphs have been won. This was the victory which over 
came the world the faith of Ignatius and of men like-minded with him. 
The sentiment in Ignatius is thoroughly earnest, thoroughly genuine. It 
does not, as in lower natures, minister to spiritual pride. No humility 
could be more real than his. He felt only as a brave man must feel who 
is leading a forlorn hope. He believed that for himself death was life 
and life was death. He was 

Assured the trial fiery fierce but fleet 

Would from his little heap of ashes lend 

Wings to the conflagration of the world, 

Which Christ awaits ere He makes all things new. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 39 

So should the frail become the perfect, rapt 
From glory of pain to glory of joy 1 . 

He felt that if his friends, kindly cruel, should interpose between him 
and martyrdom, a golden opportunity would be lost and a grievous 
wound inflicted on the Church of Christ. Who shall say that he was 
wrong? Would it not have been an irreparable loss, if their intercessions 
had prevailed ? 

But the example of heroic courage was not the only legacy which 
Ignatius bequeathed to the Church. His glory as a martyr commended 
his lessons as a doctor. His teaching on matters of theological truth 
and ecclesiastical order was barbed and fledged by the fame of his 
constancy in that supreme trial of his faith. 

The direct interest of his theological teaching has indeed passed 
away with the heresy against which it was directed. The docetism 
which Ignatius controverted is altogether a thing of the past. Later 
generations marvel that such a form of error could have caused even 
momentary anxiety to the Church of Christ. It seems so very unsub 
stantial; it is so directly antagonistic to the bias of later aberrations from 
the faith. To deny the truth of Christ s humanity, to question the 
reality of His birth and life and death in the flesh, is the shadow of 
smoke, is the dream of a dream, to ourselves. Yet all the notices con 
spire to show that during a considerable part of the second century it 
constituted a very real danger to Christianity. At the same time the 
indirect interest of the theological teaching of this father can never fail ; 
for it exhibits plainly enough, though in rougher outline and without 
his preciseness of definition, the same insistence on the twofold nature of 
Christ the humanity and the divinity which distinguished the teach 
ing of the great Athanasius two centuries and a half later. 

On the other hand in matters of ecclesiastical order the direct inter 
est of the martyr s lessons was never more intense than it is at the 
present day. When at the catastrophic epoch of the Reformation 
several communities of Christendom broke loose from the form of 
government which had prevailed throughout the Church from the close 
of the Apostolic age, the notices in the earliest writers bearing on this 
subject came to be narrowly scanned. Of all fathers of the Church, 
early or late, no one is more incisive or more persistent in advocating 
the claims of the threefold ministry to allegiance than Ignatius. Hence 
from that time forward his letters have been the battle-field of contro 
versy. Yet with himself this subject, prominent as it is, was secondary 

1 Browning The Ring and The Book iv. p. 78. 



40 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

to the other. The ecclesiastical order was enforced by him almost 
solely as a security for the doctrinal purity. The unity of the body was 
a guarantee of the unity of the faith. The threefold ministry was the 
husk, the shell, which protected the precious kernel of the truth. 

The frequent echoes of the Epistle to the Romans in various Acts 
of Martyrdom, as well as the direct quotations from his letters in 
Irenaeus and Origen, show that his memory was kept alive in the Ante- 
nicene periods ; but the prominence given to his martyrdom and writings 
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius doubtless secured to him from 
that time forward a wider fame. 

It seemed likely however for a time that his fame would be 
eclipsed by a younger aspirant to popular honours at Antioch. Babylas 
was a far less considerable personality than Ignatius ; but from nearness 
of time he occupied a larger space in the field of view. Moreover 
recent circumstances had invested his memory with a splendour which 
was lacking to the earlier martyr. 

Babylas had won for himself a name by his heroic courage, as 
bishop of Antioch. It was related of him that on one occasion, when 
the emperor Philip, who was a Christian, had presented himself one 
Easter Eve at the church at the time of prayer, he had boldly re 
fused admission to the sovereign, till he had gone through the proper 
discipline of a penitent for some offence committed 1 . He acted like 
a good shepherd, says Chrysostom (p. 545), who drives away the scabby 
sheep, lest it should infect the flock. This anticipation of a later 
and more famous scene between S. Ambrose and Theodosius at Milan 

1 Eusebius (H. E. vi. 34) relates the (Chron. Pasch. p. 503 sq., ed. Bonn.), 

incident, but does not name either the He stated that Babylas repelled both 

place or the bishop (TOU Tijj/u-dSe irpoea-rut- Philip and his wife from the church, and 

TOS). Philip however would pass through he mentioned the crime of Philip. Philip, 

Antioch on his way to Rome immediately when prefect, had been placed in charge 

after his accession (A. D. 244) ; and ac- of the son of the emperor Gordian ; but on 

cording to the sequence of events in the the death of Gordian, he perfidiously and 

History Babylas would be bishop of that cruelly slew this prince, and himself seized 

see at the time, for his accession is men- the empire. Somewhat later Chrysostom 

tioned earlier (vi. 29), and his death tells a similar story, which he decks out 

later (vi. 39). On the other hand in the with all the luxuriance of his rhetoric ; 

Chronicon (both the Armenian and but he does not mention the name of 

Jerome s recension) the accession of Philip or of Gordian, and he represents 

Babylas is placed after the death of the victim as the son of a foreign king 

Philip (ii ( . pp. 181, 182, Schone). Leon- handed over as a hostage on the con- 

tius, a successor of Babylas in the see of elusion of peace (afe S. Bab. c, Jul. 5 sq. 

Antioch, about A. D. 350, gave the names Op. II. p. 544 sq.). 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



was not the only title of Babylas to respect. He was one of the 

sufferers in the persecution of Decius. It would seem that he died 
in prison from the effects of torture undergone during his examina 
tion 1 . At all events in some form or other he was crowned with the 
glory of martyrdom. 

But he might have remained a mere name, hardly remembered, 
if. remembered at all, in the crowded ranks of the noble army of 
martyrs, had not later events thrown a fresh lustre on his memory. 

During the reign of Constantius, in the year 351, the Caesar 
Gallus, the hapless brother of Julian, an ardent Christian in his way, 
being then resident at Antioch, had devised a more honourable resting- 
place for the reliques of Babylas, than the comparative obscurity of 
his original grave within the city. Daphne, the beautiful suburb of 
Antioch, the seat of the worship of Apollo, was renowned throughout 
the world. Antioch itself, Antioch the Great, though a far more con 
siderable city than any of its namesakes, was commonly styled Antioch 



1 This seems to be the natural inter 
pretation of the earliest notice of his 
death ; Euseb. H. E. vi. 39 rov Baj3v\a 
fiera rrjv 6fjLO\oylav Iv dfa-/j.uTijpiy fj.era\- 
\dai&gt;To$. For the accounts of later 
writers see Tillemont H. E. III. p. 728 
sq. The inference which I have drawn 
from the account of Eusebius is favoured 
by the statement of Chrysostom (p. 554), 
that the chains were lying with the re 
mains of the saint in his time. He him 
self supposes that Babylas ordered the 
chains to be buried with him, assuming 
that he was executed. 

As regards the circumstances which led 
to his martyrdom, we may mark the fol 
lowing stages in the development of the 
story, (i) Eusebius (about A. D. 325) re 
lates his repulse of Philip and his death 
under Decius, without suggesting any 
connexion between the two. (2 ) Leontius 
(about A. D. 350) says distinctly that 
Decius put him to death to avenge the 
insult offered to his predecessor Philip. 
(3) Chrysostom (about A. D. 382) identifies 
the emperor who was repulsed with the 
emperor who put him to death, obviously 
meaning Decius, though the name is not 
mentioned. See also Philostorgius (H. E. 



vii. 8). On the improbability of Chryso- 
stom s account see Tillemont Emp. in. p. 
645 sq. An attempt is made in the Bol- 
landist Act. Sand. Sept. IV. p. 438 sq. to 
defend Chrysostom s narrative; but, though 
some difficulties are raised respecting the 
earlier account of Eusebius and Leontius, 
which represents Philip as the emperor 
who was repulsed, and so far the criticism 
tends to discredit the story altogether, it 
does nothing towards reinstating Chryso 
stom s version of it. Chrysostom is an ex 
cellent authority for the events connected 
with the removal of the reliques from 
Daphne, which occurred only twenty 
years before he wrote ; but for the mar 
tyrdom, which happened 130 years be 
fore, he is worthless. 

Another account, mentioned apparently 
with favour by Philostorgius (1. c.) and 
appearing commonly at a later date, makes 
Numerianus (A. D. 284) the emperor under 
whom Babylas suffered. On the question 
whether there is here a confusion between 
two martyrs called Babylas, or between 
Numerianus the emperor and Numerius 
the persecuting general under Decius, see 
Tillemont //. E. ill. p. 729 sq. 



42 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

near Daphne, as if it were an appendage of the far-famed shrine and 
grove. No place was more highly favoured by nature than Daphne ; 
none was more shamefully defiled by man. It was one of those so- 
called sanctuaries, where the grossest profligacy was consecrated in 
the name of religion. Its shameful immoralities are painted in the 
darkest colours by the contemporary historian Sozomen. Its fatal 
allurements are better known to the modern reader through a vivid 
description in the pages of the Decline and Fall, borrowed largely from 
the account of this ancient writer. The bounties of nature, the um 
brageous foliage above, the flowery carpet beneath, the grottos and 
streams, conspired with the works of man, the porticos and colonnades 
and baths, to invest vice with a peculiar attraction 1 . It was thought 
disgraceful, says the Christian historian, for any decent man to set 
foot in this suburb*. To these precincts Gallus translated the body of 
Babylas. By so doing, says Chrysostom, he brought a physician to 
the sick (p. 556). The presence of the martyr would purify the 
place and invest it with higher associations, while his intrusion into 
this chief sanctuary of the heathen religion would be a fatal blow 
dealt at idolatry. So the bones of Babylas were laid hard by the 
shrine of Apollo. A few years later (A. D. 362) the emperor Julian 3 , 
then preparing for his fatal Persian expedition, paid a visit to Antioch. 
He was assiduous in his attentions to Apollo of Daphne. He con 
sulted the oracle there, but no answer was vouchsafed. When pressed 
for a response, the god replied that the contiguity of dead men s 
bones was an offence to him and sealed his lips. No name was 
mentioned. The demon was ashamed, so said S. , Chrysostom, to 
utter the name of the holy martyr, and thus confess his defeat (pp. 
560 sq., 566). But Julian could hardly misunderstand the bearing 
of this dark hint. It was well conceived as an appeal to one whose 
constant reproach against the Christians was their reverence for dead 



1 For a description of Daphne at this 
time see especially Sozom. H. E. v. 19, 
Chrysost. de S. Bab. c. Jul. 11 sq. 
(P- 555 sq-), Liban. Or. I. p. 303 sq., p. 
351 sq., III. p. 332 sq. (ed. Reiske). 

2 Sozom. I.e. tiripaivfi.? rols eirieiKeffiif 
alffxpov tvo[j.ieTQ ; comp. Chrysost. p. 
555 sq. 

3 The following are the authorities for 
the incidents connected with the removal 
of the reliques and the conflagration of 



the temple and image : Julian Misop. 361 
(p. 466, Hertlein); Liban. Or. ill. p. 332 
sq. ; Chrysost. de Hierotn. Bab., Op. n. p. 
531 sq., de S. Bab. c. Jul. 12 sq., Op. II. 
P- 555 s q- 5 Ruffin. H. E. x. 35 sq. ; 
Sozom. H. E. v. 19 sq. ; Socr. H. E. iii. 
1 8 sq. ; Theodt. H. E. iii. 6 sq., Grac. 
A/. Cur. x (Op. IV. p. 964, Schulze); 
Philostorg. H. E. vii. 8 sq. ; Evagr. H. E. 
i. 16 ; Theophanes Chronogr. p. 76 sq., 
ed. Bonn. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



43 



bones 1 . So the younger brother undid the work of the elder. Julian 
commanded the Christians to remove from Apollo s sanctuary the 
loathsome coffin which Gallus had deposited there 2 . They did so: 
but they managed to render their compliance more offensive to the 
emperor than their refusal could have been. Men, women, and chil 
dren, in crowds joined the festive procession which accompanied the 
holy reliques to their restingplace within the city. Along the whole 
route the Daphnaean sanctuary was four or five miles distant from the 
city 3 they sung the psalm of defiance, Confounded be all they that 
worship graven images. The emperor was furious at these demon 
strations. Christians were apprehended and put to the torture 4 ; but 
nothing was gained by this severity. He was advised that coercion only 
aggravated the evil which he sought to remove. But a still heavier 
blow awaited the god of the Daphnaean grove. Shortly after the re 
moval of the martyr s bones, a fire broke out in the shrine 5 . The 



1 Julian in Cyr. c. Julian, p. 335 
(Spanheim) and elsewhere. 

2 Ammianus (xxii. 12) says nothing 
about Babylas, but represents it as a 
general purgation by the removal of all 
the bodies buried in the neighbourhood, 
statim circumhumata corpora statuit ex- 
inde transferri eo ritu quo Athenienses in- 
sulam purgaverant Delon. Christian 
writers however, one and all, state that 
the emperor directed the removal of the 
remains of Babylas, and betray no know 
ledge of a general order ; Chrysostom (p. 
562) says distinctly that this one body 
alone was removed (5id TO wSeva TUV 
d\\uv venpuv, a XXd. povov rbv ndprvpa 
/jLeTaKivridr/vai fKfWev ; comp. also p. 534) ; 
and so too Theodoret (//. E. iii. 6) : and 
their account is borne out by the language 
of Julian himself (Misop. 361 k-ad 5 
dirfirefi^dfjieda rov veKpov TTJS Aa^c^s... 
rots virtp TUIV \e&lt;.\f/dvwv riyai&gt;aKT-r]K6&lt;n TOV 
vexpov) and of Libanius (Or. in. p. 333 
vexpov TIVOS fvox^ovvTos), so that there 
can be no doubt as to the motive or 
the effect of the emperor s orders, 
whether they are couched in general 
terms or not. 

3 Ruffinus says six, but this ap 
pears to be an exaggeration. 



* One of the chief sufferers, Theo 
doras, was afterwards known to Ruffinus 
(x. 36), who questioned him about the 
incident ; see also Socrates (H. E. iii. 19, 
who mentions this interview with Ruffinus. 
It is alluded to also by Sozom. v. 20, 
Theodt. H. E. iii. 7, but they speak of 
certain persons and do not mention 
Ruffinus by name. Gibbon seems to 
confuse this young man Theodoras the 
confessor with Theodoretus the presbyter 
and martyr, who was put to death about 
this time at Antioch by the Count Julianus 
the uncle of the emperor (Sozom. v. 8, 
Ruinart s Act. Mart. Sine. p. 605 sq.), 
for he speaks in his text of a presbyter 
of the name of Theodoret and in his 
notes of the passion of St Theodore in 
the Ada Sincera of Ruinart. On the 
confusion of the names Theodoras, 
Theodoretus, see Tillemont H. E. vn. 

P- 735- 

5 Gibbon says, During the night 
which terminated this indiscreet pro 
cession, the temple of Daphne was in 
flames, and later writers have blindly 
followed him. He does not give any 
authority, but obviously he is copying 
Tillemont H. E. in. p. 407 en mesme 
temps que Ton portoit dans la ville la 



44 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



statue of the god, represented as Musagetes, was reduced to cinders. 
The roof of the shrine also was burnt ; but the columns and walls 
were left standing as a testimony, so insists Chrysostom (pp. 534 sq., 
564 sq., 572 sq., 577). One report represented the fire as accidental; 
the philosopher Asclepiades had been burning tapers at the foot of the 
statue, and the sparks had ignited the dry wood 1 . Julian not un 
naturally persuaded himself that the Christians had set it on fire 2 . 
The Christians gave a different explanation. They averred that the 
flames were declared by the priests in attendance to have broken out in 
the head of the statue, not in the feet ; that the emperor put the priests 
to the torture ; and that nevertheless they persisted in their first state 
ment. Plainly therefore it was struck by fire from heaven 3 . Thus the 
holy martyr Babylas had a double victory. His presence had silenced 
the voice of the evil demon ; his expulsion had been avenged by 
the overthrow of the same 4 . 



chasse du saint martyr, c est a dire la 
nuit suivante. The only passage which 
Tillemont quotes is Ammianus (xxii. 13) 
eodem tempore die xi Kal. Novembr., 
which does not bear him out. On the 
contrary the historians generally (e. g. 
Sozom. v. 20, Theodt. iii. 7) place the 
persecutions which followed on the pro 
cession, and which must have occupied 
some time, before the burning of the 
temple. 

1 Ammianus (xxii. 13) mentions this, 
and characterizes it as rumor levissimus. 
Gibbon falls into the error of applying 
this expression to Julian s charge against 
the Christians, and compliments Am 
mianus on his extraordinary candour. 
The compliment was well deserved, but 
not on this ground. 

2 Ammian. 1. c. In Misopogon p. 
361 he himself speaks vaguely and not 
very intelligibly, ol 5 ei re XafloWes etre 
fj.7) TO Trvp ISei^av eKelvo. 

3 All those Christian writers who 
mention the conflagration account for it 
in this way. They regard it as an an 
swer to the prayers of the martyr, who 
thus confounded the demon ; Chrysost. 
p. 565, etc.; Theodoretll.ee.; Philostorg. 
1. c. Sozomen (H. .E.v. 20) says e SoKei de 



TOIS X/H&lt;rTtafo?j Kara. atrriVLV rov /Mtprvpos 
dfrjXarov efJLTTea f iv rq&gt; Sal/j.ovi Trvp, ol dt 
EXXrjves f\oyoTrolow ~KpiaT(.a.vuiv elvai TO 
dpd/jia K.T.\. Theodoret (H.E. iii. 7) goes 
so far as to state that some rustics in the 
neighbourhood saw the thunderbolt fall. 

It seems probable that the Christian 
account was correct. Chrysostom, Sozo 
men, and Theodoret, all declare that the 
attendants of the temple were examined 
and even maltreated to induce them to 
inform against some one, but in vain. 
The evidence showed that the statue had 
been ignited from above. There seems 
no reason for questioning the fact of this 
examination. Chrysostom (p. 560) ap 
peals to his audience, of whom a large 
number were old enough to recollect the 
facts, and asks them to contradict him if 
he makes any misstatement. If this ac 
count of the ignition be not accepted, the 
alternative would seem to be that the fire 
was owing to some carelessness of the 
priests in attendance, which they did not 
care to confess. Libanius (Or. in. p. 334) 
believes it was the work of an incendiary, 
but does not name the Christians. 

4 The successive resting-places of Ba 
bylas were as follows; (i) He lay in a 
martyrium within the city, Chrysost. p. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



45 



But, though obscured for a time by the greater fame of the younger 
martyr, the memory of Ignatius burnt brightly still. In the later 



554 sc l-&gt; S^o, etc.; (2) He was translated 
by the Caesar Callus to the precincts of 
the Daphnasan Apollo, and placed in a 
martyrium there ; (3) He was removed 
by order of Julian and replaced by the 
Christians in his former martyrium within 
the city (Chrysost. p. 564 ri2v Ispuv eiftrw 
irepij36\uv ev oh /cot Trpbrepov ervyx,a.vtv 
&lt;av irplv et s TTJV Adfivrjv eXGelv, p. 565 ets 
TTJV TroXiv dtpticero ; comp. ib. rb /j-aprvpiov 
endrfpov, ro re ev ry &&&lt;pvrj r6 re ev rr, 
TrdXet) ; (4) A magnificent church was 
built soon after, outside the walls of the 
city on the other side of the Orontes, and 
dedicated to the martyr, and in it his 
bones were finally placed ; Chrysost. de 
Hierom. Bab. p. 535 17 5 roO 6eoC %apts 
OVK efacrev eKi SirjveKus fj-tivai, d\\a 
irdXiv avrov rod irora^ov irepav pereffrr)- 
aev K.T.\. The bishop (his name is not 
mentioned by Chrysostom, but Meletius 
is meant) took an active part in the 
erection of this church ; he even laboured 
with his own hands, pulling ropes and 
carrying stones in the heat of summer ; 
and dying soon after (t 38 r) he was buried 
by the side of the martyr, for whose 
honour he had been so zealous (comp. 
also Sozom. H. E. vii. 10). This church 
is mentioned by Evagrius nearly two 
centuries later (ff. E. i. 16 veus O.VT$ irpo 
njs wdXews Tra/j./j.eyedT]S dvivraro 6 Kal 
Hexpi "nfi-uv &lt;rub/j.ei&gt;os). 

I have thought it worth while to collect 
these facts, because erroneous statements 
are made on this subject in quarters where 
greater accuracy might have been ex 
pected. Thus Miiller de Antiq. Antioch. 
p. 105 says of Baby las, In ea aede coli 
coeptus esse videtur, quae extra portas 
trans Orontem sita erat. In hac cum 
ossaejus primum composita essent, postea 
a Gallo principe in Daphnaeum delubrum 
translata sunt, ubi cum Apollo mortui 
hominis vicinia os sibi occludi questus 
est...Julianus ea ossa in illud templum 



extra urbem reportari jussit etc. But it 
is clear from Chrysostom s account that 
Babylas lay ivithin the city before and 
after his temporary sojourn in Daphne, 
and that the church across the river was 
not built till some time after his return. 
Miiller may have been misled by Sozomen 
(v. 29) who writes, eiXxwav rr\v drjK-rjv ewl 
rr/v TTo\tv WIT crraSta recrcra/xx/co^ra, ou 
vvv 6 /J-dprvs /ceircu SeSaiKws CITT aurou r-ffv 
irpotrriyopiav ry TOTT^, thus overlooking the 
period when the saint s bones reposed a 
second time within his original mar 
tyrium. Again Stephens, Saint Chrysos 
tom etc. p. 107, says At the time when 
Chrysostom wrote, some twenty years 
after the occurrence, the mournful wreck 
[of Apollo s temple] was yet standing, 
but the chapel [of Babylas in Daphne] 
again contained the relics of the saint 
and martyr, etc. On the contrary 
Chrysostom distinctly states that the 
reliques were not taken back to Daphne 
(P- 577 "h ^ Xapva^ OVK^TI ird\iv avdyerai), 
and he sees a divine providence in this. 
But Gibbon is the chief offender. He 
writes A magnificent church was erected 
[at Daphne] over his remains. There 
seems to be a confusion here with the 
final resting-place of Babylas built sub 
sequently by Meletius, un fort grand et 
fort beau temple (Tillemont H. E. III. 
p. 407). Gibbon further says, As soon 
as another revolution seemed to restore 
the fortune of Paganism, the Church of 
S. Babylas [in Daphne] was demolished. 
This is directly opposed to the statements 
of Chrysostom, who repeatedly mentions 
that this martyrium of Babylas in Daphne 
was left standing even after the fire (pp. 
534. 535. 565. 577. and elsewhere). On p. 
565 Chrysostom says of Julian /car^Xefe... 
rb /J-aprtiptov eKarepov, r6 re iv rrj Adfivr; 
rb re ev rrj 7r6Xet, el fj.rj rov 0vfj.ov o &lt;f&gt;6[3os 
fjv petfuv K.r.X., He had burnt both the 
martyria...if his fear had not been greater 



46 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

decades of the fourth century his grave was shown in the Christian 
cemetery, outside the Daphniticgate 1 which led from the city westward 
to the famous suburb. Was it really the resting-place of this early 
martyr? Or did some monumental stone inscribed with the name 
Ignatius no uncommon name give rise to the belief by a too hasty 
identification ? This suspicion is not unreasonable. The tradition 
that the reliques were translated from Rome to Antioch cannot be 
traced back earlier than this date; and it is at least more probable 
than not, that his ashes would be mingled with Roman dust near the 
scene of his martyrdom, indistinguishable from the other countless 
victims of the Flavian amphitheatre. About the same time, and per 
haps somewhat earlier, we find October 17 assigned to him as the day 
of his earthly death, the day of his heavenly birth 2 . 

It was on this anniversary that Chrysostom, then a presbyter of 
Antioch, delivered his extant panegyric (Op. n. p. 592 sq.) on this 
father of the Church, this good shepherd who in strict fulfilment 
of the Lord s precept had laid down his life for his sheep (p. 593). He 
accepts fully the story of the translation, and draws an imaginary 
picture of the return of the reliques. They were borne aloft on men s 
shoulders from city to city, like a victor returning in triumph, amidst 
the applause of the bystanders. Ye sent him forth, so he addresses 
the Antiochenes Ye sent him forth a bishop, and ye received him 
a martyr; ye sent him forth with prayers, and ye received him with 
crowns. Just as an inexhaustible treasure, he adds, though drawn 
upon from day to day, yet never failing, makes all those who share in it 
the wealthier, so also this blessed Ignatius filleth those who come to 
him with blessings, with confidence, with a noble spirit, and with much 
braveness, and so sendeth them home (p. 600 sq.). And in conclusion 
he invites his hearers, in whatever trouble they may be, to come hither 
and see the saint, that they may find relief (p. 60 1). The homilies 
of this famous preacher were commonly delivered in the Great 



than his rage. Can it be that Gibbon lating to the Babylas riots, I am bound 

read the first clause of the sentence and to say that I have found them full of 

overlooked the second ? Tillemont (H. E. loose and inaccurate statements. 

III. p. 406 sq.) correctly describes the 1 Hieron. Catal. 16 Reliquiae ejus 

successive migrations of the bones of Antiochiae jacent extra portam Daphni- 

Babylas. ticam in coemeterio ; see below II. pp. 

Gibbon s command and marshalling 376 sq., 429 sq. 

of facts is admirable ; and he is gene- 2 See below II. p. 416 sq., with re- 
rally credited with exceptional accuracy. gard to the day of S. Ignatius. 
But having examined the two pages re- 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 47 

Church of Antioch 1 , which had been built by Constantine on 
the site of the Old Church, the primitive place of assembly in this 
early home of Gentile Christianity, and of which Eusebius has left a 
brief description 2 . But the thrice-repeated invitation to come hither 3 
seems to show that in this case the orator was speaking in the presence 
of the real or supposed reliques of the saint, and therefore in the 
martyrium built over the grave in the cemetery near the Daphnitic 
gate. 

But in the next generation the saint was transferred to a more 
honourable resting-place than this humble martyr s chapel outside 
the walls. Successive princes had vied with each other in the erection 
of splendid buildings at Antioch Syrian kings, Roman emperors, 
even foreign sovereigns like Herod the Great. In this long roll of 
benefactors the younger Theodosius held a conspicuous place. Under 
this emperor successive governors of Syria and great officers of state 
contributed to the adornment of this eastern metropolis Memno- 
nius, Zoilus, Callistus, Anatolius, Nymphidius. The empress Eudocia 
herself claimed kindred with the Antiochenes and bore her part in this 
labour of love 4 . In this work of renovation the primitive bishop and 
martyr of the Church was not forgotten. The good God put it into 
the heart of Theodosius, writes the historian, to honour the God- 
bearer with greater honours 5 . The genius of the city, the Fortune of 
Antioch 6 , was represented by a gilt-bronze statue, a master-piece of 
Eutychides of Sicyon, the pupil of Lysippus. A queenly figure, 
crowned with a diadem of towers, rested on a rock, doubtless in 
tended for the mountain Silpius which formed the lofty background 
of Antioch, while from beneath her feet emerged the bust and arms 
of a youth, the symbol of the river-god Orontes. In her hand she 
bore a bundle of wheat-sheaves, the emblem of plenty. In the fourth 
century of the Christian era we find this statue, which was coeval 
with the building of the city, enshrined in a house of her own, which 
bore her name, the Tychaeum or Temple of Fortune 7 . To this 
ancient shrine the remains of Ignatius were borne aloft on a car with 

1 C. O. Mliller de Antiq. Antioch, p. B Evagr. H. E. i. 16. The passage is 

103 sq. quoted at length below, II. p. 386, note. 

9 Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 50 ; comp. 6 For this deity and her statue see 

L. C. ix. 15. Miiller p. 35 sq. 

3 Of. II. p. 601 tvravda. ira.pa.yi- 7 Ammian. xxiii. i gradile Genii 
vtffdu, tvravda, irapaytvecrdai, t\6uv tv- templum, Julian Misop. p. 546 (Spanheim) 
ravGa,. TO TTJS T^XTJJ rtnevos, Libanius Pro Tempi. 

4 Miiller, p. 115. n. p. 201 (Reiske) ; see Miiller p. 40. 



48 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

great pomp through the city by the emperor s order, and there de 
posited. From that time forward the Temple of Fortune was known 
as the Church of Ignatius. The martyred bishop thus took the place 
of the tutelary genius in whom the past glories and the future- hopes 
of Antioch centred. What became of the famous statue of Eutychides 
whether it had already disappeared or was now removed elsewhere 
we are not informed. But assuredly the same building could not hold 
the pagan image and the Christian reliques. From that day forward, 
we are told, the anniversary was kept as a public festival with great 
rejoicing. This anniversary was in all probability the 2oth of Decem 
ber, which in the later Greek Calendar is assigned to S. Ignatius, and 
displacing the original iyth of October, came to be regarded as the 
anniversary of the martyrdom, though in fact the anniversary of the 
translation to the Tychseum 1 . The time the crowning day of the 
Sigillaria may have been chosen designedly by the emperor, because 
he desired to invest with a Christian character this highly popular 
heathen festival 2 . 

It was in this ancient Temple of Fortune, thus transformed into 
a Christian Church, that on the first of January, the day of S. 
Basil and S. Gregory, Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop 
of Antioch, styled par excellence the patriarch, year after year 
during his episcopate used to deliver his homilies on the two saints, 
taking occasion from time to time to turn aside from his main text 
and commemorate, as a man of like spirit, the apostolic martyr whose 
reliques reposed in the building 3 . It was here too that towards the 
close of the sixth century the Antiochene patriarch Gregory added 
fresh dignity and magnificence to the rites, already splendid, which 
graced the anniversary festival of Ignatius himself 4 . 

From the close of the fourth century the glory of Ignatius suffered 
no eclipse in the East. His reputation was sustained in other ways 
than by popular festivals. The epistles forged or interpolated in his 
name are a speaking testimony to the weight of his authority on theo 
logical questions. The legendary Acts of Martyrdom, professing to 
give an account of his last journey and conflict, evince the interest 
which was excited in his fate in the popular mind. The translation 
of his letters into Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic, rendered them ac 
cessible to all the principal nations of Eastern Christendom. With the 
Monophysites more especially he was held in high honour. His theo- 

1 See below, II. p. 432. 3 See below, n. p. 419 sc l- 

3 See Mart. Ign. Ant. 6, with the 4 Evagr. //. E. i. 16, quoted below, 
note (n. p. 486). ii. p. 3^6, note. 



IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 



49 



logy seemed to lend itself readily to their peculiar tenets. Hence the 
frequent quotations from his letters in Monophysite writers. To his 
fame also may probably be ascribed the fact that for some centuries 
past the Jacobite patriarchs of Antioch have regularly assumed the 
name of Ignatius on their accession to the see 1 . The popularity of 
the name Clement with the bishops of Rome presents a partial ana 
logy to this fact. In like manner, just as an ancient Greek liturgy 
(perhaps written for the West) is ascribed to Clement as its author, 
so also a Jacobite liturgy, though obviously late in date, bears the 
name of Ignatius 2 . 

In the West on the other hand he seems never to have been a 
popular saint. It will be shown elsewhere (n. p. 427) that his foothold 
in Western calendars was precarious. Yet his fame must have been 
widely spread through the Latin Versions of the Greek Epistles, through 
the Acts of Martyrdom, and through the forged correspondence with 
the Virgin. At all events for some reason or other the name was not 
uncommon in Spain, even at an early date 3 : and in the sixteenth 
century it acquired an unwonted prominence in the founder of the 
most powerful order in Christendom. 



1 See Assemani Bill. Orient, n. pp. 
381, 382, and also his Dissertatio de 
Monophysitis (which is unpaged). From 
the close of the i6th century the practice 
has been constant. I have not how 
ever found any notice which connects 



it with Ignatius the apostolic father. 

2 See Renaudot Liturg. Orient. II. 
p. 214 sq. 

3 Yonge s History of Christian Names 
I. p. 401 sq. 



IG. I. 



50 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



Notices relating to persecutions under Trajan. 

i. 

C. PLINI ET TRAJANI Epistulae 96, 97. 

C. PLINIUS TRAJANO IMPERATORI. 

SOLLEMNE est mihi, domine, omnia de quibus dubito ad te referre. 
Quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere vel ignorantiam 
extruere ? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam : ideo nescio 
quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri. Nee mediocriter haesitavi 5 
sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus 
differant, detur poenitentiae venia an ei qui omnino Christianus fuit 
desisse non prosit, nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia 
nomini puniantur. Interim [in] iis qui ad me tamquam Christiani defere- 
bantur hunc sum secutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani. 10 
Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus : perse- 
verantes duci iussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod 
faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. 
Fuerunt alii similis amentiae quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in 
urbem remittendos. Mox ipso tractatu, ut fieri solet, diffundente se 15 
crimine plures species inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine auctore 
multorum nomina continens. Qui negabant esse se Christianos aut 

4. extruere] This seems to have to be led to execution J as e.g. Seneca de 

been the reading of the MS, since it ap- Ira i. 18 Cumiratus ducijussisset eum... 

pears in Avantius, though Aldus has conscendit tribunal furens Piso ac jubet 

instruere. If it be correct, the metaphor duci utrumque... ipsum centurionem, qui 

is taken from the erection of a building in damnatum reduxerat, duci jussit... Te, 

a vacant area; e.g. Cic. Resp. ii. ir inquit, duci jubeo, quia damnatus es. 

aream sibi sumpsit in qua civitatem ex- So the Greek dirdyecrdai, e.g. Acts xii. 19 

strueret arbitratu suo. *ceXeiwv dirax^vai, where there is a 

Cognitionibus] l the judicial enquiries? v. 1. (a gloss) diroKTavOrjvai. 
Whether the proceedings to which Pliny 13. obstinationem] This is the charge 

here refers took place in Trajan s reign or brought against the Christians by M. 

before, does not appear ; see above, p. Aurelius xi. 3 fnij Kara \f/i\iiv Trapdra^iv, 

15. Pliny was praetor in A.D. 93 or 94, ws ol xpwriavol (see Gataker s note), 
but there is no reason to suppose that any 15. ipso tractatu] i.e. the mere handling 

prosecutions of Christians took place in of the affair led to a multiplication of 

Rome during his year of office, or that, if charges (diffundente se crimine) and thence 

such had taken place, they would neces- to the discovery of various types of incri- 

sarily have come before him. minated persons. 

12. duci] i.e. ad supplicium, ad mortem, 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 5 1 

fuisse, cum praeeunte me decs appellarent et imagini tuae, quam 
propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris numinum adferri, ture ac vino 
supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil posse cogi 
dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani, dimittendos esse putavi. Alii ab 
5 indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt ; fuisse 
quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante 
viginti. [Hi] quoque omnes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra ve- 
nerati sunt et Christo male dixerunt. Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse 
summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante 
10 lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, 
seque Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, 



r. praeeunte] dictating the words? as 
in a similar case related Ep. x. 60 (52) 
praeivimus et commilitonibus jusjuran- 
dum more sollemni. 

9. stato die] i.e. on Sunday; comp. Jus 
tin Mart. Apol. i. 67 (p. 98) rrj rov 17X101; Xe- 
yo/J.frri-r]/J.epg. iravruv . . .em TO avrb ffweXev- 
&lt;ns ylverai, and in the context he gives the 
reasons for the selection of this day. . See 
also Barnab. 15, Ign. Magn. 9. For 
Pliny s account of these services of the 
Christians generally see Harnack s Christ- 
licher Gemeindegottesdienst p. 215 sq. , 
with the references there given. 

10. carmenque] The word does not ne 
cessarily imply a metrical composition, a 
song or hymn, but is used of any set form 
of words (e.g. Paneg. 92 sanctissimum 
illud carmen praeire dignatus es ). Yet 
here probably it is used in this more re 
stricted sense, as the words secum invicem 
seem to show. See Harnack /. c . p. 219 
sq., Probst Lehre u. Gebet p. 276 sq., and 
my note on Col. iii. 16. 

quasi deo] As Pliny is a heathen 
writer, the words should not improbably 
be translated as to a god (comp. Acts 
xii. 22); but it does not follow that Ter- 
tullian and Eusebius so understood them. 
For the fact comp. Anon. [Hippolytus] 
in Euseb. H. E. v. 28 \j/a\/i.ol 5 offoi /cat 
qiSal doe\(j&gt;C)v air apxys VTT& iriffT&v ypa- 
(fifla ai rbv Abyov rov Qeov rov Xpurrbv 
i&gt;/j.vov&lt;rt 6eo\oyovvres. Of such an 



early hymn we have perhaps an example 
in i Tim. iii. 16 (though Qeos is not the 
correct reading). 

secum invicem] antiphonally : see 
Harnack I.e. p. 223 sq., Probst I.e. p. 
278. Compare the legend of Ignatius 
considered above, p. 31 sq. 

ri. sacramento] The word sacramentum 
in early Christian writings has two senses. 
(i) It is the equivalent of the Greek 
(j.v&lt;rrripiov, of which it is a rendering in 
the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate ; 
and thus it signifies a sacred ordinance 
or doctrine or fact, more especially 
where a deeper verity is hidden under 
some familiar external form. Thus it is 
applied to the Old Testament, to the In 
carnation, to the Cross, etc., and to 
parables and types generally: see the 
indices to Tertullian and Cyprian, and 
comp. Probst Sakramente u. Sakramen- 
talien p. i sq. (2) It is used in its clas 
sical sense of a solemn obligation or 
pledge or oath. In both senses it was 
applicable to the two ordinances which 
we call sacraments (Tertull. adv. Marc. 
iv. 34 ad sacramentum baptismatis et eu- 
charistiae admittens ), though in the latter 
sense it was more appropriate to baptism, 
which involved a direct vow, than to the 
eucharist, where the pledge was implied 
rather than expressed. In classical lan 
guage it was used especially of the oath 
of allegiance taken by soldiers. The ap- 

42 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum 
appellati abnegarent : quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rur- 
susque [coeundi] ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium ; 



plication to the Christian entering upon 
his spiritual warfare was obvious (2 Tim. 
ii. 4 Iva T (TTparoXoyTiffavTi aptey, Ign. 
Polyc. 6 dptcntere $ ffrparevecrde /c.r.X.); 
see Tertull. ad Mart. 3 Vocati sumus ad 
militiam Dei vivi jam tune, cum in sa- 
cramenti verba respondemus, Scorp. 4 
Huic sacramento militans ab hostibus 
provocor, Cypr. de Laps, 7 Christi 
sacramentum temeritate praecipiti sol- 
veretur, ib. 13 Sacramenti mei memor 
devotionis ac fidei arma suscepi, Anon. 
de Rebaptism. 16 perinde ac si quis sa 
cramento miles dicto desertis suis castris 
in hostium diversissimis castris longe aliud 
sacramentum velit dicere, hac ratione 
constat eum vetere sacramento exaucto- 
ratum esse. 

It would seem as if Pliny had here con 
fused the two sacraments together. The 
words se sacramento obstringere seem 
to refer specially to the baptismal pledge, 
whereas the recurrence on a stated day 
before dawn is only appropriate to the 
eucharist (Tertull. de Cor. 3 eucharistiae 
sacramentum ... antelucanis coetibus...su- 
mimus ). This confusion he might easily 
have made from his misunderstanding his 
witnesses, if these witnesses related the 
one sacrament after the other, as they are 
related e.g. in Justin Martyr Apol. i. 65, 
and in Tertullian de Cor. 3 ; more espe 
cially as it was the practice to administer 
the eucharist immediately to the newly 
baptized. 

It is .possible however, that Pliny s 
witnesses, whose account he repeats, 
were not referring to either sacrament, 
but to the moral obligation which was 
binding on the Christian by virtue of his 
position. 

2. rursusque] The account here supposes 
two meetings in the course of the day : 
(i) Before daylight, when a religious ser 



vice was held ; (2) Later in the day, pro 
bably in the evening, when the agape was 
celebrated. In one or other therefore of 
these meetings a place must be found for 
the eucharist. The later meeting how 
ever was suppressed after the issue of 
Trajan s edict forbidding clubs. The only 
possible alternative therefore is this: either 
the eucharist had been already separated 
from the agape and was celebrated before 
dawn, so that the agape could be sup 
pressed or intermitted without serious 
injury ; or it remained hitherto con 
nected with the agape, and now was 
separated from it and placed at the early 
service in consequence of Trajan s edict. 
If the view that I have advocated of 
the drift of se sacramento obstringere 
be correct, the former is the true account. 
This is also the opinion of Probst (Lehre 
u. Gebet p. 350 sq.) ; but he assumes with 
out any evidence that the change took 
place in S. Paul s time in consequence of 
the Apostle s denunciations of the irregu 
larities at Corinth. Rothe also, in his 
programme de Primordiis cultus sacri 
Christianorum (1851), attributes the sepa 
ration of the eucharist from the agape to 
the Apostles themselves. On the other 
hand Harnack (I.e. p. 230 sq.) advocates 
the view that the separation was due to 
the edict of Trajan. In some parts of 
Asia Minor, and probably at Antioch, 
the two were still connected when Igna 
tius wrote ; see Smyrn. 8 oire dydirrjv 
irotew with the note. 

3. coeundi] The word is not in the 
ed. princ., but appears in Aldus. 

innoxium] This is an indirect reference 
to the charges of Thyestean banquets 
and CEdipodean profligacies brought a- 
gainst the Christians in connexion with 
their celebration of the agape and the 
eucharist : Justin. Apol. i, 26 Xvxvlat ptv 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 



53 



quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata 
tua hetaerias esse vetueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus 
ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta 
quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam immodicam. 
5 Ideo dilata cognitione ad consulendum te decucurri. Visa est enim 
mihi res digna consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium numerum. 
Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, vocantur 
in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque civitates tantum sed vicos etiam 
atque agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est; quae videtur 
10 sisti et corrigi posse. Certe satis constat prope iam desolata templa 
coepisse celebrari et sacra sollemnia diu intermissa repeti pastumque 
venire victimarum, cuius adhuc rarissimus emptor inveniebatur. Ex 
quo facile est opinari quae turba hominum emendari possit, si sit 
poenitentiae locus. 

15 TRAJANUS PLINIO. 

ACTUM quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in excutiendis causis eorum qui 
Christiani ad te delati fuerant secutus es. Neque enim in universum 



avarpoiTT]V Kal rots dvtSijv /tu eu Kal dvOpu- 
ireluv ffapKuv flopas (comp. 10, 23, 29, 
Apol, ii. 12, Dial. 10, 17), Ep. Vienn. et 
Lugd. 14 (in Eus. H. E. v. i) /carei^ei}- 
ffavro rifj.uv Qvtffreia Selirva Kal Oldnro- 
Set ouj jtieij K. T. \. (comp. Iren. Fragm. 
X 3&gt; P- 832 Stieren), Athenag. Leg. 3 
rpia tTrKprjfjLifovffiv ri/MV ^yKXij/zara, aBeo- 
rrfra, Qv^ffreia Selirva, QldnroSelovs /*Jeu 
(comp. 31), Theoph. ad Autol. iii. 4, 15, 
Tertull. Apol. 7, ad Nat. \. 7. These 
calumnies were repeated by Fronto of 
Cirta, the tutor of M. Aurelius (of whom 
see Teuffel Gesch. d. Rom. Lit. 333) ; 
Minuc. Fel. Octav. 9, 31. Origen, reply 
ing to Celsus (c. Cels. vi. 27), accuses the 
Jews of circulating these very slanders 
Kara ri]v apxty rrjs rov xP iffTLavl&lt;r f J -v ^4- 
SaffKaXi as. They will explain the epithets 
used by Tacitus when speaking of the 
Christians, Ann. xv. 44, per flagitia 
invisos...per urbem etiam quo cuncta un- 
dique atrocia [QvtffTeiu. Setirva] et pudenda 
A" I] confluunt celebrantur- 



que. 

i. hetaerias] On the emperor s hostility 
to clubs or guilds see above, p. 18 sq. 



For their connexion with forbidden re 
ligions in the heathen mind, see Dion 
Cass. Iii. 36 KO.IVO. riva. 8ai/j.6via ol TOIOV- 
TOI dvTffffapovTes 7ro\\oi)j 
d\\OTpiovo/j.fti&gt;, KO.K rotirov K 
Kal avardffeis ^raipelat re ylyvovrai, anep 
TJKiffTa /j.ovapxta &lt;n&gt;fj.&lt;p^pei, Philo in Place. 
I (ll. p. 518) rds re eroipetas Kal ffvro- 
5ouy, at del eirl Trpo^daei 6v&lt;riui&gt; flffTiui/To 
Tots wpdfyfMffur tfanpomOfftUf dit\ve. Ro 
man guilds are the subject of a mono 
graph by Th. Mommsen de Collegiis et 
Sodaliciis Romanorum (Kiliae, 1843). 

3. quae ministrae dicebantur] This 
is doubtless Pliny s own translation of the 
Greek SIOKOVOI deaconesses (comp. Rom. 
xvi. i, i Tim. iii. n) which he heard. 
The word ministra is not, so far as I 
remember, used as an equivalent for dia- 
conissa in the Latin ecclesiastical lan 
guage. 

1 1. pastum] i. e. fodder is sold for the 
cattle which are waiting to be sacrificed. 
The ed. princ. has passum, which is 
corrected by Beroaldus. Aldus boldly 
corrects passimque venire victimas qua- 
rum. 



54 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

aliquid quod quasi certam formam habeat constjtui potest. Conquirendi 
non sunt : si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt, ita tamen ut qui 
negaverit se Christianum esse idque re ipsa manifestum fecerit, id 
est supplicando dis nostris, quamvis suspectus in praeteritum, veniam 
ex poenitentia impetret. Sine auctore vero propositi libelli [in] nullo 
crimine locum habere debent. Nam et pessimi exempli nee nostri 
saeculi est. 

The correspondence of Pliny and Trajan is commonly designated the tenth book 
of Pliny s letters, being so treated by the early editor Aldus. This however is a wrong 
designation. It is a separate work, and Keil in his edition has accordingly reinstated 
it in an independent position. He has also restored the original order of the epistles 
as found in the MS. This order has been shown by Mommsen (Hermes III. p. 53 sq., 
1869) to be chronological. It had been changed, apparently by H. Stephens, who 
placed first those letters of Pliny to which Trajan s answer has not been preserved. 

The earlier editions of Pliny s letters did not contain this correspondence. It was 
first published in the beginning of the sixteenth century from a MS in France, now no 
longer extant. The editio princeps by H. Avantius (1502) contained only the later 
letters from the 42nd onward. Avantius was followed by two other editors (Ph. 
Beroaldus 1502, and Catanaeus 1506), who introduced some corrections of their own, 
but made no use of the MS. At length in 1508 Aldus Manutius, having obtained pos 
session of the MS, published the whole. For the earlier letters (i 41) he was entirely 
dependent on the MS, but the later he appears to have taken from Avantius and pre 
vious editors, introducing some emendations of his own, with little or no consultation 
of the MS. Thus the only authorities for the text of the letters relating to the Christians 
are the editions of Avantius and Aldus, the latter being of very secondary importance. 
The history of the text of this correspondence is given by J. C. Orelli Historia Critica 
Epistolarum Plinii et Trajani usque ad Ann. MDLII (Turici, 1833), and in the 
preface (p. xxxiii sq.) to Keil s edition of Pliny (Lips. 1870). To Keil I am indebted 
for the information which I have given. Variot (de Plin. Jun. etc. p. 58 sq.) seems 
not to have read Keil s preface, and gives a less correct account of the early editions. 

This correspondence, thus appearing suddenly, was received at first with some 
slight hesitation ; but the preface of Aldus Manutius silenced doubts. From that 
time forward the genuineness of these letters does not appear to have been disputed. 
Indeed, after Mommsen s investigations on the chronology of Pliny s life, it could 
only be questioned by a scepticism bordering on insanity. Whether we regard 
the style or the matter, they are equally inconceivable as the invention of a 
forger. 

With the two letters however, which relate to the persecution of the Christians, 
the case has been different. With characteristic recklessness Semler in his Novae 
Obseruationes Hist, et Relig. Christ, etc. saec. ii. p. 37 (Hallae, 1784) took the 
initiative in the attack on the genuineness of these letters. But he has not 
succeeded in enlisting many followers. Quite recently however Aube in his 
Histoire des Persecutions de PEglise etc. p. 215 sq. (1875) has marshalled in detail 
the misgivings to which he had already given expression elsewhere, Revue Contempo- 
raine, 2e Serie, LXVIII. p. 401). He does not however definitely decide against 
their genuineness, but contents himself with setting forth the objections which might 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 55 

be urged against them. They are such as any fairly ingenious person might raise 
against the most authentic document. Aube has found a follower in E. Desjardins 
Revue des Deux Mondes icr December 1874. The objections are answered by Variot 
de Plinio Juniore etlmperatore Trajano apud Christianas etc. (Paris, 1878), and again 
in the Revue des Questions Historiques ter Juillet 1878, p. 80 sq. ; by Boissier in the 
Revue Archeologique Fevrier 1876, p. 114 sq. ; and by Renan Les vangiles p. 476, 
and Journal des Savants, 1876, p. 721 sq. 

These objections hardly deserve serious refutation. Thus much however may be 
said generally; (i) These two letters cannot be separated from the collection in which 
they appear. In style and character they are in entire harmony with the rest. Of the 
style Renan (Les vangiles p. 476) says truly, On ne croira jamais qu un faussaire 
chretien cut pu si admirablement imiter la langue precieuse et raffinee cle Pline. And 
if from the style we turn to the character and purport, such a forgery is equally incon 
ceivable. Any reader for instance, who will refer to what has been said above (p. 18 
sq.) respecting Trajan s hostility to clubs or guilds, will see how exactly they fit into 
the place which they occupy in the series, and will recognise the extreme improbability 
that this appropriateness could have been the result of an adventitious forgery. (2) They 
are attested by the references in Tertullian. Hence Aldus in his preface was justified 
in regarding their presence as a testimony to the genuineness of the correspondence 
between Pliny and Trajan generally. The evidence of Tertullian is not indeed 
infallible in itself; but it has been unduly discredited. It is a mistake for instance 
to suppose that Ke quotes the extant spurious Ada Pilati as genuine (Apol. 21 ea 
omnia super Christo Pilatus...Caesari tune Tiberio nuntiavit ). Tertullian, like his 
predecessor Justin Martyr (Apol. \. 35, p. 76, SvvaaOe fj.adeiv K TUV ^TT HovrLov 
IltXaroii ytnjjttvav O.KTWV: comp. Apol. i. 48, p. 84), assumes that the Roman archives 
contained an official report sent by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius. He is not referring to 
any definite literary work which he had read. The extant forgery was founded on 
these notices of the early fathers and not conversely. After all deductions made for 
possible error, the attestation of Tertullian to these letters has the highest value. 
(3) The pictures of Trajan and Pliny on the one hand and of the Christians on the other 
are alike unfavourable to the idea of a forgery. The confessedly spurious documents 
relating to this reign, such as the Acts of Ignatius or the Letter of Tiberianus, paint 
the emperor and his subordinates in the darkest colours, which contrast strongly with 
the studious moderation and the inherent sense of justice here attributed to them. 
Again what Christian writer, if bent on a forgery and therefore unfettered by any 
scruples of veracity, would have confessed that crowds of his fellow-believers had 
denied their faith, that all alike had abandoned their agapse at the bidding of a heathen 
magistrate, that the persecution was already refilling the heathen temples which 
before were empty, and that there was good hope, if the same policy was pursued, 
of a general apostasy ensuing? What Christian writer could have so far re 
strained himself, as not only to be silent about bishops and priests, about sects and 
heresies, about the doctrines of the faith, but even to betray those misapprehensions 
or half-apprehensions, which appear in such expressions as se sacramento obstringere, 
ad capiendum ciburn, duabus ancillis quae ministrae dicebantur ? The passage 
which has excited the greatest suspicion is that which relates to the numbers of the 
Christians; but, if Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) nearly half a century earlier can speak 
of a vast multitude as suffering at Rome in the Neronian persecution, the language 
of Pliny s letters, relating to the era of Trajan and to a part of the world where the 
spread of Christianity had been exceptionally rapid, ought not to create any surprise. 



56 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Nor again is there sufficient reason for adopting the suspicion of De la Berge (Essai 
sur le Regne de Trajan p. 109) that Trajan s reply, as we possess it, is only an extract 
from a longer letter or from several letters which issued from the imperial chancelry . 
It is true that the emperor does not in so many words reply to Pliny s query, whether 
tender age should be more leniently treated; but he says generally that no universal 
law can be laid down, and in fact refers all such matters to Pliny s common sense. 
And again, though he does not directly reply to the question whether the mere 
profession of Christianity ( nomen ipsum ) was a sufficient ground for punishment 
or not, yet indirectly he gives the answer. Pliny had acted as if Christianity were 
forbidden in itself independently of any offences which individual Christians might 
have committed and Trajan tells him that he had acted rightly. 

Pliny s letter was written in the autumn or winter of A.D. 112, as Mommsen 
seems to have shown : see the note on Mart. Ign. Rom. n (n. p. 532). His title 
was Legatus pro praetore provinciae Ponti et Bithyniae consulari potestate (see 
Marquardt Rbmische Staatsvcrwaltung I. p. 194), and he was entrusted with this 
province because its condition was such as to need special attention at that time 
(Plin. et Traj. Ep. 41 [32], 118 [117]). On his government generally see De la 
Berge I.e. p. 119 sq. 

Like his master Trajan (see above, p. 4 sq.), Pliny has been claimed as a Christian 
convert on the strength of his comparative leniency and moderation of language. 
The late and unauthentic Acts of Titus, ascribed to Zenas (Tit. iii. 13), so repre 
sented him (see Fabricius Bibl. Latin. \\. p. 418 sq., ed. Ernesti, Cod. Apocr. Nov. 
Test. ii. p. 831 sq.); and in accordance with the story there told we read in the 
spurious Chronicon of L. Flavius Dexter s. ann. 220 Is Titus converterat ad fidem 
Plinium Juniorem, ex Bithynia Pontoque redeuntem, in insula Creta ubi jussu Trajani 
Jovi templum extruxerat. Nee desunt qui putent septima Sextilis ad Novocomum 
esse passum. These representations cannot be unconnected with a notice on the 
Martyrol. Roman, under the 7th of August, Novocomi passio sanctorum martyrum 
Carpophori, Exanthi, Cassii, Secundi, et Licinii, qui in confessione Christi capite 
truncati sunt. This notice may have been the cause of the story about Pliny. The 
Secundus here mentioned might then be supposed to have been a freedman of the 
family of Pliny. But in older authorities the place of martyrdom is differently given. 
Thus in the Bucherian Catalogue we have among the depositions vn Id. Aug. 
Secundi, Carpophori, Victorini, et Severiani, Albano et Ostiense, and in the Hiero- 
nymian Martyrology VI Idus Aug. Romae, natalis sanctorum Secundini (sic), Seve 
riani, Carpofori, Victorini, et Albini, etc. ; while in an addition to Usuard it runs 
In Italia Cumis passio sanctorum martyrum Carpophori, Exanti, Cassii, Severini, et 
Secundini, qui passi sunt sub Maximiano tyranno sacrilege. This last form suggests 
that the identification of Secundus with Pliny may have arisen from a confusion of 
Cumis and Comi, which has a parallel in the text of Hermas, Vis. i. i, ii. i. The 
whole matter might perhaps repay further investigation. 

For the literature connected with these letters relating to the Christians see Fabri 
cius Bibl. Lat. I.e., Mayor Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature p. 148 sq. 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 57 

2. 

TERTULLIANUS Apologdicum 2. 

ATQUIN invenimus inquisitionem quoque in nos prohibitam. Plinius 
enim Secundus cum provinciam regeret, damnatis quibusdam Christianis, 
quibusdam gradu pulsis, ipsa tamen multitudine perturbatus, quid de 
cetero ageret, consuluit tune Trajanum imperatorem, adlegans praeter 
5 obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de sacramentis eorum 
comperisse, quam coetus antelucanos ad canendum Christo ut deo et ad 
confoederandam disciplinam, homicidium, adulterium, fraudem, per- 
fidiam, et cetera scelera prohibentes. Tune Trajanus rescripsit, hoc 
genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere. O 

10 sententiam necessitate confusam ! Negat inquirendos ut innocentes, et 
mandat puniendos ut nocentes. Parcit et saevit, dissimulat et animad- 
vertit. Quid temetipsam, censura, circumvenis ? Si damnas, cur non et 
inquiris ? si non inquiris, cur non et absolvis ? Latronibus vestigandis 
per universas provincias militaris static sortitur; in reos majestatis et 

15 publicos hostes omnis homo miles est; ad socios, ad conscios usque, 
inquisitio extenditur. Solum Christianum inquiri non licet, offerri licet, 
quasi aliud esset actura inquisitio, quam oblationem. Damnatis itaque 
oblatum, quern nemo voluit requisitum ; qui, puto, jam non ideo meruit 
poenam, quia nocens est, sed quia, non requirendus, inventus est. 

3. de cetero] for the future : comp. than another, it is that Eusebius derived 

ad Scap. 3, with Oehler s note. all his information respecting this perse- 

6. ut deo] There can be no question cution from a Greek translation of Ter- 

about the reading, though the MSS have tullian. 

ft deo, which is retained by Oehler: see 7. confoederandam] i.e. to strengthen 

below, II. p. 533. To the arguments there and consolidate by a common pledge and 

urged it should be added that Jerome in league. 

his edition of the Chronicon (n. p. 165), 14. militaris static] Sueton. Tib. 37 

having the text of Tertullian before him, In primis tuendae pacis a grassatoribus ac 

writes Christo ut deo. Variot (Revue latrociniis seditionumque licentia curam 

des Questions Historiques, icrjuillet 1878, habuit : stationes militum per Italiam 

p. 142) strangely argues that Eusebius and solito frequentiores disposuit (comp. Oc- 

Jerome must have consulted the original fav. 32). For the Roman police arrange- 

of Pliny, because they read Christo ut ments see Marquardt Romische Staats- 

deo, whereas Tertullian has Christo et verwaltung I. 521, II. 468. 
deo. If there is one point more certain 

Tertullian doubtless derived his information entirely from the same correspondence 
between Pliny and Trajan which we possess. Ulpian indeed, in his 7th book de 
Officio Proconsulis, collected all the imperial rescripts issued against the Christians 
(LactanL Div. Inst. V. n); but this work can hardly have been in existence when 



5 8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the Apologeticum was written. In one respect only Tertullian goes beyond the 
information contained in the letters. His statement quibusdam gradu pulsis is 
unsupported by Pliny ; but he was probably quoting from memory and so ascribed 
inadvertently to the age of Trajan procedures with which he was familiar in his 
own day. This statement is a wholly insufficient ground for postulating a lost 
letter of Pliny, as De la Berge (Sur le Rtgne de Trajan p. 209, note i) is disposed 
to do. 



EUSEBIUS Historiae Ecclesiae iii. 32, 33. 

Merd Nepwra /cat Ao//,ericu&gt;oi&gt;, Kara TOVTOV ov vvv rovs 
e^era^o/xe^, juept/ca)s /cat /caret TroXets e eVamcrrdo-eajs 
TOV /ca$ TJfjitov /care^et Xoyos avaKivrjO fjvai 

TOV TOV KXwTrd, ov Sevrepov /caracrr^^at 

as ITTL(TKOTTOV eS^Xwcrajaev, /xapru/otw 5 
TOV fiiov dvaXucrat TrapetXi^a/uez . /cat TOVTOV {JLapTvs avros 
ov Sta&lt;o/aots ^Sr? Trporepov e^pyjcrd^OcL &lt;f)0)val&lt;s, 
09 81} Trept TLVMV aipeTiKuv la~Topa)v 



v 
ev 



a&gt; 



i. roCroj ] i.e. Tpai aj oj , as appears 
from the sequel. 

3. /carexei Xo7os] Comp. H. E. ii. 7, iii. 
ii, 1 8, 19, iv. 5, vi. 34, etc. A com 
parison of these passages shows that the 
expression is not confined to oral tra 
dition but may include contemporary 
written authorities, and that it implies 
authentic and trustworthy information. 

5. td-r]\t!)ffa/j.ei&gt; ] The succession of Sy- 
meon after the martyrdom of James the 
Just is related H. E. iii. 1 1, where it is 
introduced with the same expression 
Kartxei \6yos, which occurs here. 

7. ySr) irpb-repov] H. E. ii. 23, iii. ii, 
16, 19, 20. This writer is also quoted 
several times afterwards. 

8. irepl TLVUV aipeTucuv] Hegesippus 
speaksmore than once (H. E. ii. 23, iv. 22) 
of the seven sects (aJ/&gt;6reis). The names 
of these are given ; Essenes, Galileans, He- 
merobaptists, Masbotheans, Samaritans, 
Sadducees, and Pharisees (//. E. iv. 22). 
They were mainly Jewish (TUV eirrd aipe- 

TUV et&gt; T&lt;J&gt; Xay), as their names im 



ply, and as the narrative of Hegesippus 
supposes. Hegesippus ascribes the death 
of James the Just to members of these seven 
sects (H. E. ii. 23), and his persecutors 
were evidently anti-Christian. He also 
assigns to them (//. E. iii. 19 TUI&gt; alpen- 
KWV rivas) the persecution of the grand 
sons of Judas ; and in the passage before 
us he describes them as the authors of the 
martyrdom of Symeon. Elsewhere (H.E. 
iv. 22) he mentions one Thebuthis, who 
was sprung from the seven sects, as having 
been disappointed of the bishopric when 
Symeon was elected, and having in con 
sequence corrupted the Church with here 
tical teaching ; but he does not (at least 
in the extracts preserved by Eusebius) 
connect his name directly with the death 
of Symeon. In the Chron. Pasch. p. 471 
(ed. Bonn.) Symeon is represented as 
being accused UTTO r(av TTJS fjioipas KrjptvOov 
Kal TUP Xeyo^vuv NtKoXairu)* . An ex 
planation of this statement will be given 
below (p. 66). 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 59 



apa VTTO TOVTCDV /cara roVSe rov \povov 
, TroXuTpoVw? o STyXov/xevo? cocrav XptaTta^o? eVt 
TrXetcrrats at/acr#ei9 r^tepais, avroi&gt; re rot Si/cacm}^ /cat rows 
&lt;tyt&lt; avroV et9 ra jaeytcrra /caraTrXi^a?, rco rov Kvpiov Trddei 
5 TrapaTrXTjCTLOv TO reXos aV^vey/caro. ovSez&gt; oe oto*&gt; /cat rou 
eVa/coucrat, aura Sr ravra /cara Xeti&gt; coSe 



An TOYTOON AHAAAh TOC)N AlpeTIKOJN KATHfOpoci TINC 

ZyMea)Noc TOY KAconA, ooc ONTOC And AAYGIA KA I XpicriANof/ 
10 KA I OYTCO MApTYpeT, eroJN CON GKATON efKOCiN, eni TPA I ANOY 

KAICApOC KAI YHATIKOf ArTIKOf- 

Se o avros, w? apa /cat rous /carr^yopous avrov, 
Tore TMV airo rrjs fiacrtXLKrjs lovSatwi/ (f&gt;v\rjs, 
a)(rav e CLVTTJS oi/ras aXwi/at avvefi-r). Xoytcr/xw 8 ai/ /cat 
! e roV Sv/xeaj^a T(G^ avroTTTajt /cat avTrjKoav etTrot ai/ rt5 yeyo- 
ifeVai row Kvptou, re/c/x^ptw TO&gt; /u/ry/cet rou xpovov 7175 avrou 
0077? XP c ^/ jtez/0?) Ka T ^ HvripoveveLV rrfv TUV euayyeXtwv ypafirjv 
Maptas T^S rov KXwTra, ov yeyoz^eVat avToi&gt; /cat Trporepov o 
Xoyo? e S^Xwcrev. o 8 avros crvyypa^ev? /cat erepou? aTro yeVou? 

2. wo-w] cj te w^, a favourite expres- r i. UTran/cou] The word came to be used 

sion in Eusebius (see below o5crdv &lt;? aimjs in the second cen tury especially of provin- 

o^Tas), not however implying any doubt of cial governors who had held the consul- 

the fact which it introduces. ship, and at a later date of such governors 

5. dTrrjveyKa.ro] carried offj as \{ it were even though they might not have been 
a prize. For this use of dtro&lt;pepeff6ai comp. consuls : see Marquardt Romische Staats- 
Mart. Polyc. 17 fipafieiov avavrlpprirov Vtrwaltung I. p. 409, and comp. the 
direi&gt;rivey/j.evov, where again it is used of index to Boeckh Corp, Inscr. Grace, p. 44. 
martyrdom. See also Tatian ad Grace. 33. Here lirl VTTO.TIKOV ArriKov means when 

6. tSSe TTWJ] Used even of -verbatim Atticus was governor ; whereas below eirl 
quotations, H.E. I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, n, Arrt/cou TOU vira.Ti.Kov is before Atticus 
ii. 10, 12, 20, 25, iii. 7, 19, 23, 31, 39, etc. the governor, the difference being due 

10. papTvpei] See the note on Clem. to the absence or presence of the article. 
Rom. 5. A.TTLKOV] See II. p. 450. 

eiri Tpdiavov] The preposition, applied 17. ryv rtav tva.yye\luv ypa&lt;f&gt;r)v] the 

to Trajan, can only signify in the time passage in the gospels, i.e. John xix. 25. 
of, and it must have this same meaning 19. o 5 oi/ros AC. T.\.] The reference is to 

here as applied to Atticus : see the next //. E. iii. 20. The account there is ge- 

note. On the mistakes which have arisen nerally printed as if Eusebius gave it 

from its ambiguity see II. p. 442. throughout in Hegesippus own words; 



60 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

eVos TUV &lt;e/3o/xeVtoz&gt; aSeX^xui/ TOV OVUTT^OS, &lt;u oVotia lovSas, 
$ir)cr\v ets TI^ a7rn)z&gt; eVt/3taWi /3acrtXetav, /xera, rqj 17817 
TrpoTepov IcrTopriOelcrav avTajv vnep TT^S ets roV XptaToV 
Trtcrretus eVt Ao/xertaz ou ^apTvpiav. ypdfai Se ovrcus* 

IpXONTAI OYN KAI TTpOHfOYNTAI TTACHC eKKAHUAC OOC MAp- 5 

rypec KAI And reNoyc TOY KYPI OY, KAI reNOMGNHc 

B&lt;\6eiAC 6N HACH 6KKAHCIA MNOYCI MeXpl TpAl AN 

Mtxpic OY 6 eK 6ei oY TOY Kypioy, 6 npoeipHMeNOC 

YIOC KAOiHA, CYKO&lt;t&gt;ANTH6eiC YTTO TOJN AlpCeCx)N, OJCAYTOOC 

KATHfopHGH KA I AYTOC eni Tq3 &lt;\YTo&gt; Aorw en) ATTIKOY TOY 10 

YTTATIKOY- KAI eni noAAA?C HMepAIC AlKIZOMeNOC GMApTY- 
pHCCN, d)C nANTAC YTT 6 p AYM AZ 6 1 N KAI TON YTTATIKON, HOiC 

CKATON eTKoci TYrA NaiN t TcoN YTTeMeiNe KAI 



TOCTOVTOS ye /AI)^ eV TrXetocrt roVot? o Ka^ TJJUCOI/ eirerddi) 15 
Tore Stwy/Aos, ws IlXtj tov Se/covt So^ eTrtcr^/AoraTov 
err! T&lt;W TrXtjOeu TUV papTvpuv KLvrjOevra, /SacrtXeT 

irepl TOV TrX^ous T&JI/ u7re/3 r?^9 7rtarea)9 avaupov- 
d/xa 8 eV ravrw ^vvaai, pyBev dvoviov /x/rjSe Trapa 
rows vo/xous irpaTTeiv aurovs KaretXTy^eVat, ir\r]v TO ye a/xa 20 
r^ ea&gt; Sieyetpo/xeVovs roV Xptcrro^ eov St/c^v vp,veii&gt;, TO 
Se ttot^evetv Kat (frovtveiv Kal TO. (rwyyevrj rourots a^e /xtra 
/cat avrou? dirayopeveLV, TTO.VTO. re 



but the change to the infinitive, efra 5^ the whole church, as some take it; for 

Kal ras x e &lt;/" T s fcurruv tirLSeucvvvai, this is an ungrammatical rendering: see 

shows that from that point onward Euse- the note on Ign. Ephes. 11. 

bius does not profess to quote verbatim. 8. 6 ei(6eiov] tfo sono/anuttcti; comp. 

Moreover he has here preserved in the /f. . Hi. n TW 701/3 ovi&gt; KXuirav dSeX^ov 

writer s direct words, (pxovTat oiiv Kal TOV 1w&lt;rri(f&gt; vTrapxfiv Hyfonnros IffropeT. 

irpoi]yoijvTa.i... K.aLffapos, the same part of On the relation of this statement to the 

the account which is there given in the ob- notices in the Evangelical records see 

lique narration, TOUJ Si cwroXu0eWas...T&lt; Galatians p. 256 sq., 267 sq., 277. 

(it(? : and the difference between the 10. M r$ avrij} Xoyy] on the same 

two is considerable. account? as the grandsons of Judas, who 

5. irdffijs tKicXTjaias] every church? i.e. have been mentioned just before (He- 

in Judaea; paraphrased by Eusebius (//... gesippus in //. E. iii. 20 ous 

iii. 20) TW&gt; (KK\i]&lt;riuv. It cannot mean pevtrav wj e/c ytvovs ovras Aai do). 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 6 1 

a.KO\OV0(t)S TOt? VOfJLOLS. 7T/3O? tt TOP TpOLLCLVOV Soy/Att 
T0IK6VCU, TO yj)l(TT(.a.VtoV (j)V\OV fJirj K^rjTl(70aL fJLV, 

croV Se /coXaecr#at ov yevo/aeVov TTOCTCUS /xeV TOU Stcoy/xov 

cr/8ecr^vat TT}*&gt; a77etXi)i&gt; cr^oSporaTa ey/cet/xeV^i , ou -^ipovd^ 

5 ye ////}i&gt; rot? /ca/cov/&gt;yeu&gt; Trepl ^/xa? eWXoucrt Xet77eo-#at 77/90- 

j / * /P * ^ p. / ^/P* ^^ \^ 

(pacrets, ecrc/ 07717 /xei&gt; rwi oij^wv, ecru 07717 oe /cat ra&gt;^ 
/card ^wpas dp^ovrcov ra? /ca^ TJ^WV crvo Keva^ofjLevajv TTL- 
as, oj? /cat aVeu TrpO(f&gt;ava)i&gt; Stcoy/utcov fjLpu&lt;ov&lt;; /car* 
e^a77reo"^at, 77Xetov? re r&lt;w^ TTKTTMV Sta^o/oot? 
10 vaya)vi, ) ecr0ai /aaprvptot?. etX^rat 8 -^/xtv 17 tcrropta e 
7^9 dvcoTepa) SeSi^Xai/ca^e^ rov TepruXXtai/ov Pw/xatK ^s ct77O- 
Xoytas, 175 17 epurjvtia TOVTOV ej(et roi^ 



KAITOI YpHKAMN KAI THN GIC HMAC eniZHTHCIN KKOiAYMe- 

NHN. HAI MOC r^p SGKOYNAOC HfOYMeNOc [THC] errApxioy, KATA- 

15 KplNAC XplCTIANOY c TINAC KAI THC AllAC KBAAO)N, TApA)(9eiC 

TO) nAH6ei AmrNoet TI AYTCO AoinoN eTn npAKteoN. 
OYN TOO BAciAe? ANeKOiNcbcATO Aer^N, eica roy MH 
AYTOYC eiAooAoAATpe?N of^eN ANOCION eN AYTO?C 

EMHNY6 ^6 KAI TOYTO, ANl cTACGAI eooGGN TOYC )(p I CTI AN Y C, KA) 
2O TON XplCTON 060Y AlKHN YMN?N, KAI TTpOC TO THN IniCTHMHN 

nAe- 



ONKT6N, AnOCT6peN, KAI TA TOYTOIC OMOIA. TTpOC TAYTA ANTG- 
rpA^e TpAl ANOC, TO TOON XP ICTIAN( ^ N 4&gt;Y^ON MH KZHTe?c9AI 
M6N, GMneCON &6 KOAAZecGAI. 



25 /cat ravra /xev iv rovrots r\v. 

12. 17 tpfj.T]veta.] Eusebius is here quoting of Caesarea). This version of Tertullian 

from a Greek translation of Tertullian s which he used was translated by some 

Apology. This translation is mentioned one who had a very inadequate know- 

in H, E. ii. 2 TepTv\\iavbs...tv TT, ledge of Latin. For instance in the pas- 

-ypa&lt;f&gt;el&lt;rri fifr avr Pw/uafwi &lt;puvy, pera- sage quoted H. E. ii. 25, the translator 

P\T&gt;j6 fieri 5t Kal twi r-qv "EXXdSa y\urrav betrays his ignorance of the common 

inrep xpwnctj aJj ^0X071^, and is quoted Latin idiom cum maxime, which he 

both here and in H. E. ii. 25, iii. 20, v. 5. renders ^vlna. naXicrra, thus throwing the 

Eusebius was imperfectly acquainted with whole sentence into confusion. In the 

the Latin language and very ignorant of passage before us he is occasionally very 

the Latin fathers (see Smith s Diet, of loose, but not essentially wrong. 
Christ. Biogr. \\. p. 324, s. v. Eusebius 



62 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

The chapters which are given here have been preceded immediately (c. 31) by 
a notice of the deaths of the Apostles John and Philip, who settled in Asia Minor. 
Having thus, as he tells us, given an account of the Apostles and of the sacred 
writings, genuine, disputed, or spurious, Eusebius proceeds to the subsequent history 
(tnl TT\V TUV e i?s Trpo tia^ev Iffroplav) ; and accordingly he commences this narrative of 
the persecutions under Trajan. 

They are followed immediately by brief notices of the succession of Euarestus 
to Clement at Rome in the third year of Trajan (c. 34), and of Judas Justus to 
Symeon at Jerusalem, no date being given for this latter event (c. 35). Upon this 
notice follows the account of Ignatius and his writings (c. 36), which will be quoted 
in a later chapter of this introduction. 

The chronological inferences drawn from the sequence of these notices in Eusebius 
are considered in their proper place (n. p. 446 sq.). 



JOANNES MALALAS Chronographia XL p. 269 sq. (ed. Bonn.). 

ETTI Se r?s /SacrtXeia? TOV CLVTOV Tpa iavov Stwy/xos 
yj&gt;i&lt;TTicLV(i)v eyevero /cat TroXXot eTLjJLMpTJdrjcrav. ev 

e7rio"7Y&gt;a,Tev(ra&lt;? aV/yX^e TToXefJLOjv perd Swa^ecd 
Kara Po^ajaas e* yeVovs HdpOaiv ySaa-tXevs rLepcrwi/, d 
dSeX&lt;os OcrSpoou /3curtXews Ap/xe^tcov ......... /cat ravrct 5 

a/coucras d ^etdraros Tpata^d? fiacriXevs ev#ea&gt;5 eTrecrrpa- 
revcrt rw L{ eret T^5 /SacrtXetas CLVTOV, e^eXOwv KOJT avrotv 
l OKTO)/3pia&gt; TO&gt; /cat vTrepfiepeTaLO) dno PcJ/x^s ......... /cat 

eV SeXeu/cta r^5 Sv/Dtas prjvl aTreXXatw rw /cat 

10 



/cat KctTrj\0ev 6 aurds j3a(TL\evs Tpa iavos duo 
/cat elo"r)\0ev iv Avrto^eta r-^s 2ty&gt;ta9 Sta r^ 
Xeyo/xeVrys, rovrecrrt r^g Aa^v^rt/c^?, &lt;f&gt;opcov Iv Ty avrov 
K&lt;f&gt;a\f) crTe^avov aVd eXato/cXaSajt , //.7y^t avSrjvaia) T(O /cat 
lavovapiu e^So^r) -j^epa e , dopa njfjiepLvf) S . 15 



Here and below (p. 63, X^wi differing from the correct form only 
1. 22) the MS has dirpL\\eui. This may be by itacisms. 
explained by an intermediate word diraiX- 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 63 

Ez&gt; TW Se SiCLTpifieiv TOP avrov Tpa iavov f3ao~i\ea iv 
r7S Guptas /3ovXeuo/x,ez&gt;oz/ ret irepl TOV 7roXe)aou 
auroV Tt/3eptaz/os, T^ye/xajv TOV irputrov IlaXatcr- 
, ravra* 

5 AyTOKpATOpI NIKHTH KAKApl 9eiOTAT(p TpA l ANO). ATT6KA- 

MON TIMOOpOYMGNOC KAI &lt;{)ONeYOON TOyC fAAlAAIOYC TOYC TOY 
AOfMATOC TO)N AefOMENOON )(p I CTIA N WN KATA TA Y^GTepA 

Gecni cwATA KAI of TTAY ONTAI CAYTOYC MMNYONTEC eic TO 

ANAIpe?C0AI. O0N eKOHl ACA TOyTOIC TTApAINOCJN KAI A 
IOMH TOAMAN AyTOYC MHNY6IN MOI YTTApXONTAC GK TOY 
MENOY AOTMATOC KAI ATTOAlO) KOM N 01 OY TTAYONTAI. 
MOI OYN KATA2lO)CAT6 TA HAplCTAMGNA TO) YMeTepOi KpATEl 
TpOTTAlO YX^P- 

/cat e/ceXeucrev aurw o auro? Tpaiavos TravcracrdaL TOV 

15 TOU9 \pUTTiaVOVS OjLOOtO)? Se KOL TOt TraVTO)(OV 

TOVTO e/ceXeucrev, /XT) &lt;f&gt;ovveLv TOV XOLTTOV TOV&lt;S Xeyo/xeVou? 
XpLcrTiavovs /cat eyeVero evSocrts /At/cpa rots xpio~Tiavols. 
/cat e^rjWev diro Avrto^eta? r^s /MeyaX^? 77oXe/xoi/ /cara 



o avro? 



20 Evrt Se r^g /8ao~tXeta9 rou avrov ^etorarou Tpatai/ov 
A^rto^eta T^ /xeyaX^ 17 TT/JOS Aa^&gt;^^ ro TptTov 
aces /x^vt ctTreXXatw ra /cat Se/ce/x^8y3taj ty , T^[Jipa 
a, /aera aXeKTpvova, erov? ^pry/xart^ovros /oS" /cara rows 
avrovs Ai/rto^ets, /xera Se ^ er^ r^9 Trapoucrtas rov ^eto- 
25 rarov /3acrt Xea)s Tpcueurov r^s e?rt 



o oe avro? /SacrtXev? Tpatavos e^ r^ avr^ TroXet 
ore T) deo^via eyeVero. e/xapru prjo-ev Se evrt aurov rore 
o ayto? lymrto? o eVtV/coTro? r^9 TroXeco? 
yap /car avroO, ort e XotSopet auYoi&gt;. 



3. Tt/Sepiaj/os] Reasons for condemn- -fiw/. II. p. 578. 
ing this document as spurious are given 21. TT/XJS] The MS has nyxJ. 

below, II. p. 438. See also Dodwell Z?z j- 27. eVi ai)roC rare] See below, II. p. 

j*r/. Cyprian, xi. 23, 24, Tillemont 442 sq. 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



Se TOTC /cat Trei/re 6v6{JLO.Ta ^pLcrTLavcov yvvaiKtov 
Xicra-uv /cat ei]Tacri&gt; avrds Xeywi/, Tt9 eo-Ttv 77 eX7Tt9 

v &lt;/ S 1 v &gt; /3 c o \ 

oTt ovTa&gt;9 e/cotooT eavTa9 et9 uavaTov ; at oe ai 
Xeyovo~at OTt &lt;l ) o^evojaeVa9 ?7/ua9 Trap VJJLCOV aVtcrracr^at 
?7tia9 TraXtv 019 e)(Ofjiv crcofian et9 atwvtav t/^r^v. /cat 5 
e/ceXevcrev avTct9 7rvpt/cavcrTov9 ytvecrOai /cat ToV 

OO"TCe&gt;V aVTWV (TVVfJLle ^ttX/CW /Cat eTTOt^O e TOt 

et9 o eVoi/ryo-e S^/xoo-tov ^aX/cta TOU 0epfj.ov. /cat OTC ij/ 

)(TLOV, et Tt9 eav eXoveTO et9 avTo TO 817^0- 
, ecr/coTOUTO Kat eirnrrev /cat e^p^eTO /Sao"Tay/xw. /cat 10 
wv d )8ao-tXeu9 Tpat a^o9 TOVTO iJXXa^e TO, avTa ^aX/cta 
/cat liroLifjcrev aXXa a?ro KaOapov ^aX/cov, Xeywv OTt Ov /caXft&gt;9 
^oui&gt; crw/aaTW^ (rv^L^a.^ auTot9 /cat /cotvwcra9 TO- 
ta uSaTa. Tavra Se eXeyet , eTretSi} ot \pLCTTLavol fwre ^t- 
^ovj- TOt9 "EXX^crt /cav^6J/xvot. TO. Se irp^ra ^aX/cta dva)(a)vev- 15 
cra9 eTTOtT^cre o"T/Xa9 ^aX/ca9 TreVre Tat9 at5Tat9 ywat^t, Xeycov 
OTt iSov eyai avTa-9 dvecrrrja a Ka6a)&lt;&gt; eiTrov, /cat ou^t o* #609 
o"TT^Xat et9 avTO TO S^/xocrtov \ovrpov 
dpri- TTOir)cre Se /cat /ca/xtvoi&gt; Trvpos, /cat 
e/ceXeuo"e TOU9 y8ouXo/xeVov9 ^pto"Ttai^ov9 paXXetv eauTov9 20 
e^ 7T/3o^eo~et. /cat TroXXot e/3aXXov eauTov9 /cat e/i&lt; 
e/xaoTup^cre Se TOTC T) ayta Apocrivr) /cat aXXat TTC 
TroXXat. 

4. dvlffTaffOai ^/uas] sc. A?r(s ^O P TI ) if Chilmead conjectures UTiift^, i.e. were 

the text be correct ; but the repetition of somewhat sour (comp. Athen. III. p. 

ijyuas excites suspicion of some corruption. 1140), but this could hardly stand. 

12. Oi5 AcaXws] So the MS, but the 15. ayaxwetfo as] So the MS, but the 

negative is omitted in the printed text. printed texts have woxti^ay. 

14. V7r^ifo ] An unintelligible word. 

This work is only known to exist in one MS (Zto//. Baroec. 182). My thanks are 
due to Mr F. Madan, of Brasenose College, Sub-librarian of the Bodleian, for a colla 
tion of these extracts with the MS itself (fol. 166 a sq.). I have thus been enabled to 
correct one or two important errors in the printed editions. Mere varieties of spelling 
and accentuation I have not thought fit to record. 

On the date of this writer, on his blunders generally, and on his account of 
Trajan s doings in Antioch more especially, see below, II. pp. 407, 411, 435 sq., 
in which last passage his statement that Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Antioch is 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 65 

fully discussed. Just so much of the context is given here as will enable the reader 
to trace the chronological connexion. 

For the parallel account of John Madabbar, Bishop of Nikiou, see below, n. 
p. 444. 

5- 

CHRONICON PASCHALE p. 470 sq. (ed. Bonn.). 
li&gt;S. a. . VTT. ^vpiavov TO /3 /cat Map/ceXXov. 



TovTO)v TMV VTTOLTCOV Story/ud? yjpKniuviiv eyeVero, 
/cat TroXXoi ez Sd^a)? efJLaprvpr)&lt;Tav Sta rrfv et? Xptcrrdz 
d/AoXoytai . 

5 Em rwv TrpoKeifJievwv inrdruv &lt;^ao"t roi ayiov *Ia)dvmr)v 
yevonevov TO)v p Kal ^vuv ^ KOLfJLfj0rjvat,. 

Ev rovTO) T&lt; xpova) KXrjfjLrjs 6 

reXevra. /caret rov auroV ^povov /cat 

o eVt/cXiy^etg lovSa? la/cwySov, o yevo/xe^o? eVtcr/coTros /u,era 

10 Ia/cajy8ov rot a8eX&lt;^ov rov KvpCov, ^cra? en; p/c , ea-ravpcodr}. 

E?rt rovrov rov TpOMtvov /cat Maya/co? d evayyeXicm}s 

/cat eVto-KOTTO? AXe^ai/Speta? yevo^evo^, KoXuv \afta&gt;v /cat 

crvpet? am) rwv /caXov/xeVaj^ ra Bov/coXtcuv eco? rwi \eyo^4voiv 

AyyeXcoi , e/ceto-e Trvpl /care/cav^ &lt;j)ap[JLOvdl Trp^ry, /cat 

15 OVTWS epaprvprjo-ev. 

Kr)pvas TO euayyeXto^ rou Kv/otov 
XpLorrov ev FaXXtat? eTTt Nepwvos 



/cat e/cetcre 



cr/ca OXv/otTrtas. 
20 ivS. yS . 77". VTT. Kai StSov /cat KouaS/actTOu. 

lyxuapov /cara -^picmaLva)v 8ta&gt;y/&gt;t 
o TOU KXewTra TT;S ev leyoocroXv/aots e/c/cX^o-ta? CTTtcr/coTro? 
yevd/xe^o? e^aprvpiqcr^v, yevopevos GTOJV pK, 7rt Arrt/cov 
vnaTLKOv 8ta/3Xi7^et9 VTTO TOJI^ r^5 /xotpa? KrjpivOov /cat rwt 
25 Xeyo/AeWz/ Nt/coXal rcu^, wg ou [JLOVOV ^oio-rtavo?, aXXd /cat 
a&gt;s aVo rwi/ rov yeVov? AavetS virdpyuv, 09 eVt TrXetVras 

at/ao~#et5, /cat aurot rov St/cacrr^v /cat rovs 
IG. I. 5 



66 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



CLVTOV ra /leytcrra fcaraTrAiy a?, rw rou crTavpov Trei 
7rapair\r)(rioi&gt; rov Kvpiov reXo? aTrrjveyKaro. o^ouo? Se /cat 
Avno^ewv evrur/coTros 



The two years here intended are : 

A.D. 104, Sex. Attius Suburanus II. 

M. Asinius Marcellus. 

A.D. 105, Ti. Julius Candidus Marius Celsus II. 
C. Antius A. Julius Quadratus II. 

For the Consuls of the first of these two years see the note on Mart. Ign. Rom. i 
(II. p. 493). 

On this writer s reckoning by Indictions see Smith s Diet, of Christ. Antiq. s. v. 
Indiction (i. p. 833). 

The compiler of the Chronicon Paschale probably lived in the reign of Heraclius, 
not long after the year 630, with which the history terminates (see Smith s Diet. 
of Christ. Biog. I. p. 510 s. v. Chronicon Paschale ). He derives his information 
from different sources. Here he has given two different accounts of the martyrdom 
of Symeon the second bishop of Jerusalem under two successive years. Under the 
first he has identified him with Simon Cananites, and then with Judas Jacobi 
in S. Luke s list of the twelve Apostles, probably remembering that the lists of 
S. Matthew and S. Mark substituted some other name for Judas Jacobi, but blunder 
ingly forgetting that this name was Lebbaus or Thaddceus, and substituting Simon 
the Canansean. The latter of the two accounts is evidently taken from Eusebius, 
but the compiler has ventured to describe the heretical antagonists of Symeon as 
Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, and has gone wrong in doing so (see above, p. 58). 
The explanation of his error is not difficult. Eusebius has mentioned the Cerinthians 
and Nicolaitans in the preceding chapters (H. E. iii. 28, 29), and the compiler, 
seeing the words dirb TOVTUV T&V alperucuv, supposes them to refer to the heretics 
who were mentioned by Eusebius. He forgets that these are the words not of 
Eusebius himself, but of Hegesippus whom he quotes. Generally it may be said 
that our chronicler has taken the sequence of events from Eusebius, inserting how 
ever notices from other sources. 

On the chronology of Ignatius martyrdom, as here given, see below, II. pp. 
408, 446. 



6. 

ACTS OF SHARBIL p. 41 sq., Cureton s Ancient Syriac Documents. 

!N the fifteenth year of the Autocrat Trajan Caesar, and in the 
third year of the reign of King Abgar the vnth, which is the year 416 
of the Kingdom of Alexander, King of the Greeks, and during the high- 
priesthood of Sharbil and of Barsamya, Trajan Caesar gave command to 
the governors of the countries of his dominions, that sacrifices and 
libations should be increased in all the cities of their administration, 
and that those who did not sacrifice should be arrested and be delivered 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 67 

over to stripes and lacerations and to bitter inflictions of all kinds of 
tortures, and should afterwards receive the sentence of death by the 
sword. And when this edict arrived at the city of Edessa of the Par- 
thians, it was the great festival on the 8th of Nisan, on the third day of 
the week. 

[Sharbil is the chief priest of the heathen gods; Barsamya is the 
Christian bishop. The Acts go on to relate how Sharbil was converted 
by Barsamya and arraigned in consequence before the judge Lysanias. 
He confesses himself a Christian. He is in consequence subjected to 
the most excruciating tortures. He is scourged with thongs; is hung 
up and torn on his sides and face with combs; is bent backward and 
bound hand and foot with straps and scourged on the belly while in 
this position; is hung up by his right arm until it is dislocated; is burnt 
with fire between his eyes and on the cheeks until the stench of the 
cautery rose in smoke ; is hung up, and torn with combs on his former 
wounds, salt and vinegar being rubbed in; is burnt again with lighted 
candles passed about his face and the sides of his wounds ; has nails 
of iron driven in between his eyes; is hung head downward and beaten 
with whips; is thrown into an iron chest and scourged with thongs 
until there remained not a sound place in him ; has pieces of wood 
placed between his fingers and pressed till the blood spurts out; with 
several other tortures of a like kind. Between each torture there is an 
altercation between him and the judge. At length sentence is given 
that he be sawn with a saw of wood, and when he is near to die, then 
his head be taken off with the sword of the slayers. Accordingly he 
is executed with every aggravation of cruelty. His sister Babai catches 
up his blood. She is seized by the executioners and dies in their hands. 
The bodies are stolen by the brethren and buried on the fifth of Ilul 
and on the sixth day of the week. The document then proceeds as 
follows ;] 

I wrote these Acts on paper, I Marinus and Anatolus, the notaries; 
and we placed them in the archives of the city, where the charters of 
the kings are placed. 

But this Barsamya the bishop converted Sharbil the high-priest. 
But he lived in the days of Fabianus [v. 1. Binus] bishop of Rome, etc. 

ACTS OF BARSAMYA p. 63 sq. 

In the year 416 of the Kingdom of the Greeks, which is the fifteenth 
year of the reign of the Autocrat, our Lord Trajan Caesar, in the Con 
sulship of Commodus and Cyrillus, in the month Ilul, on the fifth day of 

52 



68 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the same, the day after Lysinas the judge of the country had heard 
Sharbil the high-priest [Barsamya is accused of perverting Sharbil and 
is ordered to be tortured]. 

And at that moment letters came to him from Alusis [Lusius] the 
chief proconsul, father of emperors. And he gave command, and they 
took down Barsamya, and he was not torn with combs, and they took 
him outside the judgment hall ... 

And it was found that the emperors had written by the hands of 
the proconsuls to the judges of the countries ; 

Since our Majesty gave orders that there should be a persecution 
against the Christians, we have heard and learned from our Sharirs 
which we have in the countries of the dominion of our Majesty, that the 
people of the Christians are men who avoid murder and sorcery and 
adultery and theft and bribery and fraud, and those things for which even 
the laws of our Majesty require punishment from such as do them; we 
therefore by the justice of our Rectitude have given command that on account of 
these things the persecution of the sword should cease from them, and that 
there shall be rest and quietness in all our dominions, they continuing to 
minister according to their custom, and that no man should hinder them. 
But it is not that we show affection towards them, but towards their laws 
which agree with the laws of our Majesty ; and, if any man hinder them 
after this our decree, that sword which is ordered by us to pass upon those 
who neglect our decree, the same have we ordered to pass upon those 
who slight this decree of our Clemency? 

[Accordingly Barsamya is released; and Lysinas is dismissed from 
his office.] 

But I Zenophilus and Patrophilus are the notaries who wrote these 
things, Diodorus and Euterpes, Sharirs of the city, bearing witness with 
us by setting to their hand, as the ancient laws of the ancient kings 
prescribe. 

But this Barsamya, the bishop of Edessa, who converted Sharbil 
the high-priest of the same city, lived in the days of Fabianus the 
bishop of the city of Rome. And the hand of priesthood was received 
by this same Barsamya from Abshelama who was bishop in Edessa; and 
Abshelama, the hand was received by him from Palut the former; and 
Palut, the hand was received by him from Serapion bishop of Antioch ; 
and Serapion, the hand was received by him from Zephyrinus bishop of 
Rome; and Zephyrinus of Rome received the hand from Victor, etc. 

[So the succession of the bishops of Rome is traced back to our 
Lord through Simon Peter.] 



PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 69 

The Acts of Sharbil and of Barsamya were first published in Cureton s posthu 
mous work, Ancient Syriac Documents (London 1864), where also they are trans 
lated. From his translation the above extracts are taken. Cureton used two MSS, 
Brit. Mus. Add. 14,644, and Brit. Mus. Add. 14,645, the former written in an Edessene 
hand of the vth or vith century, the latter dated A.G. 1247 ( = A.D. 936); see 
Wright s Catal. of Syr. MSS pp. 1083, mi. A Latin translation of them was given 
by Moesinger, Ada SS. Martyrum Edessenorum (Oenoponti 1874), where also 
he adds a Latin version of the Armenian Acts published by Aucher. The Armenian 
Acts appear to be merely a free abridgment from the Syriac. 

It seems unnecessary to attempt a serious refutation of their authenticity. 
They carry their own condemnation on their face, as will have appeared from the 
extracts and abstracts given above. The gross exaggerations, the flagrant ana 
chronisms, and the inexplicable historical situations, all combine to denounce them 
as a crude forgery. The wholesale cruelty of the first edict, and the wholesale 
protection of the second, are alike alien to the age and temper of Trajan. Never 
theless Moesinger argues at length in favour of their genuineness, and even Cureton 
comments on them as if they were trustworthy history. The latter even goes so 
far as to say (p. 186) that we have here probably the most authentic copy of the 
edict of Trajan, respecting the stopping of the persecution of the Christians. In 
these Acts, he proceeds, we have, as it would appear, the words of the edict 
itself, as they were taken down by the notaries at the time. If this were so, 
the history of the early persecutions would have to be rewritten. What Christian 
father ever heard of this edict, not of toleration, but of protection ? Constantine 
himself did not go so far in this respect, as Trajan is here represented to have gone. 
The spuriousness of this edict is shown by F. Gbrres Kaiser Trajan u. die Christliche 
Tradition p. 39 sq. in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. XXI (1877). The whole story 
indeed, like the parallel narrative of Tiberianus in John Malalas, is founded on the 
correspondence of Pliny and Trajan, and is disfigured by the worst exaggerations of a 
debased hagiology. 



2. 



HHHE questions respecting the original form and the genuineness of 
the Ignatian Epistles are so closely entangled with the history of 
the text, that a knowledge of the manuscripts and versions becomes a 
necessary preliminary to the consideration of this more important 
point. I shall therefore reverse the usual order and commence with a 
full account of the documents on which the text is founded. 

Of those Ignatian Epistles with which alone we are here concerned, 
three different forms or recensions exist. The first of these con 
tains three epistles alone ; to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the 
Romans. It is extant only in a Syriac version. The second presents 
these three epistles in a fuller form, and adds to them four others, to 
the Smyrnseans, Magnesians, Philadelphians, and Trallians. Besides the 
original Greek, this form is found in Latin, Armenian, Syriac, and 
Coptic translations, though in the last two languages only fragments 
remain. The third of these recensions contains the seven epistles 
already mentioned in a still longer form, together with six others, a letter 
from one Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius, and letters from Ignatius to 
Mary of Cassobola, to the Tarsians, to the Antiochenes, to Hero, and to 
the Philippians. This recension is extant in the Greek and in a Latin 
translation. These six additional letters, it is true, have been attached 
afterwards to the epistles of the second form also, and have been 
translated with them into the several languages already mentioned ; but 
they are obviously of a much later origin, as will be shown hereafter, 
and seem to have emanated from the author of the third recension. As 
some definite nomenclature is convenient, I shall call these three forms 
of the Ignatian Epistles the Short, Middle, and Long forms or recen 
sions respectively. It has been customary hitherto to speak of the two 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 71 

latter as the Short and Long recensions; but the publication of the 
Syriac Version of the three epistles in a still shorter form by Cureton 
some years ago (1845) has antiquated this mode of distinction, which 
should accordingly be abandoned. It will be remembered therefore 
that, when I speak of the Greek or Latin of the Middle or Long form, 
the terms correspond to what editors have hitherto called the Short or 
Long Greek or Latin respectively. 

Thus it appears that of the twelve Ignatian Epistles (excluding the 
Epistle of Mary to Ignatius), three (Polycarp, Ephesians, Romans) occur 
in three different forms ; four (Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, Philadelphians, 
Trallians) in two forms; and the remaining five (Mary, Tarsians, 
Antiochenes, Hero, Philippians) in one form only. 

Besides these twelve epistles, others bearing the pame of Ignatius 
are extant entire or in fragments, in Latin, ^thiopic, or Arabic ; and 
I shall have occasion to refer to them hereafter. But, as they are quite 
distinct from the twelve and have no bearing on the textual or historical 
criticism with which we are immediately concerned, they may be dis 
missed for the present. 

Of the three forms thus enumerated, the Long recension is now 
universally condemned as spurious. The dispute of late years has lain 
between the remaining two. For reasons which will be stated here 
after, the Middle form has the highest claim to consideration as 
exhibiting the original text of Ignatius. But at present the decision 
must not be anticipated. 

In describing the several authorities for the text, a somewhat new 
notation is here adopted, which, I venture to hope, will commend itself 
by its simplicity 1 . The Greek character (2) is restricted to the Short 
form ; the Roman capitals (G, L, C, A, S) represent the Middle, and 
the Roman small letters (g, 1) the Long form. The letters themselves 
describe the language of the authority. Thus the Syriac Version of the 
Short form is denoted by 2, and of the Middle by S ; the Greek of the 
Middle by G, and of the Long by g. Where any of these authorities is 
represented by more than one MS presenting different readings, the MSS 
are discriminated by a figure below the line to the right of the letters : 
e.g. 3 U Sj, 2 3 ; L u L 2 ; g t , g w g,, g 4 ; etc. 

1 Zahn s notation is a great improve- apparatus criticus constructed long before 

ment on any which preceded it, and for his edition appeared. It would therefore 

the sake of uniformity I might perhaps have been very inconvenient to go back 

have contented myself with it ; but my from my own system of notation, even if 

own introduction was written and my it had not seemed preferable in itself. 



72 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



i. 

SHORT FORM. 

This is represented only by a SYRIAC VERSION [2], which was 
published for the first time by Cureton in 1845 from MSS recently 
brought from the Nitrian desert and deposited in the British Museum. 
In his later volume, the Corpus Ignatianum (London 1849), he reprinted 
the Syriac Epistles with copious notes and dissertations ; and from the 
description which he there gives (p. xxviii sq.), together with Wright s 
Catalogue of Syriac MSS in the British Museum since published 
(1870 1872), the following account of the MSS is derived. 

1. British Museum Add. 12175 [^i] &gt; see Wright s Catalogue 
p. 657 sq. On the last leaves of this MS (fol. 79 b) is written, The 
Epistle of my lord Ignatius the bishop, i.e. the Epistle to Polycarp. 
From certain indications we may safely conclude, says Cureton, that 
this copy was transcribed in the first half of the sixth century, or before 
A.D. 550. Wright suggests that it was written by the same hand as 
no. dccxxvii, in which case its date is A.D. 534. It belonged to the 
convent of S. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Scete, and was obtained 
for the British Museum by Tattam in 1839. 

2. British Museum Add. 14618 [2 2 ] ; see Wright s Catalogue 
p. 736 sq. Among other treatises this MS contains (fol. 6 b sq.) Three 
Epistles of Ignatius bishop and martyr in this order, i The Epistle of 
Ignatius [to Polycarp]. 2 Of the same the Second, to the Ephesians. 
3 The Third Epistle of the same Saint Ignatius [to the Romans]. 
At. the end is written Here end (the) three Epistles of Ignatius bishop 
and martyr. The date of the MS, says Cureton, appears to me to be 
certainly not later than the seventh or eighth century, and the same 
date is ascribed to it by Wright. It was brought from Egypt by 
Tattam in 1842. 

3. British Museum Add. 17192 [2 3 ] ; see Wright s Catalogue 
p. 778 sq. This MS also contains among other treatises the three 
Epistles of Ignatius (fol. 72 a sq.) in the same order as before, i The 
Epistle of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch [the Epistle to Polycarp]. 
At the end is written, Here endeth the First. 2 The Second Epistle, 
to the Ephesians ; at the close, Here endeth the Second Epistle. 
3 The Third Epistle ; at the close, Here endeth the Third. They 
are followed by two anonymous letters, which however Cureton has 
identified as the writings of John the Monk ; and at the end of these is 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 73 

added Here endeth (what is) of Ignatius. This MS has no date, but 
belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in A.D. 931 for 
the monastery of S. Mary Deipara,. and was written apparently 
about three or four centuries earlier. Wright however ascribes it to the 
gth century. It was procured for the British Museum by M. Pacho in 
1847, a f ter Cureton had published his first edition. 

These MSS, which I have designated Si, 2 2 , ^3, appear in Cureton s 
notation as a, (3, y, respectively. The text of this version is edited 
below (n. p. 657 sq.) by Prof. W. Wright, who has collated the three 
MSS anew and given their various readings. A translation is also ap 
pended, p. 670 sq. 



2. 

MIDDLE FORM. 

The LATIN VERSION of this recension was published first by Ussher 
(Poly carpi el Ignatii Epistolae etc., Oxon. 1644) from two MSS dis 
covered in England ; the original GREEK two years later by Isaac Voss 
(Epistolae Genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris, Amstelod. 1646) from a Medi- 
cean MS, with the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, which was 
published afterwards by Ruinart (Ada Martyrum Siticera, Paris 1689) 
from a Colbert MS. The ARMENIAN VERSION was first printed at Con 
stantinople in 1783. The fragments of the SYRIAC VERSION are included 
in Cureton s Corpus Ignatianum (p. 197 sq.), though Cureton himself 
failed to perceive that they were taken (as I shall show presently) from 
a complete version in this language, and supposed that the collections 
of extracts in which they occur were translated immediately from the 
Greek. The important fragment from the COPTO-THEBAIC VERSION of 
these epistles appears in the present edition for the first time. 

(i) GREEK [G]. 

i. Laur. PI. Ivii. Cod. 7 (described in Bandini s Catal. MSS. Grace. 
Bibl. Laurent n. p. 345 sq.), the famous Medicean MS at Florence, from 
which Voss published the editio princeps of this recension. The Ignatian 
Epistles occupy from fol. 242. a 252 b. They commence rof AP OY 
ITNATIOY enicio. CMYPNAI OIC. The epistles contained here are (i) Smyr- 
naeans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephesians, (4) Magnesians, (5) Philadelphians, 
(6) Trallians, (7) Mary to Ignatius, (8) Ignatius to Mary, (9) Tarsians 
(a fragment). They are numbered A, B, r, etc., in the margin prima 



74 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

manu. The Epistle to the Tarsians breaks off abruptly in the middle 
of a word, ai/cTrio-rctroi yap etcriv TOV KI- ( 7) . These words form the 
last line of fol. 252 b, which leaf is also the end of a quaternion. Thus 
it is plain that the imperfection of the MS was caused by the loss of 
some sheets 2 . It was doubtless originally complete and contained all 
the thirteen epistles, the Epistle to the Romans probably being em 
bedded in the Martyrology, as is the case in the Latin version and in 
Colbert. 460. This MS has been collated more or less imperfectly from 
time to time since the appearance of Voss s edition, and recently with 
greater care by Jacobson. Still more recently Dressel himself and his 
friends for him inspected it again in the principal places with scru 
pulous care (p. Ixii). I myself also have collated it throughout the 
six genuine epistles for this edition, and have found a few not very 
serious omissions in previous collations. This MS is ascribed to the 
eleventh century. It contains no iotas either subscript or (with one or 
two exceptions, e. g. Trail, inscr. TWI TrX^pw^aTt) adscript. 

Casanatensis G. v. 14, in the Library of the Minerva at Rome; first 
collated by Dressel for his edition (1857). The volume (it is a paper 
MS) contains several tracts written by different hands, at different dates, 
and on different sized paper, bound up loosely together. The Ignatian 
Epistles may have been written in the i5th century. In a later part of 
the volume the Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas are found ; but they 
have no connexion in handwriting or otherwise with the Ignatian 
Epistles, and owe their proximity to the accident of binding. Dressel at 
first supposed rightly that this MS was copied from the Medicean; but 
he afterwards changed his opinion, because ex comparatione amborum 
MSS accuratius inter se instituta apparet notabilior lectionum discre- 
pantia, adding Credibile tamen est utrumque codicem ex eodem 
vetustissimo archetypo, per ambages quidem, emanasse (p. Ixi). I 
think that few who compare Dressel s own collations will agree in this 
opinion. The differences are very trifling, being chiefly blunders or 
corrections of the most obvious kind, such as the alteration of itacisms, 
the interchange of e and at, and the like. The most important diver 
gence that I have observed is the reading oVou //,/ for oVou Sc in 
Philad. 2. The headings of the epistles also are copied from the Medi- 
cean MS, but this is not always intelligently done ; e.g. the transcriber 

1 The language of Dressel (p. 262) on Aya06irovs,Tars. 10, he writes (Appen- 

leaves the impression that this MS reads dix p. 103) desideratur hoc nomen in 

aveiriaraToi yap efol TOV vov TOV KI- with Graeco Mediceo. The end of the epistle 

others. This is not the case. is altogether wanting in this MS. 

- Ussheris misled and misleading, when 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 75 

has misread the contraction ITTIO-TO. (for cTrioroXwv) at the head of the 
first letter and gives TOV ayiou lyvariou CTTLO-KOTTOV oyxvpvaiois. In the 
margin of Polyc. 6 the transcriber himself copies the gloss apyos (for 
Seo-eprwp) from the Medicean MS. Otherwise the marginal notes are in 
a much later (i7th cent. ?) hand, and on Magn. 8 OVK O.TTO 0-17175 TrpoeX- 
0wv there is a reference to a printed copy of the Long recension, cv 
avnypa&lt;o) TTU7rw//eva&gt; os eoriv avrou Xdyos ov pr;ros K.T.X. But in fact 
the appearance of the two MSS shows plainly that the one is a copy of 
the other mediately or immediately, and I can hardly understand how 
any one who has inspected both can entertain a different opinion. Both 
end in the middle of the same word, but with this difference. In the 
Medicean, the words avtma-raToi yap eio-iv TOV KL- close the final line of 
the final sheet of the MS, pointing obviously to the fact that the 
conclusion of the MS has been lost ; whereas in the Casanatensian they 
occur in the middle of a line in the middle of a page, followed by 
several blank leaves, showing not less plainly that the MS from which 
it was copied ended abruptly. The extreme improbability that two 
distinct MSS, each by a several accident, should have ended in the 
middle of the same word, is so great, that we are forced to the conclu 
sion that the Casanatensian is a lineal descendant, perhaps an imme 
diate copy, of the Medicean. Dressel s attempt to overcome these 
speaking facts is wholly unintelligible to me. Being a mere transcript 
therefore, this MS has no independent value, and in consequence I have 
not recorded its readings. 

Barber. 7 and Barber. 501 (in the Barberini Library at Rome) also 
contain the Ignatian Epistles transcribed wholly or in part from the 
Medicean MS by Lucas Holstenius. The first also gives the Epistles 
of Polycarp and Barnabas, and will demand attention hereafter, but 
neither has any independent value for the Ignatian letters. 

2. Paris. Graec. 1451 (formerly Colbert. 460), in the National 
Library at Paris. On fol. 109 a begins MAprypiON TOY AP OV (sic) iepo- 
M^pTYpoc ifNATioY TOY Oeo^opOY- "Apn SiaSea;u,j ou K.r.X. These 
Acts of Martyrdom are printed in the present work (p. 473 sq.). They 
incorporate the Epistle to the Romans, and were first published by 
Ruinart (see above). The Epistle to the Romans begins on fol. ma. 
The commencement of the epistle is not marked by any title, illumi 
nation, or even capital letter, but the writing is continuous... vTroTf.Ta.Krai. 
( yvcmos d KCU 0eo&lt;opo? K.r.X. The epistle ends ... w X v a M- KarapTicra&lt;; 
TOLVVV K.T.X. This MS may be ascribed to the xoth century, the date 
assigned to it in the printed Catalogue. It is written clearly and in 



7 6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

double columns, has uncial characters occasionally intermixed with 
the cursives, even in the middle of a word, and is without iotas 
subscript, but has breathings and accents (which however are very 
frequently wrong). This MS was collated again by Jacobson, and I 
myself have recollated it. 

3. Paris. Grace. 950, a paper MS of perhaps the i5th century, 
contains (fol. 165 sq.) an extract from the Epistle to the Ephesians, 18 
d yap eos ^//.aJi/... 19 &O.VO.TOV /caraXvo-iv. I have collated it anew. 

As Laur. Ivii. 7 and Paris. Graec. 1451 supplement each other, the 
latter supplying the Epistle to the Romans which is wanting in the 
former, so that they do not clash, I have used the same letter G to 
designate both. The fragment in Paris. Graec. 950 I have called G . 

(ii) LATIN. 

The history of this version is especially interesting to Englishmen. 
Ussher observed that the quotations from S. Ignatius in three English 
writers, Robert (Grosseteste) of Lincoln (c. A.D. 1250), John Tyssington 
(c. A.D. 1381), and William Wodeford (c. A.D. 1396), while they differed 
considerably from the text of this father as hitherto known (the Greek 
and Latin of the Long recension), agreed exactly with the quotations in 
Eusebius and Theodoret (Polyc. et Ign. Epist. p. xv). He therefore 
concluded that the libraries of England must somewhere contain MSS of 
a version corresponding to this earlier text of Ignatius, and searched 
accordingly. His acuteness and diligence were rewarded by the dis 
covery of the two MSS, which, will be noticed below. When at length 
he saw this Latin version, he expressed a suspicion that Grosseteste 
was himself the translator. He noticed that Grosseteste s quotations 
were taken from this version. He found moreover in one of the two 
MSS several marginal notes, in which the words of the translation were 
compared with the original Greek , and which therefore seemed to come 
from the translator himself. One of these marginal notes however (on 
Polyc. 3) betrayed the nationality of their author ; Incus est instrumen- 
tum fabri ; dicitur Anglice anfeld [anvil]. But if the translator were an 
Englishman, no one could be named so likely as Robert Grosseteste 
(p. cxlii). Ussher s suggestion has been worked out by Churton, the 
learned editor of Pearson (Vind. Ign. p. 109), who has shown that this 
view of the authorship is in the highest degree probable. The Ignatian 
Epistles are not quoted (except at secondhand from Ruffinus or Jerome 
by Gildas and Bede) by any English writer before the time of Grosse- 

1 See below p. 83. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 



77 



teste, or included in any patristic lists. Grosseteste himself was one of 
the very few Greek scholars of his age. Among his followers were 
John of Basingstoke, archdeacon of Leicester, who studied at Athens, 
and Nicolas, a prebendary of Lincoln, who was himself a Greek. The 
former of these brought back with him from Athens a number of Greek 
Mss 1 ; the latter is known to have assisted the bishop in translating the 
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs*. Among other Greek works of 
which the bishop caused a Latin version to be made, were the writings 
of the supposed Dionysius the Areopagite 3 ; and, as these writings are 
found frequently in MSS bound up with the Ignatian Epistles, it 
seems not improbable that the latter were imported from Greece in 
the same or a companion volume, and translated by these or other 
Greek scholars under Grosseteste s direction. It may further be 
observed, as strengthening this circumstantial evidence, that Grosseteste 
left his books to the convent of the Franciscan Order at Oxford 4 , and 
that John Tyssington and William Wodeford, who quote these epistles 
in the latter years of the fourteenth century, belonged to this convent 6 . 
It should be added also, that this version does not appear to be quoted 
except by English writers, or to have been known out of England 6 . 



1 Leland in Tanner Bibl. p. 431 ; see 
Pegge s Life of Grosseteste pp. 15, 67, 345. 

2 Matthew Paris Chron. Maj. s. a. 
1242 (iv. p. 232, ed. Luard) Testamenta 
Duodecim Patriarcharum de Graeco fideli 
interpretatione transtulit in Latinum... 
coadjuvante magistro Nicolao Graeco, cle- 
rico abbatis S. Albani. John of Basing 
stoke informed Grosseteste that he had 
seen the book while studying at Athens ; 
whereupon the bishop sent to Greece 
and procured it : Matthew Paris Chron. 
Maj. s. a. 1252 (v. p. 285). See also 
Pegge s Life pp. 163, 289 sq., 345 sq. 
This version is conveniently accessible in 
Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. I. 
p. 519 sq. 

3 See Pegge 1. c. p. 290. 

4 Pegge p. 230 sq. 

5 For the quotations see Churton in 
Pearson s Vind. Tgn. p. i n (comp. p. 90). 
Tyssington cites Smyrn. 7 (comp. 4), 
Ephes. 20, and Rom. 7. In the first of 
these passages he writes Considerate 
qualiter anthropomorphi, i.e. illi haere- 



tici contrarii sententiae Dei, a commu- 
nione et oratione sanctorum recedunt, 
propter non confiteri eucharistiam etc., 
where he combines an expression in 4 
(TUI&gt; 6-ripiwv TWV dvdpuTro/j.6p&lt;f&gt;uv beasts 
in human form ) with a passage in 7, 
and entirely misapprehends the meaning 
of anthropomorphi. The verbal agree 
ments in Tyssington s quotation leave 
no doubt that he is citing our version, 
and he refers to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians as the third in number, which agrees 
with the order as found here. At the 
same time the differences seem to show 
that he is quoting it from memory. 
Wodeford alludes to the same passages, 
Smyrn. 7 and Rom. 7, but evidently 
takes his quotations directly from Tys 
sington. 

6 Turrianus Defens. Can. Apost. 2 says 
Ignatius in vetere interpretatione Latina 
manuscripta epistolae ad Philadelphenses, 
quae in Vaticano est, non habet quod in 
Graeca epistola nuper in publicum emissa 
legitur de Paulo inter eos qui uxorem 



7 8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

The value of this version for critical purposes consists in its extreme 
literalness. To this end the construction of the Latin is consistently 
sacrificed, as for instance in Philad. 10 ets TO o-vy^ap^vat airots CTTI TO 
avro yevo/j.evoL&lt;s in congaudere ipsis in idipsum factis, Smyrn. 5 TO. i^e- 
Tepo. TWI/ xar avSpa iraOrj/jiaTa nostrae eorum qui secundum virum 
passiones, ib. II eis TO ycvo/xcvov ecus Svptas o-uy^ap^vai avTOis (i.e. that 
he may visit Syria and congratulate them ) in factum usque Syriam 
Congaudere ipsis, Polyc. 6 eav ?rep Sta TOV iraOftv eov eTriTu^co eis TO 
evpeOrjvai cv TTJ dvao-Tao-ei v/xwi /j.aOr]rijv, siquidem per pati Deo potiar in 
inveniri me in resurrectione vestri discipulum, Trail. 12 rfj /ACT d 
Trpoo-evxf) ea quae cum adinvicem oratione, Mar. Ign. 3 &lt;/&gt;opoV 
(i.e. pouring down ) Mationem habentia. Thus also new or unusual 
Latin words are introduced to correspond as exactly as possible to the 
original; e.g. Polyc. 5 ingloriatio (aVavx^aia), Magn. i multibona 
ordinatio (TO TroAueuTctKToi/), ib. 14 superindigeo (eVtSeofiai), Rom. 5 
injustificatio (aSun/fut), Mar. Ign. 5 subrememorans (VTTO/XI/XV^ - 
-//. J/ar. 3 scriptibilis (ypa&lt;iKos), Ant. 3 potestativus 
?), /^. 1 1 amaricatio (Trapo^ucr/uos), etc. And again, par 
ticles are scrupulously reproduced in violation of Latin idiom, such as 
av, which is rendered utique, e.g. Trail, n e^atVovTo av apparerent 
utique, Magn. 1 2 oTav quando utique. Even as regards the order of 
the words it may be treated as an authority; for in this respect also with 
very rare exceptions the Greek is rigidly followed without any regard for 
Latin usage. 

Moreover the MS which the translator used was evidently superior 
to the existing MSS of the Greek (Laur. Ivii. 7 and Paris Grace. 1451). 
Thus it is free from several interpolations in these MSS (mostly found also 
in the Long recension, and frequently quotations from the N. T.) ; 
e.g. Ephes. I TOV inrep 77/AU)i/ eavTOV aveveyKOVTOs 0e&lt;3 7rpoo-(/&gt;opav /cat 6variav, 

ib. 2 KaT77pTlO"/Xl Ot TW dVT(3 VOL K.T.X., ib. 3 Ta "Y a P (3\fTTOfJLVa TTp6(TKa.Lpa. 

K.T.X., ib. 4 KOcrfJLLKov rj yuaTaiov, Rom. 5 avaTo/xat SicupeVet?, tb. 6 TI yctp 
a.v6p&lt;i)iro&lt;; K.T.\., ib. 10 TOUTCOTIV Avyovo-Tou cixaSi TptTjj. Simi- 



habuerunt. Hence Smith infers (^. Ignatius from the Medicean MS, before it 

Epist. praef. ) that Turrianus must allude was published by Voss. 

to a manuscript of our Latin Version Pearson (on Smyrn. 3) strangely con- 

( plane cum nostra eadem esse mihi vide- jectures (p. 13) that our translator was 

tur ). But some MSS of the Latin of older than Jerome and led him into the 

the Long recension omit the name of error of translating olSa by vidi. The 

S. Paul in Philad. 4, and one of these is converse (see Zahn /. v. A. p. 402, note) 

found in the Vatican: see below p. 122, is possible; that the translator was led 

and comp. Ussher p. cxxii sq. Turrianus astray by the well-known passage in Je- 

however quoted the Greek of the genuine rome. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 79 

larly it is free from the omission of Aoyos after cov and the substitu 
tion of Tpe xa&gt;v for &lt;wv&gt;7 in Rom. 2. Again, in several instances it gives 
words and clauses which have dropped out of these MSS through inad 
vertence; e.g. Ephes. i videre festinastis, Trail. 7 qui vero extra 
altare est, non mundus est, Philad. 7 Dei voce, Rom. 6 neque per 
materiam seducatis, Mart. 5 justitiae per tale. Again in many places, 
where the reading is changed or corrupted, it preserves a correct text ; 
e.g. Polyc. i consuetudinem (ofj.oy6ei.av for /?oi70iav), Philad. 5 
imperfectus (aVaTrapTicrros for aVap-TraoTos), Rom. 3 suasionis (TTCIO-- 
/xov^s for criwTTT/s /AO VOV), ib. 6 termini (Trepara for TtpTrva), Mart. 6 
ab impiis (impa TWV a0e&lt;i)v for Trapa TO&gt; vaw). Again, it is free from 
some glosses which disfigure the Greek text; e.g. Magn. 8 secundum 
Judaismum (for KO.TO. VO/JLOV lovSatcr/xov), ib. 9 secundum dominicam 
(for /cara KvpiaKrjv CCOT^), Rom. 6 homo ero (for aV#pu7ros ou 2croju.ai). 

At the same time, though much superior, it belonged to the same 
family with these. This is clear from the arrangement of the epistles 
and the presence of the confessedly spurious letters, as well as from 
other decisive indications. Thus the one marginal gloss of Laur. Ivii. 7, 
a pyos (for Seo-eprwp) in Polyc. 6, is translated in the text of the Latin, 
nullus vestrum otiosus inveniatur, and has displaced the original word; 
and in like manner the confusion of the subscription of the letter to 
Polycarp with the superscription of that to the Smyrna3ans, which 
appears in this Greek MS, is reproduced and worse confounded in 
the Latin (see n. p. 331). 

This close relationship moreover is confirmed by the presence of the 
same corrupt readings in both. Thus we find that the Latin text con 
forms to the Greek in Ephes. 7 in immortali vita vera, Magn. 8 
verbum aeternum non a silentio progrediens, Trail. 3 diligentes quod 
non parco ipsum aliqualem, Mar. Ign. i et Sobelum (xal SoyS^Aov for 
Kaacrd/fyAov or Kaorcro/fy Aan/), and other passages, where the readings 
are in some cases demonstrably, in others probably, false. 

At the same time the advantage is not always on the side of the 
Latin text, as compared with the Greek MSS. Thus in Smyrn. 6 
d xu&gt;pwv x^pctrw roVos firjotva (j&gt;vcnovTu&gt;, the Latin rendering, qui capit 
capiat ; qualiter nullis infletur, arises obviously from a corruption x&lt;opei- 
Ta&gt;[To]7ru&gt;s for xwpeiTojTOTros. Thus again in Ephes. 3 for ev TW dvo/xan it 
has in nomine Christi, where Christi is an obvious gloss; and in 
Smyrn. 10 PeW AyatfoVow becomes Reum et Agathopum, thus 
making two men out of one. So also in Rom. 7 the Latin ignis amans 
aliquam aquam, sed vivens is certainly corrupt, while the Greek iri)p 
&lt;/&gt;tA.ovAov, vSwp Se tfcv may perhaps give the original reading. But the 



8o EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

passages where the text of the Greek MSS contrasts favourably with that 
of the Latin Version are very few in all. 

The following are the two MSS of this version, to which reference 
has already been made. 

i. Caiensis 395 [LJ (see the Catalogue of MSS in Caius College^. 
I93) 1 . This MS was given to Gonville and Caius College (then called the 
College of the Annunciation of the B. V. Mary) by Walter Crome D.D., 
formerly a fellow of the College, A.D. 1444 in festo S. Hugonis. This 
fact is recorded on the fly leaf in Crome s own handwriting. 

The main part of the volume is taken up with letters and other 
writings of S. Ambrose. After these come the Epistles of Dionysius the 
Areopagite, and after these again the Epistles of S. Ignatius. These 
last are followed by another letter of S. Ambrose, Epistola brevissima 
sed optima, which with a few blank leaves at the end concludes the 
volume. The whole is in the handwriting of Crome himself, who 
records the date at the close of the works of S. Ambrose and before the 
commencement of the letters of Dionysius in these words (fol. 164 a); 
Expliciunt epistole Beati Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi. scripte 
per Crome et finite anno domini millesimo cccc mo xl primo in festo 
sancti Swithuni episcopi sociorumque ejus. This notice has been over 
looked by previous collators, and baseless conjectures have in con 
sequence been hazarded respecting the date of the Ms 2 . On fol. 74 also 
the writer has given his name Crome. 

The Ignatian Epistles commence on fol. 174 a, and occur in the 
following order; (i) Smyrnseans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephesians, (4) Magne- 
sians, (5) Philadelphians, (6) Trallians, (7) Mary of Cassobola to Igna 
tius, (8) Ignatius to Mary of Cassobola, (9) Tarsians, (10) Antiochenes, 
(i i) Hero, (12) Acts of Martyrdom (numbered as epistola duodecima ), 
incorporating (13) the Epistle to the Romans described as epistola 
terciadecima. After this comes a colophon giving a list of the preceding 
letters (see below n. p. 653); and then follow (14) Epistola eiusdem ad 
johannem evangelistam, (15) Ignacius johanni evangeliste, (16) 

1 Cureton in several passages (Corp. College Oxford. 

Ign. pp. 29 1, 308, 338) mentions a Corpus 2 Thus Smith, whose work was pub- 

Christi MS, apparently mistaking Jacob- lished in 1709, speaks of this MS as ante 

son s notation C. C. ( Codex Caiensis ) ; quadringentos annos aut circiter, ut ex 

for no such MS exists at Corpus Christi characteribus et figuris literarum coniec- 

College in either Oxford or Cambridge. turam facere libet, scripto (S. Ignat. Epis- 

On p. 338 he speaks of the two copies tolae praef.), thus ante-dating it by more 

of the... Latin Version belonging to Caius than a century and a quarter. 
College Cambridge and Corpus Christi 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 8 1 

Ignacius sancte marie, and (17) Ignacio sancta maria ; the whole 
terminating with Expliciunt epistole ignacii martiris numero decem et 
septem. It will be observed that the Epistle to the Philippians is 
wanting in this version. 

Ussher does not appear to have used the MS itself for his edition. 
In his correspondence with his friend Dr Ward, the Master of Sidney 
College, he negociates about procuring a transcript, which at length he 
mentions as having been received by his agent (Elrington s Life and 
Works of Ussher xv. pp. 482, 504, 540, 542). Ward distinctly says 
that the MS cannot be let out of the college (xv. p. 504); and a 
Mr Foster of Emmanuel College is mentioned as a likely person to 
transcribe it, having taken some pains already in it ($.). Whether he 
or some one else was ultimately employed, does not appear from the 
correspondence. 

A transcript of this MS also exists in the library of Caius Coll. 
(MS 445). It is thus described in the Catalogue (p. 212); This seems 
to be the transcript from MS 395 made for Archbishop Ussher s edition 
of Ignatius. It is very neatly and on the whole accurately written. Of 
its accuracy I shall have something to say presently ; but this was cer 
tainly not the transcript which Ussher used. He makes arrangement 
for defraying the costs of transcribing (Life and Works xv. pp. 482, 
540), and evidently looks on the transcript, when made, as his own 
property ; nor is there any reason why it should have been returned to 
the college, where it was least of all wanted. 

In fact the transcript which Ussher used is still in the library of 
Dublin University, where it is marked D. 3. u. On the second page 
(the first is blank excepting the date) is written in Ussher s handwriting ; 
Hoc Ignatianarum Epistolarum apographum ex Bibliotheca Collegii 
Gunwelli et Caii apud Cantabrigienses descriptum collatum est a me 
cum alio MS membranaceo, ex Bibliotheca D. Richardi Montacutii 
Norwicensis episcopi petito. This manuscript is written in the same 
handwriting with the Caius transcript (445). It contains the same 
prefatory instructions with regard to certain symbols which the tran 
scriber uses, the same marginal notes, and (for the most part) the same 
misreadings. On the first, otherwise blank, page the transcriber dates 
his work Junii 20 1631. " After the first leaf, several leaves (apparently 

1 On July 28, 1631, Ussher writes to transcript is mentioned by Ussher on 

Ward, The copy of Ignatius Mr Bur- Aug. 9, 1632 with approbation : The 

nett writeth unto me he hath received, copy was well taken out and serveth me 

but it is not yet come into my hands to singular good use (ib. xv. p. 559). 
(Life and Works xv. p. 542). This 

IG. I. 



82 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

four) have been lost ; and the second existing leaf commences in 
orationibus vaca indesinentibus etc. (Polyc. i), so that the whole of 
the Epistle to the Smyrnseans and the opening of the Epistle to 
Polycarp are wanting. 

The exact relation between these two transcripts might probably be 
made out, if it were worth while to do so. For the most part the same 
omissions and misreadings appear in both ; but on the whole the advan 
tage is slightly in favour of the Dublin transcript, which adheres more 
nearly to the spelling of the MS. It is not easy to say which was the 
earlier of the two ; but if the Dublin transcript was written after the 
other, the transcriber must have had the MS itself before him, while 
copying out his previous work. 

Both transcripts are full of inaccuracies. These arise sometimes 
from indifference to spelling on the part of the transcriber, sometimes 
from mere carelessness and inattention, but most frequently from igno 
rance of the contractions, which in this MS are numerous and perplexing. 
The very name of the donor is wrongly given Brome for Crome . 
Such various readings as panem qui for passionem quse (Smyrn. 5) 
and oratione for resurrectione (Polyc. 7) are entirely due to the 
transcriber s inaccuracy ; and minor errors are very numerous. Using 
this very incorrect transcript, Ussher frequently mentions a discre 
pancy in the MSS of this Latin Version, when in fact the two have the 
same reading. 

2. Montacutianus [L 2 ], a parchment MS from the library of Richard 
Mountague or Montacute, Bp. of Norwich. Bp. Mountague himself 
quotes from this MS, while yet in his possession ; but he confuses the 
version there given with the Latin of the Long recension which was 
much more widely known 2 . Ussher points out the mistake (Polyc- et 
Ignat. Ep. p. cxli). Since it was in Ussher s possession, it has dis 
appeared. Ubi iam reperiendus sit, writes Smith in 1708, *ne investi- 
gando quidem expiscari possum (S. Ign. Epist. prsef.). I too have 
angled for it in many waters, but enquiries made in all likely quarters 
have proved unsuccessful. It would probably be in the possession of 
Ussher at the time of Bp. Mountague s death (April 1641) and, if so, 
it may have disappeared in the confusion and depredations which 
attended the confiscation and seizure of his books by the Parliament, 

1 See Ussher Polyc. et Ignat. Epist. (lectionem)sequitur vetus interpres Adone 

p. cxli, from whom the error has been Viennensi antiquior ; vertit enim Ego enim 

transmitted to later writers (e.g. Zahn et post resurrectionem in came ipsum 

I. v. A. p. 552). vidi. 

3 Orig. Eccl. p. 457 (A. D. 1640) Hanc 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 83 

A.D. 1643 (Life and Works i. p. 229). At all events the many vicissi 
tudes which his library underwent at this time and after his death, 
when it was again plundered (Life and Works i. p. 303), will easily 
account for the loss of the MS; and its recovery now seems almost 
beyond hope. 

I have however been able to supply the loss to a great extent 
from Ussher s transcript of the Caius MS already mentioned (Dublin, 
D. 3. n), which has been strangely overlooked by previous editors. It 
contains a collation of the Montacute MS between the lines or in the 
margin. As mere variations of spelling are frequently recorded, Ussher 
seems to have intended this collation to be full and exact. At all 
events it contains very much which cannot be gathered from his printed 
work. 

Of the antiquity of this MS we can form no very definite opinion, 
now that it is lost. It was plainly quite independent of the Caius MS, 
since the correct reading is preserved sometimes in the one and some 
times in the other. We may infer also that it was the more ancient, as 
it was certainly the more accurate, of the two. The simplicity of the 
headings, compared with those of the Caius MS, where they sometimes 
expand into a table of contents, points to its greater antiquity. Moreover 
it most frequently preserves the exact order of the words, as they stand 
in the Greek original, whereas in the Caius MS more regard is paid 
to Latin usage, and the order has often been changed accordingly. 
Again, it alone preserves a number of marginal glosses which show 
a knowledge of the Greek, and which therefore (we may presume) are 
due to the translator himself, who had the original before him. Thus 
on Smyrn. i sapientes fecit this annotator writes, unum est verbum 
in Graeco [o-o^to-avra], Latine sapientificavit (Ussher Annot. ad loc. 
p. 46). Thus again on Smyrn. 5 TWV KO.T avSpa he gives a gloss, Greed 
dicunt secundum virum pro singulum vel singillatim (Annot. ad loc. 
p. 49). Again on Polyc. 8 in et ipsos facere he explains the grammar, 
regit haec propositio [1. prsepositio] in more Graeco hoc totum ipsos 
facere? Again on Ephes. i dilectum tuum nomen quod possedistis 
natura iusta he writes, ephesis Grace, desiderium Latine; Ephesii 
desiderabiles dicuntur. Again on Philad. 6, after explaining the last 
sentence Oro ut non in testimonium etc. , he adds Grsece bene dicitur. 
Again Antioch. 6 the animals intended by theos (thoes) are thus 
described, bestise sunt ex yena et lupo natas, et dicuntur licopantiri; 
veloces enim sunt, licet habeant tibias breves", where the clause 

1 This is one of the very few excep- Caius MS also. It appears there with 
tions where notes are preserved in the slight variations, 

62 



84 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

veloces etc. refers to the derivation of 0co? from 0ew, 0oo ?. This gloss 
is translated from the Greek lexicographers 1 . Again on Mart. 2 cum 
et alteros persuadere he is careful to state that the government of the 
infinitive by cum follows the Greek regimen. These glosses appear 
to have come from the hand of the original translator or one of his 
friends ; for it is highly improbable that any later annotator before the 
revival of learning would have possessed the knowledge of the Greek 
language and of the epistles in the original, which these glosses sup 
pose. Lastly ; I find in this MS some words which seem to me to be 
significant. After the table of contents at the end of the Acts of Mar 
tyrdom, and before the commencement of the Correspondence with the 
Virgin and S. John (i. e. at the end of the translated portion of this 
Ignatian collection), the scribe writes, Consummatori bonorum Deo 
gratias. Does not this look like an ejaculation of thanksgiving on the 
part of the translator at the completion of his task ? 

There is therefore good reason for believing that this MS with its 
marginal glosses closely represented the version in the form in which it 
came from the hands of the translator. At the same time it cannot 
have been the archetypal MS of the version; for the text, though 
generally intact, is already disfigured by a few corruptions and omis 
sions. 

In order and arrangement it entirely agrees with the Caius MS. The 
glosses, with one or two exceptions (where they are still retained in the 
Caius MS), are peculiar to it The more important of these have been 
already given. Others are paraphrases of the author s meaning, or 
explain the construction, or call attention to the importance of the 
subject matter. 

(iii) ARMENIAN [A]. 

With characteristic penetration Ussher had foreseen the probability 
that an Armenian version of the Ignatian Epistles would be found (Life 
and Letters xvi. p. 64 sq.). This version was first printed at Constanti 
nople in 1783; see Neumann Versuch einer Geschichte der Armenischen 
Literatur p. 73 sq. (Leipzig 1836), who translates from PI. Sukias Somal 
Quadra delle Opere di vari autori anticamente tradotte in Armeno p. 10 
(Venezia 1825); see Cureton C. I. p. xvi. More recently it has been 
rendered accessible to others besides Armenian scholars by Petermann, 

1 Suidas 0&lt;2&gt;es Bripia e valvys /coi XiJ- Magn. p. 459. It is worthy of notice 

KOV yevvu/Jifva : Etym. Gudian. 0wes ot that Suidas is mentioned among the 

Ta%is yap fl&lt;ri, Kaiirep Greek works of which Grosseteste made 

ft 6rres; see Gaisford, Etym. use; Pegge pp. 284, 291, 346. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 85 

who has reprinted and translated the whole, paragraph by paragraph, in 
his edition of Ignatius (Lipsias 1849). This version contains the 
epistles in the following order: (i) Smyrnaeans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephe- 
sians, (4) Magnesians, (5) Trallians, (6) Philadelphians 1 , (7) Romans, 
(8) Antiochenes, (9) Mary to Ignatius, (10) Ignatius to Mary, (n) Tar- 
sians, (12) Hero (here called Urio), (13) Philippians. It was printed 
from five MSS, which appear to be no longer extant or at least ac 
cessible ; but only three various readings are given in the margin, and 
these on the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. The editor Minas, an Arme 
nian bishop, states in the preface that he corrected some errors by a 
comparison of the MSS. Thus the editio princeps is wholly uncritical ; 
and as Petermann, not being able to consult any MSS, was obliged to 
reprint it as he found it, the value of this version for textual purposes 
is very seriously impaired. 

The Armenian version is attributed by Somal to the 5th century, 
and the same is also the opinion of Petermann (p. xxv sq.). The latter 
critic gives this as the common tradition of the Armenians, and con 
siders that the internal evidence is favourable to its truth. The follow 
ing are his reasons, (i) The language more especially in the forms of 
the proper names points to an early and pure stage in its development. 
He allows however. that there are several exceptions, which he supposes 
to have been introduced by transcribers at a later date, (ii) With one 
exception (certain Martyrologies translated by command of Gregory 
Martyrophilus, the catholicus of Armenia) no translations are known to 
have been made from Syriac into Armenian at a later date, (iii) The 
Biblical quotations have no affinity to the Armenian version of the 
Scriptures, and appear therefore to be prior in date to that version. 
Though these arguments seem to me to be inconclusive, I cannot ven 
ture, with my very slender knowledge of the language, to question the 
result. I will only mention one objection which appears to me to be 
formidable. This early date seems hardly to allow sufficient time for 
the successive stages in the history of the Ignatian literature. If (as 
seems to be assumed) all the epistles were translated into Armenian at 
the same time, room must be found for the following facts : (i) The 
forgery of the confessedly spurious letters, which can hardly be placed 
earlier than the middle of the fourth century; (2) The attachment 
of these to the epistles of the Middle form, for they originally pro 
ceeded from the same hand as the Long recension ; (3) The translation 
of the two sets of letters, thus combined, into Syriac, for it will be seen 

1 The order is correctly given by Peter- mann, transposes and gives it, (5) Phila- 
mann (p. vi). Somal, followed by Neu- delphians, (6) Trallians, as in the Greek. 



86 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

presently that the Armenian version was made from the Syriac; (4) 
The corruption of the Syriac text, for it is found also that very numerous 
and very considerable errors had crept in before the Armenian version 
was made; (5) The translation into Armenian. 

One important fact important not only as gauging the textual value 
of the Armenian version, but still more as having a direct bearing on 
the Ignatian question has been established irrefragably by Petermann. 
It cannot be doubted, after his investigations, that the Armenian transla 
tion was made, not from the Greek original, but from a Syriac version. 
The arguments may be ranged under three heads, (i) Syriac construc 
tions and phrases appear in an Armenian dress, where otherwise 
the translator would naturally have followed the Greek. Thus the 
idiom of the indeclinable relative in the Shemitic languages is copied, 
though in Armenian, as in Greek, the relative is declined. Finite 
sentences are substituted for participial clauses, though the substitution 
is not required by the genius of the Armenian language, as it is by that 
of the Syriac. The degrees of comparison are rendered in the Syriac 
way. Assertions are strengthened by prefixing the infinitive absolute 
(with the sense of the Latin gerund) to the finite verb after the manner 
of the Shemitic tongues, though there is nothing corresponding in the 
Greek; e.g. Magn. 7 tentando tentate, Rom. 4 provocando pro- 
vocate, Smyrn. 4 orando orate, etc. The forms est mihi, est illi, 
etc., are frequently used for habeo, habet, etc., as in the Syriac. 
Certain characteristic Syriac expressions are reproduced ; e. g. son of 
man for avOpuTros (frequently), sons of the city for TroXn-at (Tars. 2), 
by the hand of for Sia (frequently), our Lord for o Kv pios (fre 
quently). (2) Syriac ambiguities are wrongly taken by the translator. 
Thus in Ephes. 8 rots atwo-tv is rendered omnibus ethnicis, the link 

being the Syriac r^Lsolx. which signifies either age or world. See 
also n. pp. 223, 256, for other examples. (3) Corruptions or mis- 
readings of the Syriac text are very frequent sources of error. These 
will occur either in the diacritical points or in the letters. Of the former 
the constant substitution of a plural for a singular and conversely, owing 
to the insertion or omission of the plural sign ribui, will serve as an 
instance.- So again in Philipp. 10 KaXwi/ funem is rendered corrup- 
tionem from the ambiguous Syriac r&lt;LLau, which has either meaning 
as differently vocalised. Two other remarkable examples of wrong 
vocalisation appear in one chapter alone, Magn. 6 (see pp. 119, 
121). Of the confusion of letters numberless instances occur. Among 
others, more or less convincing, which Petermann gives, are the follow- 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 87 




ing; Bovppos (Eph. 2) becomes Buerdos (jtoo.iiora for 
KPOKOS ib. is changed into Markos ( jaoCUai-^J for .oocuaio) ; IIoXv- 
/3ios (Hero 8) into Polekhes ( v&gt;.v.\&lt;\ for V.-*.\QI) ; TO ovo/xa 
(Ephes. i) is translated salus vestra (^. __ q.*v *TI \ r. for 
oVo T^S ocr/t^s (Magn. 10) a spiritu ejus (coai for 
rc (Magn. 13) ut splendeatis (^__O-wa^w.i 
comp. Hero 9); o Toxeros (^&lt;?/. 6) dolores mortis 

cxsa); rpoc^ &lt;/&gt;0op&lt;s (JPw/. 7) Mac (PC / I\I&gt; for 
fKK\r)&lt;riai (Philad. io) sanctae ecclesiae 

for K^UL/TD) ; a-n-o rov Traflous (Smyrn. i) a signo (rd*U for 
see the note on Ephes. i); TOV /xeXXoi/ra (/5?/y&lt;r. 8) &lt;eum fratrem qui 
paratus est (rdur^ OCO.1 for r^.L.K Cvoo.l); rfj 
(Tar^. inscr.) egregiae ecclesiae (rtlr-ia, for 

(Antioch. 10) obtegebam (&\i7 v for Aujao_=&gt;) ; oiKT/r^piov (Hero 6) 
discipulus (K .-usaXAx for r^T*sa^.A). See also below, n. pp. 31, 
58, 66, 171, 190, 191, 199, for other instances; but indeed examples 
might be very largely multiplied. 

Thus the proof is overwhelming. But it will amount to abso 
lute demonstration, if we can show (as will be shown hereafter), 
that parts of a Syriac version, which the Armenian translator might 
have used, are still extant, exhibiting the same blunders and running 
parallel to the Armenian in a remarkable way. 

At the same time Petermann supposes (pp. xiv, xxvi) that the 
Armenian version was compared here and there with the original Greek 
by scribes and readers, who interpolated and corrupted it accordingly. 
The instances however which he gives do not bear out this judgment, 
since the phenomena may in every case be explained in other ways. 
Thus his chief example is Antioch. 9, where for the Greek at ywat/ces 
Tt/Ltarwo-av TOT)S aVSpa? cos trap/ca tSiW, the Armenian has mulieres hono- 
rent viros suos, sicut Sarra Abrahamum. He supposes that the trans 
lator read Sappa tStov for o-ap/ca tStav, and that Abraham was an ex 
planation of tSiov. Even if this solution be correct, and if the change 
be not rather due (as seems more likely) to a reminiscence of i Pet. 
iii. 6, still there is no difficulty in supposing the corruption in the Greek 
text to have occurred before the Syriac version was made and to have 
been transmitted to the Armenian through the Syriac. Again he appeals 
to the three various readings (Smyrn. i, 2, 6) given by the Armenian 



EPISTLES OF S IGNATIUS. 

editors, and lays stress on the fact that they are closer to the Greek* 
than the corresponding readings in the text. But in the only one of 
these three passages where the Syriac is preserved, Smyrn. 2 ( ad vivifi- 
candum nos in the text of the Armenian, ut salvemur in the margin), 
the Syriac corresponds exactly with the Greek Ivo. ataOwfj^v, and this was 
probably the case with the other two. Thus the marginal readings 
seem to represent the original Armenian rendering, while those which 
now stand in the text were later manipulations. 

It will be seen from the history of the Armenian text, which has 
been given, that in using it for critical purposes we must make very 
considerable allowance for the vicissitudes through which it has passed. 
The points for which allowance must be made are these, (i) The 
corruptions of the Greek text before it reached the hands of the Syriac 
translator. (2) The changes which would be introduced in the process 
of translation into Syriac changes partly demanded by the genius of a 
wholly alien language and partly introduced by the faults of the transla 
tion. (3) The corruptions of the Syriac text before it reached the 
hands of the Armenian translator. These, as we have already seen, 
were very considerable. (4) The changes again introduced by conver 
sion into a language so widely separated from the Syriac as the Arme 
nian. These to a certain extent were inevitable, but in the present case 
they have been largely increased by the ignorance or carelessness of the 
translator, who moreover appears to have indulged in glosses and peri 
phrases with much caprice. (5) The corruptions, emendations, and 
interpolations of the Armenian in the course of transmission through 
many centuries. (6) The careless and uncritical mode of editing the 
printed text. Of these six sources of corruption, the third and fourth 
appear to have been by far the most fertile, but all have contributed 
appreciably to the total amount of change. 

Yet notwithstanding all these vicissitudes, the Armenian version is 
within certain limits one of the most important aids towards the forma 
tion of a correct text. The Greek, from which the prior Syriac transla 
tion was made, must have been much earlier and purer than any existing 
text of these epistles, Greek or Latin ; and, where this can be discerned 
through the overlying matter, its authority is highly valuable. Happily 
this is almost always possible, where the variation of reading is really 
important. On the other hand in minor matters, such as the connexion 
of sentences or the form of words, no stress can be laid on this version. 
Its readings are only recorded in the present edition, where they have, 
or seem to have, some value in determining the original text. 






MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 89 

Armenian Acts of Martyrdom [A m ], containing the Epistle to the 
Romans. For the editions of this work see n. p. 366. A full account of 
the contents of these Acts will be found below, n. p. 370 sq. At present 
we are only concerned with the epistle incorporated in them. They 
were translated immediately from the Greek, and at a date subsequent 
to the Armenian version [A] of the Ignatian Epistles. But though he 
translated afresh, the translator was evidently acquainted with the ex 
isting Armenian version, or at least with extracts from it ; for the coin 
cidences are far too numerous and too striking to be accidental : see 
e.g. the renderings of 7 pjSeis o\&gt;v K.T.\. (p. 170, Petermann), 8 Si* 
oXiywv K.T.A.. (p. 176), ib. ou Kara crapxa. K.T.X. (p. 177)5 9 /Wty/iOWUtT* 
K.T.X. (p. 178), ib. ey&lt;o 8e K.T.X. (pp. 178, 179), etc. Alternative render 
ings are frequently given (e.g. pp. 149, 156, 157, 165, 180); and else 
where various readings are noted (e.g. pp. 132, 135, 141, 144, 162 (?), 
166, 172 sq., 175). It is not clear whether these latter may not in some 
instances be due to the editor Aucher. 

Zahn (/. v. A. p. 21) questions the opinion of Aucher and Peter 
mann that this version was made from the Greek, and supposes it to 
have been rendered from a Syriac translation. His reasons however do 
not seem valid. Thus the rendering of 0eo&lt;o pos by God-clad is in 
conclusive, since this was already a familiar designation of Ignatius in 
Armenian, as the version of the Epistles shows. Again the influence of 
ribui in the plurals, Rom. 7 cogitationes mea?, and Rom. 9 in precibus 
vestris, where the Greek has singulars, cannot be pleaded, since in both 
cases the plurals accord with the Armenian idiom. Again the coinci 
dence of the plural gubernaculis for the singular otaxi (Mart. Ant. i), 
which appears also in the Syriac Acts [S m ], proves nothing, since it is 
easily explained by the fact that the ancients commonly had two rudders 
(Acts xxvii. 40 TGJV m/SaXiW). Nor does there seem to be any more 
force in his other arguments. In this respect the phenomena of the 
Armenian Acts [A m ] present a marked contrast to those of the 
Armenian Epistles [A]. 



(iv) SYRIAC [S]. 

This version is represented only by a few collections of frag 
ments. 

(i) Paris Bibl. Nat. Syr. 62, formerly Sangerm. 38 [S,]. A collec 
tion of canons and dicta of different councils and fathers. On fol. 
1 73 a 175 b are extracts from the Epistles of S. Ignatius. These frag 
ments were transcribed by Munk for Cureton, and are published and 
translated by the latter in the Corp. Ign. pp. 197 sq., 232 sq. They 



90 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

have been collated afresh for the present work (n. p. 677) by M. Zoten- 
berg. The MS itself is described by Munk ib. p. 342 sq., and by 
Zotenberg Catal. des MSS Syriaques etc. p. 22 sq. 
This collection contains the following passages : 
Ephes. 5, 6 OTrovSacrw/Aei/ ow...Set 7rpo&lt;r/3Ae7mv. 
13 OT7rouSaeTe OVV...KOL cTriyeiajv. 
15 ayueivo v eoTiv...o Aeycov TTOOJ. 
Magn. 5, 6 01 oVta-Toi rov KOO-/X.OV...TWI/ StaKovan/. 

6, 7 aAA. evto0T7Te...iSta v/uv. 
Trail, 2, 3 orav yap TO&gt; 7ri&lt;TKO7ru&gt;...ou KaAeirat. 

5, 6, 7 KCU yap eyw . . . &lt;vAaTTo-$ ovv TOVS roiourous. 
8 v/xets ovv Trpa.inra.6f.iay . . . aifjia. Irjcrov Xpiorov. 
9, 10, II Kaxw#?7T ow...ovras /AeA.?; avTo&gt;. 
Polyc. 3 ol 8oKOWTes...?7/xas vwo/Jieivr]. 

6 TO) eTTtCTKOTTO) 7TpOO"^T. . .Cr^CO TTttpa 0OJ, 

7 TrpCTrei, IloAT;Kap7re...a7rapTi / o"7Te. 
Philad. 3, 4 ocrot yap Ocoii eto-iv...Toi5 ai^aros avrov. 

7 eKpavyao-a p.era^v wv . . . [J.r)8ev Trotetrt. 
IO a TT^yyeXij /xot...7rp(r/JvTepous Kat Staxovovs. 
Smyrn. 8, 9 OVK e^ov 0Tiv...T&lt;3 SiajSoXw Xarpevec. 

These extracts are headed, Dicta selected from the Epistles of Saint 
Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles, God-clad and Martyr, the second 
bishop of Antiochj which have the force of ecclesiastical canons. They 
occur in the following order; Ephes. 5, 6; 13; 15; Magn. 5, 6; Trail. 
(written as if Titilians) 2, 3; 5, 6, 7; /Wy&lt;r. 3; 6; Philad. 3, 4; 7; 10; 
.Swjiwz. (called the Church of Asia ) 8, 9; Jfagn. 6, 7; 7r0//. (again 
Titilians) 8; 9, 10, n; ./Wjr. 7. At the close are the words, Here 
end these [passages] of Saint Ignatius, the God-clad and Martyr. As 
some of the Cyprianic documents included in the collection are stated 
(Catal. p. 24) to have been translated first from the Latin into Greek, 
and afterwards from the Greek into Syriac in A. Gr. 998 (i.e. A.D. 687), 
and as the last extract (fol. 273 sq.) in the handwriting of the original 
scribe (or at least the last remaining extract, for the original MS is muti 
lated at the end, and other matter is added in a later hand) contains 
questions proposed to Jacob of Edessa in this same year A.D. 687 by a 
certain presbyter Addai with Jacob s answers thereto, it may be inferred 
with some probability that this was about the date of the collection. 
Of the MS itself Cureton (p. 345), who however does not appear to have 
seen it, considers that although ancient, it is probably considerably 
later, while Zotenberg says that it semble etre du ix e siecle. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 9 1 

(2) Brit. Mus. Add. 14577 [S 2 ]; see Wright s Catal. of Syr. MSS 
p. 784 sq. A congeries of short fragments huddled together. They 
are written on the vellum lining and blank page of the first leaf of 
a Syriac volume brought from the Nitrian desert in 1842 and numbered 
as above. It is described by Cureton (Corp. Ign. p. 348 sq.), who 
assigns it to the eleventh or twelfth century. From Wright s account 
however these extracts appear to have been written by one Moses about 
A.D. 932; see Catal. p. 787 sq. These fragments, which are published 
and translated by Cureton (pp. 201 sq., 235 sq.), are headed, From the 
writings of Saint Ignatius, the God-clad, bishop of Antioch, and occur 
in the following order ; 

Rom. 4 eyw ypa&lt;o)...TOv aw/xaros /xou. 

5, 6 (Tvyyvoj/x^f /tot e^Te...av^/DO)7ros ecro/xai. 
Ephes. 1 5 ouSev Xav$avei . . . dyaTrajjuev airrov. 

20 ev /tu a Tricrret . . . fcai wa&gt; fo. 
Magtl. IO aroTrov (7Ttv...is eov crwr;^ 7 ?- 
Smyrn. 4, 5 et yap TO SoKtlv...T)pvy6r)(ra.v VTT* aurov. 
Hero I TrapaxaXa) tre 7rpocr0tvai TU&gt; Spo/xw crov. 



. . . cravTo v 



They have been collated anew by Dr Wright for the present work 
(n. p. 684). 

(3) Brit. Mus. Add. 17134 [S 3 ] ; see Wright s Catalogue p. 330 sq. 
This MS is dated A.D. 675, and there is good reason for believing that 
it was written by the famous Jacob of Edessa himself (see p. 338 sq.). 
It contains Hymns by Severus of Antioch, translated into Greek by 
Paul bishop of Edessa in the early decades of the sixth century (see 
p. 336). Among these is one in honour of Ignatius (fol. 48 a), and 
a marginal note contains extracts illustrating the references in the text. 
They are headed From the Epistle of the same Ignatius to the 
Romans , and are as follows ; 

Rom. 4 cyw ypd&lt;j&gt;(D...Tov crw/aards /xov. 

AiTaveucraTe. ..ev avrw eAeu^epos. 
6 a&lt;eTe /x. Ka.6apov...rov eou /xou. 

These marginal notes, which accompany the hymns, appear to have 
emanated from the scribe himself, presumably Jacob of Edessa. The 
Hymn on Ignatius will be printed for the first time lower down; the 
extracts from the Epistle to the Romans were published by Cureton 
C. I. p. 296, and have been collated anew for the present edition by 
Dr Wright (see n. p. 686). 



92 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Cureton, apprehensive (it would seem) of the consequences which 
would follow from the admission, will not allow that these fragments 
(S n S 2 , S 3 ) formed part of a complete Syriac Version. Of the collection 
which I have designated Si he says; It is plain that the whole collec 
tion has been translated from the Greek; and from the place which 
these Ignatian extracts occupy, it seems almost certain that they formed 
a part of the original Greek collection, which was afterwards translated 
into Syriac. There is no ground to conclude that these extracts were 
taken from a Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles previously existing 
etc., p. 345. This statement will not. bear examination. Of the other 
documents included in this collection, the last at all events (the questions 
of Addai and answers of Jacob of Edessa ; see above, p. 90), and 
probably some others, were originally written in Syriac. And, although 
nothing appears on the face of these Ignatian extracts which is in 
consistent with their direct translation from the Greek, yet considering 
them in connexion with other facts, we are led irresistibly to the con 
clusion that they formed part of a Syriac version then existing. The 
following considerations are decisive on this point. 

(i) In the three collections, S 1? S 2 , S 3 , the passages quoted are all 
different with two exceptions. The exceptions are Rom. 4, 6, of which 
parts are common to both S 2 and S 3 . Now in these passages there are 
remarkable coincidences between S 2 and S 3 , which are inexplicable as the 
result of accident. With some trifling exceptions they agree for the 
most part both in the words and in the order. The only important dif 
ferences are Rom. 4 KlsacvA the mouth in S 3 for ri -li. the teeth 
in S 2 , and Rom. 6 K icna.lr* S 2 in the light for r*^ *j-? S 3 son 
of man (^ man ). In the first case S 3 has quoted loosely; in the 
second S 2 has a corrupt text, the corruption being explained by the 
fact that K icncxi occurs in the immediate context. These extracts 
however cannot have been borrowed the one from the other, as they 
are not co-extensive, each containing something which is wanting in 
the other; so that we must look to some Syriac progenitor from which 
both were derived. 

(ii) The solution thus suggested is confirmed by a comparison 
of our Syriac extracts with the Armenian version. It has been shown 
already that this version was derived through the medium of a pre 
vious Syriac translation ; and the coincidences show that the frag 
ments before us (Sj, S 2 , S 3 ) belonged to this missing Syriac version. 

S, 

In Ephes. 5, 6, the comparison leads to no important results. In 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 93 



Epfas. 13 &lt;u Swa /ms becomes a singular in ! A ; and for o o 
avTov S t has cna.ijjCvK dominio ejus , which appears to have been 
corrupted from coi. uaK pernicies ejus , and has itself apparently 
been corrupted into aii.icncxi*. memoria ejus , as rendered by A. 
In Ephes. 15 no decisive resemblance appears. 

In Magn. 5, 6, the coincidences are very striking. For TOU 
TOVTOV S,A have principes hujus mundi, and for x a P aKT ^P a 
imago sunt ; at the beginning of 6 eVei ow lv rots 
is translated in S t .^ _COcQ3.t .j.i AjLt 



^ __ pcoA^. ^u=A&gt;A ^oaruai rd^o H&, sed quoniam in iis 

personis de quibus (quod... de iis) antea scripsi , but the words were 
displaced in the text used by the translator of A, so that he has put 
r&lt;La.a_Ha persons back to the end of the former chapter, 

translating as best he could, vitam ejus non habemus in personis. 
Et quoniam de eo quod antea scripsi etc. Again Sj inserts in the 
text a gloss on Trpoo-uTrois, episcoporum videlicet et presbyterorum et 
diaconorum , and this gloss ,is inserted also by A. For irapaivw S t A 
have peto a vobis ; and TrpoKa^jueVou is translated by Si .a&u ^^ 
^__CAJt*va quum sedeat in capite vestro , which becomes in A 
et sedeat in capitibus vestris . Again the existing text of S t for 
Kal TOJV Trpecr/^vrepwi/ ets TVTTOV (v. 1. TOTTOV) aweSptou TiZv aTrcxrToXtav Kol 

has r^Lrklso ^Ap^A^.i K .flfl^CU^s KlXLZJDa 
Klfla_^cOL=s r^lzJtaJL^ao et presbyteri in forma 
(typo) angelorum consilii et diaconi in forma (typo) apostolorum , 
while A renders it et sacerdotes tanquam angeli (legati) regis et 
diaconi in formis (specie) apostolorum . Here the coincidences are 
decisive: for (i) The Armenian translator is misled by an ambiguity 
in the Syriac r&lt; / k\*g3, which differently vocalised signifies either 
counsel or king, and the second sense is wrongly given to it. (2) The 
rendering angeli regis (consilii), common to both, would not be sug 
gested independently by the Greek. (3) In the Greek there is nothing 
corresponding to the final r^LtxAiL.i KLa^o!\-3 in forma apo 
stolorum after the mention of the deacons. The explanation seems 
to be that et? TVTTOV &lt;rweSpi ov TWV aTrooroAwv was at first wrongly 
translated in forma angelorum consilii , and the words in forma 
apostolorum were a correction perhaps written in the first instance 
on the margin but afterwards inserted in the text, not in their right 
place as a correction, but elsewhere as a substantive addition. The 



94 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Armenian translator has taken the whole passage as he found it in 
his Syriac copy. In Magn. 6, 7, again some curious coincidences 
appear. The preposition in 7rpoKaOr]fj.v&lt;Dv is translated in S! as before, 
and so it again becomes in capitibus vestris in A. Moreover in 
rendering TVTTOS the word adopted in S 2 is K TOJJ, which differently 

vocalised signifies either the form or the sight , and accordingly 
the corresponding words to eis TVTTOV are in conspectum in A. 
Again the words ^Vco/xevos &lt;5v are omitted by both S! and A. Again 
the Syriac ^__CJaoiA\ cu.car=o tentando tentate is reproduced 
in the Armenian, where the Greek has simply Treipao-^re. Again iota 
vp.lv in S t is crAci cai-tq ^OAAJ TJJ .T-wA, literally uni 
uni e vobis ab ipso et ad ipsum , and in A unusquisque e vobis 
a se ipso . 

In Trail. 2, 3, likewise, SjA keep very close together. Thus both 
render Kara avOpu-vov in corpore . Again the reading of A, quando 
creditis ortum ejus et mortem , for TrurrevcravTes ts TOV 6a.va.rov avrov 
must be explained through the Syriac. s Si has ^u_so.co_s?3 s^ 
cn^CCarj ^^oAuK following the Greek; but the Syriac MS from 
which A was ultimately derived must have had a corrupt reading 
cn.ilcxra his birth for cn^ora his death , whence, owing 
probably to a marginal correction, both words got into the text 
which was used by A. Lower down S t A have presbyteris ( sacer- 
dotibus ) for r&lt;3 Trpecr/Jurepio). Again S t translates /xvtmjpiW by 
K tr^i uO-i filii mysterii , i.e. the initiated , thus forming a 
link with the Armenian which has participes-mysteriorum . Again 
Kat &lt;rwSeo-jU.ov aTrooToAwj/ is translated by S t r^ULkAjL.l r^LSQ.lCDQ 
et membra apostolorum , which explains the rendering of A et 
a sociis apostolorum (sc. erubescat) . In Trail. 5, 6, the phenomena 
of Sj account for some renderings in A. Thus deficiens (deminutus) 
sum is the rendering of TroAAa ^/xtv XetVet in both; again both have 
commiscent personas suas (semetipsas) cum Jesu Christo for the 
difficult words Kaipoi [xat iu&gt; ?] Trape/XTrXeKouo-tv Irjcrovv X/DIOTOV ; and 
again both omit ev ySovfj (or ifS^wf) and Ka.Kfj; besides some minor 
points of resemblance. In the short quotation from Trail. 8 Sj has 
in fide quod est in spe et in oblectatione sanguinis Christi , and A 
fide et spe et coena sanguinis Christi , where the expression in the 
original is ev vtivr&lt;( o ecrrtv &lt;ra.pt; TOV Kvptov /cat Iv dyd-Try o ecrrtv at/ta 
Xpto-rov ; the change depending mainly on a confusion of the 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 95 



Syriac words r^iajaa-a in spe and r^jfla.-) caro . In Trail. 
9, 10, ii, again the two coincide generally, besides presenting some 
special resemblances. Thus Ku^u di/rc is rendered by both estote 
sicut muti ; ^pio/xa^crat in Sj is vorari a feris , in A voratus-a-feris 
fieri ; e&lt;/&gt;aivovTo dv is ooco j_vu^*J ^oco fierent apparentes in 
Sj, fierent et apparerent in A ; oY ov cv TO) ird6f.i avrov Trpoo-KaXerrai 
i/tas ovras /uieXiy avrov is mutilated in the same way by both, S,L reading 
in passione crucis Domini vestri cujus estis membra , and A jam 
cum signo (per signum) crucis Domini nostri vos membra estis ejus , 
where both alike omit 6Y ov and Trpoo-KaXeiTcu and insert rot o-ravpov, while 
A moreover has had a corrupt text of S a , reading cnjuin signo for 
cn*x=) passione (a common confusion : see n. p. 25 sq.). 

In the short passage Polyc. 3 both read aliquid for a^ioTrioroi ; 
both translate tTepoStSao-KaXeu by docere alienas doctrinas ; both 
have in veritate ( in firmitate ) for eSpatos ; both give r^Li^U-uj 
vir fortis for d/c/u-wv. In Polyc. 6 again the two closely agree ; e. g. in 
translating Trpoo-e x^e by spectate and inserting spectet with d 0eoV 
In Polyc. 7, though A contains some Syriasms and some special 
coincidences with Sj (e. g. paratus est for o-xoXa^et), yet it frequently 
departs from Sj, as well as from the Greek ; not seldom in the way of 
abridgment, perhaps because the translator did not understand the 
Syriac text before him. 

In Philad. 3, 4, besides several Syriasms and a general agreement, 
A has at least one marked coincidence \yith S, in the gloss on O-^OVTI, 
separatoris (separantis) ecclesiae in A, separantis (scindentis) eccle- 
siam dei in Sj. In Philad. 7 A adopts several Syriac idioms, e. g. 
qui vinctus sum in eo for in quo vinctus sum . And again it trans 
lates euro crapKos av^pa)7Ttv7/9, as if ciTro a.v6pu&gt;irwv with Sj (r&lt;lxlxU:i). 
The perversion of one sentence moreover Et dixi hoc. Testatur mihi 
is, etc. in A, may be explained from S x but not from the original. 
In Philad. 10, besides the usual Syriasms, A translates the sentence 
ets TO Trpecr/Jevcrai exet ou 7rpeo-/?iav is TO (Tvy^ap-fjvaL OVTOIS qui possit 
fieri praecursor (nuncius) Dei, ut proficiscatur illuc et simul gaudeat 
after Sj ; it inserts TOU Kvptov after TO ovo/xa with S! ; and it reads 
sanctae ecclesiae for at cyyto-Ta fKK\rj(TLai with Sj (see above p. 87). 

Lastly; in Smyrn. 8, 9, the Armenian rendering of ayaTr^v a love- 
feast by quietem is explained (as Petermann had conjectured without 
seeing S^ by the intermediate word in S t K &uixU refreshments , 
of which word an allied form is used also as the rendering of dyaTrrjv in 
Jude 12. 



96 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

S 2 . 

The coincidences are equally striking here. In the short passage 
Rom. 4 A reproduces two characteristic Syriasms from S 2 per manum 
(manus) earum (8Y &lt;3&gt;), and provocando provocate (juaXXov KoXa- 
Kcvo-arc). In Rom. 5, 6, the phenomena are conclusive, and exhibit 
clearly the corrupt state of the Syriac text, when the Armenian version 
was made. A translates TL p.oi o-u/x^epei quod mandatum est mihi 
after S,, where the reading .1 m \ mandatum est is a corruption of 
,JQJ expedit . For apx /"" A has credo &gt; where the translator evi 
dently had iiatJSa or j "-* for K i-XJSa, the correct reading, which 
is still preserved in S 2 . For Orjpwv o-vo-rao-eis A and S 3 have bestiae 
quae paratae sunt ; for o-KopirurfLol ooreW they have divisio et dispersio 
ossium ; and they agree also in the form of rendering ra Tre para TOV 
KOO-JMOV ovSt ai /Jao-iXetai TOV aiwvos TOVTOV, termini (thesaurus A) mundi, 
etiam (et) non regnum hujus , omitting TOW euwvos because the cor 
responding Syriac word was already exhausted in rendering KOO-/MOV. 
The word TOKCTOS again is rendered in A by dolores mortis , which 
exactly reproduces S 3 K &omn r^\~&gt;n, where the word K &aso 
death is a corruption of K^OSa birth , for birth-pangs are 
meant by TOKYO S. Again the words ovyywar^ /xoi are translated in S 2 
cognoscite me ex anima mea , and this Syriac idiom is reproduced 
in A, where it would probably convey no meaning at all, or a wrong 
meaning. Again the words TOV TOV cov BiXovTa emu jcooyty are wrongly 
connected by both with the preceding sentence, and translated as if 
TOV /} Oikovra tlvai Iv KoV/xw (see ii. p. 219). Again vXy is rendered by 
both, as if it had been TOIS o paTois. Again for dvflpwTi-os A has ( homo 
perfectus , and S 2 in luce perfectus , where K icocxiss in luce is 
evidently a corruption of rdziira homo (lit. filius hominis ). 

In Ephes. 15 the only remarkable coincidence is the omission of 
the clause oVcp KCU . . . irpo(ru&gt;irov rjp.wv by both. In Ephes. 20 A agrees 
with S 2 in omitting KCU after TTI O-TCI. In Magn. 10 they agree in rendering 
OLTOTTOV eortv Ir](rovv Xpiorov XaXetv KCU K.r.X. non est decens ubi Jesus 
Christus narratur, etc. , and in substituting omnis (^ A^ S 2 ) for 
B-ao-a yXwo-o-a. In Smyrn. 4, 5, after in mortem (TW 6a.va.Tu&gt;} both 
add et in ignominiam (contumeliam) ; both render /xera^i) Otjpiuv 
p-Ta0 eou in the same loose way et si sit inter bestias apud Deum 
est (erit) ; and both strangely enough substitute Jesus Christus 
DeUS (noster) for TOV TfXeiou dvOpunrov [yevo/Xi/ov], 

In the two lines quoted from Hero i there is no substantial de 
parture from the Greek in either. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 97 

S,. 

The passages from the Epistle to the Romans here are in great 
part the same as in S 2 . Of the various readings, which S 3 presents, it is 
only necessary to observe that rZ73&lt;\*. S a for KliSL S 2 is a departure 
from A, as from the original Greek, and that on the other hand S 3 preserves 
the correct Klx_li=&gt; (where S reads K icncua), thus agreeing 
exactly with A. In the passages not contained in S 2 the agreement of 
S 3 A in adding ex mortuis (K ^u-ia ^VL= ^3) after dvaor^o-o/iai 
(Rom. 4) should be observed. 

The conclusion from the facts adduced is irresistible. We have 
plainly in these fragments (S t S a S 3 ) portions of the lost Syriac version 
from which the Armenian text was translated. 

But the evidence, if it still needed strengthening, is strengthened by 
another important consideration. For 

(iii) It is strange that Cureton should not have been struck by the 
close resemblance between the Syriac fragments (S, S 2 S 3 ), and the 
Syriac version of the three epistles in the Short recension (2), in those 
passages which are common to both. This is so patent, when the 
passages from the two are written out side by side, as is done for 
instance by Denzinger (Aechtheit des bisher. Textes der Ignat. Briefe 
App. x. p. i ; seep. 96), that no escape from the inference is possible. 
I shall not occupy space here by going over this ground again, but 
content myself with referring to Denzinger s tables, or to the various 
readings in the present edition, warning the reader however that, inas 
much as my apparatus criticus does not aim at reproducing the pecu 
liarities of the Syriac, except so far as they point to a difference in the 
Greek text used, the various readings there given represent very 
inadequately the extent of the resemblance. But in fact any one may 
satisfy himself of the truth of this statement by comparing the two in 
Cureton s own volume. As a rule, they differ only where the recensions 
differ. Where these coincide, the Syriac versions also coincide, 
presenting the same paraphrastic renderings, the same errors and 
caprices of translation, the same accidental order, and sometimes even 
the same corruptions of the Syriac text itself. 

It cannot be doubted therefore that the one was derived from the 
other. Either S is an abridgment of S, in which case all the evidence 
for the genuineness of the Short recension disappears ; or S is enlarged 
from 2 by translating the additional passages of the Middle form 
from the Greek, in which case we get a result favourable as far as it 
goes to the genuineness of the Short recension as against the Middle. 
IG. I. / 7 



98 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Cureton failed to see the resemblance, and therefore did not enter 
into this question, though it was one of paramount importance to him, 
inasmuch as his theory of the genuineness of the Short recension stands 
or falls as it is answered. On the other hand critics like Denzinger, 
Merx, and others; who have taken some pains to establish the connexion 
of the two Syriac versions and succeeded in doing so, assume that 
the shorter must have been abridged from the other, and that therefore 
the Middle recension (whether the genuine work of Ignatius, as 
maintained by Denzinger, or a forgery, as Merx believes) represents 
the original form of the Ignatian Epistles. This is the more obvious 
explanation. But still the possible alternative remains, that a Syrian, 
having in his possession the Short recension in a Syriac version and 
coming across a Greek copy of the Middle recension, might have 
supplied the additional matter by translation from the Greek and thus 
have produced a complete Syriac version of the Middle recension 
grafted on the other. The case therefore must not be hastily pre 
judged. 

To this question I shall revert hereafter. At present we are only 
concerned with the connexion between the Syriac and Armenian 
versions of the Middle form (S and A) ; and the Syriac version of 
the Short form (2) was mentioned merely as a link in the chain of 
evidence. For 2, which has been shown to be closely connected with 
Sn S 2 S 3 , is also very nearly allied to A. Here again the resemblance 
may be traced, though (for the reason already stated) only partially, 
in the apparatus criticus to the present edition ; and may be more 
fully seen by comparing the two, passage by passage, as they appear in 
Petermann, or as placed in parallel columns by Merx (Meletemata 
Ignatiana, Halae Saxonum, 1861). The connexion is not less patent in 
this case, than in the former, after due allowance has been made for the 
errors, caprices, and vicissitudes of the Armenian version. And the fact 
is important. For, while Si S 2 S 3 consist only of short detached passages, 
2 covers a considerable extent of ground, so that we get independent 
evidence of the existence, in large portions of these epistles beyond the 
limits of Sj Sj, S 3 , of a complete Syriac version which was closely con 
nected with 2 (just as S t S 2 S 3 are connected with it), and from which the 
Armenian was translated. In other words, we have independent proof, 
that ! S 2 S s were not mere isolated passages translated from Greek into 
Syriac for the occasion, but part of a complete Syriac version of the 
Middle recension, whose existence we desire to establish 1 . 

1 The reader is now in a position to against Professor Petermann s assump- 
estimate the value of Bunsen s protest tion that the Syriac text is an extract 

\ 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 99 

The results of the foregoing investigations, as regards their bearing 
on textual criticism, are evident. They are stated at a later point in 
these volumes, n. p. 3 sq. 

SYRIAC MARTYRDOM [S m ], a version of the Antiochene Acts, incor 
porating the Epistle to the Romans. It is contained in three known 
MSS, of which the first and third are imperfect. 

(1) Brit. Mus. Add. 7200, a volume containing various Acts of 
Martyrdom. It contains these Acts of Ignatius (fol. 98) from the 
beginning to 7raA.iv ropu &lt;j&gt;&lt;avy, Rom. 2. The end is unfortunately 
wanting. This MS, before it came into the possession of the British 
Museum, belonged to Claudius J. Rich, English Resident at Bagdad. 
It is described in the Catal. Cod. MSS Orient, qui in Mus. Brit, 
asservantur i. p. 92 sq., where it is assigned to the i3th century; but 
Cureton (C.I. p. 362) considers it to be rather more ancient . From 
this MS Cureton first printed these Acts (C.I. p. 222 sq.), with a trans 
lation (C. I. p. 252), but incomplete at the end owing to the condition 
of the MS. It has been collated afresh by Prof. Wright for the present 
edition. 

(2) Borg. 1 8. From this MS Moesinger (Supplemmtum Corporis 
Ignatiani p. 3 sq., Oeniponti 1872) first published the Syriac version of 
the Acts complete. He describes the MS thus (p. 4) ; 

Codex, in quo haec acta continentur, a Georgio Ebedjesu 

from an old Syriac version, of which the that it is scarcely possible to formulize 
Armenian text is a translation (Hippoly- it seriously, etc. It is difficult to see 
tus ii. p. 432). For this assumption, how an honest man, as Bunsen unques- 
he boldly adds, there is no ground tionably was, could have used this Ian- 
whatsoever. The Armenian translation guage, if he had read Petermann s pre- 
represents throughout the text of the face and notes with any degree of care. 
Greek Letters, including those which are The statement which I have italicised is 
acknowledged to be false ; and its various directly contradicted by facts. So else- 
readings show the thorough corruption where he writes in the same strain ; 
of our Greek text. There is not the Hippolytus I. p. 357 sq. (note), 
shadow of a reason to assume that the Bunsen however has this excuse, that 
Armenian translation was made from a he wrote before the full effects of Peter- 
Syriac text, and not, like all other Ar- mann s investigations had made them- 
menian translations of Greek fathers, selves felt. The case is different with a 
from the Greek. But had it been so made, writer who a quarter of a century later 
the argument for or against the seven shields himself under Bunsen s authority, 
(or rather twelve) Letters would remain and quotes his words apparently with 
exactly where Professor Petermann found approval ; Supernatural Religion I. p&lt; 
it. His argument, resting on a gratui- xlvi sq. (6th ed. 1875). 
tous assumption, is so absolutely null, 

72 

COLL CHRISTI RFGIS 
BIB, MAJ, 
TORONTON 



100 . EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Khayyath, archiepiscopo Amadiensi, descriptus est in libro cui in- 
scriptio, Syri Orientates sen Chaldaei Nestorianiet Romanorum pontificum 
Primatus. In hoc libro doctissimus auctor, p. 118, 122, et 129, 
certiores nos reddit haec acta S. Ignatii extare in antique manuscripto 
Nestoriano, nunc ad coenobium Hormisdae pertinente, ex quo, se ipso 
operam qualemcunque praebente, jussu et sumptibus S. Congregationis 
de Propaganda Fide inter alia opera haec quoque acta descripta sunt. 
Hoc exemplar Romam delatum et Bibliothecae Borgianae sub numero 
xviii insertum est, ex quo acta, quae nunc publici iuris facio, describendi 
copia mihi facta est . 

It is clear that the transcript was either carelessly made in the first 
instance or carelessly copied by Moesinger. Indeed the unscholarly 
way in which Moesinger has executed his task detracts considerably 
from our obligations to him as the first editor of these Acts in their 
completeness. In his translation of the Syriac (p. 7 sq.) he is convicted 
by his own text of omitting words and sentences from time to time, as 
well as of other inaccuracies. 

(3) Vat. Syr. 160 (formerly i), an ancient MS in parchment, in the 
Vatican Library at Rome. This volume which contains these Acts of 
Ignatius is described by J. S. Assemani JBibl. Orient, i. p. 606, and 
(somewhat confusedly) also by S. E. Assemani Act. Mart. Orient, et 
Occid. n. p. 5, who published the greater part of this Syriac collection 
of Acts, but omitted those of S. Ignatius ; see also their Bill. Apost. 
Vat. Cod. MSS Catal. in. p. 319 sq. Cureton attempted to obtain 
a transcript of the Acts of Ignatius in this volume, but did not succeed 
(C. I. p. 362). In the beginning of the year 1870 I myself paid a visit to 
the Vatican Library, hoping to copy them, but was told that the 
volume could not be found. Afterwards however, seeing a reference to 
it as still accessible in de Rossi Inscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. i. p. 5 sq. 
(1857 1861), I instituted further enquiries, and through the inter 
vention of Prof. W. Wright was enabled to procure a transcript made 
for me by Dr Bollig, the Sub-librarian of the Vatican, to whom I am 
much indebted for this act of kindness. The readings of this MS there 
fore are given in the present edition for the first time. The end is 
wanting, but the MS contains the whole of the Epistle to the Romans, 
and breaks off at &lt;/&gt;0ao-ai in c. 5 of the Acts. 

This Syriac version of the Antiochene Acts has been edited anew by 
Prof. Wright for the present work (n. p. 687 sq.). The various readings 
of the three MSS, designated A, B, C, respectively, are there given. 

The Epistle to the Romans incorporated in these Acts was translated, 
together with the Acts themselves, directly from the Greek, and is 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 101 

therefore quite independent of the general Syriac version of the Ignatian 
Epistles [S]. It is very loose and paraphrastic. Only those variations 
are given in my apparatus criticus, which have some value in deter 
mining the Greek text or are otherwise of interest. 

(v) COPTO-THEBAIC [C]. 

A fragment of a version in the Sahidic or Thebaic dialect of the 
Coptic language is printed for the first time in this edition. No use has 
hitherto been made of it. 

Borg. 248. This MS is inadequately described in Zoega s Catalogus 
Codicum Copticorum Mannscriptontm qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris 
adservantur (Romae, 1810) p. 604, as follows: Primo loco occurrit 
postrema pars epistolae primae S. Ignatii Martyris quae Philippis scripta 
ad Heronem. Deinde pag. 6 prostat titulus A.^OAIOJWC Keenic-roTVn 
itTe nneTOTa^k irn^Tioc nM^pTTpoc ITCTOTAIOTTC epoq -*e ^eo^opoc 
CTC neTtJjopei AuinovTe e^qcgeuc uj. np.uc.uTpK. \\. Pariter alia 
epistola sancti Ignatii martyris quem vocant Theophorum, i.e. qui 
Deum fert; quam scripsit ad Smyrnaeos. The heading of the Epistle to 
the Smyrnaeans is not quite accurate, as will appear by comparing it with 
the transcript printed in this edition : and moreover Zoega does not say 
whether the MS contains the title only or part of the epistle; and, if 
the latter, to which recension it belongs. This MS, together with the 
patristic MSS belonging to this Borgian collection, has been transferred 
to the Library of the Museo Nazionak at Naples, where I transcribed it. 
The portions of the Ignatian Epistles contained in it are (i) Hero 7 
IIoAuKu pTra) Trapetfe^T/i/ t^as to the end, followed by (2) Smyrnaans 
from the beginning as far as 6 TTCU/WVTOS 17 SU/^VTOS . They are written 
on two loose leaves, or four continuous pages marked e, c, 7, H. 
The MS is a 4to with double columns, clearly written. The initial letters 
are occasionally very rudely illuminated and the &lt; s are generally 
coloured. The marks over the n are capriciously inserted or omitted. 
Of the date I cannot venture to express an opinion, where Zoega is 
silent. The four pages missing at the beginning, &, &., v, -a., must 
have contained the earlier part of the Epistle to Hero, and can hardly 
have contained anything else. The Epistle to the Smyrns?ans is dis 
tinctly numbered the second. Thus the epistles in this Thebaic MS 
were arranged in an order different from any which is found in the MSS 

1 Moesinger (Suppl. Corp. Ign. p. 30) His error is not explained by anything in 
speaks of the Epistle to the Antioch- the passage of Cureton (C.I. p. 362 sq.) 
enes as existing in this Coptic version. to which he refers. 



102 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

of other versions and recensions. The MS affords no clue for deter 
mining how many of the Ignatian Epistles this version included. 



LONG FORM. 

Besides the original GREEK of this recension, a LATIN VERSION 
exists, omitting however the letter of Mary to Ignatius. This Latin 
version was first printed together with the works of Dionysius the 
Areopagite by J. Faber Stapulensis, IgnatiiUndecim Epislole (Paris 1498). 
The letter of Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius did not appear in this 
edition. The twelve letters complete were published by Symphorianus 
Champerius (Colon. 1536). The editio princeps of the Greek is that of 
Valentinus Paceus (Dillingae 1557), but it does not contain the Epistle 
of Mary to Ignatius, which was first published in full by Voss (1646). 

(i) GREEK. 

i. Monac. Grace. 394 [gj, now in the Royal Library at Munich ; 
see Catal. Cod. MSS Bibl. Reg. Bavar. iv. p. 221 (1810). This MS 
was formerly at Augsburg (hence the name Augustanm, by which 
it is commonly known), and is described in the Catal. Cod. in Bibl. 
Reipubl. Attgitst. Vindel. p. 22 (1595). The editio princeps of Valen 
tinus Paceus was taken from it. It is a 4to MS on vellum in single 
columns, written in a fine legible cursive hand, apparently the same 
throughout. The headings to the epistles are in capitals. Iotas 
adscript are sometimes given, but most commonly omitted- It probably 
belongs to the eleventh century. The volume, after the table of contents 
(fol. i a 2 b), contains (i) fol. 3 a 199 a the TrpoKai-T^o-is and the 
eighteen Kai-Tjx^o eis TWV &lt;amoju.eVa&gt;v of Cyril of Jerusalem, the author s 
name however not being given; (2) fol. 199 a 212 b, the five //.vora- 
ywyiKal KarT/x^cms commonly assigned likewise to Cyril of Jeru 
salem, but here stated to be Iwavvou eTrio-Korrou lepoo-oXu/xwv (see 
Toutte e s Dissert, ii. c. 3, prefixed to his edition of Cyril); (3) fol. 
2 13 a 26 1 a, the Ignatian Epistles, ending the volume. Fol. 212 b 
ends with the words 6&gt;Xfyeis CTTI TOV VWTOV ^/xwi/, Cyril. Catech. Mystag. v. 
17 (p. 330) ; fol. 213 a begins in the middle of a word -vdvKaXov Se TW 
/Voyioyxwi (TOV K.r.A. Mar. Ign. 2. Fol. 212 is a single leaf, the rest of the 
quire, which contained the end of the last Catechesis and the beginning 
of the Epistle of Mary to Ignatius, having disappeared. The fragment of 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 103 

the Epistle of Mary is not given in the editio princeps, but was printed by 
Ussher (Polyc. et Ignat. Ep. p. 129 sq. ; see his Append. Ignat. p. 80), 
from the CataL BibL August. Vindel. \. c., where it is published. In the 
much later Catal&lt; Bibl- Reg- Bavar. 1. c. it is ignored. 

This MS gives the Ignatian Epistles in the same order in which they 
occur commonly in the Greek MSS of this recension ; (i) Mary to 
Ignatius; (2) Ignatius to Mary; (3) Trallians; (4) Magnesians; (5) Tar- 
sians (Trpos rot? ev Tapo-&lt;3) ; (6) Philippians (irpds ^iXiTnnfo-iovs Trepi 
(7) Philadelphians ; (8) Smyrnaeans ; (9) Polycarp 
Tio-KOTTov S/rupvTjs) ; (10) Antiochenes ; (n) Hero 
StaKovov AVTIOX *s) ; (12) Ephesians; (13) Romans. The epistles 
are generally numbered in the margin (though sometimes the number 
is omitted) ; but the first number &lt;\ begins with Ignatius to Mary, the 
preceding letter of Mary to Ignatius not being reckoned in. Two 
lessons are indicated ; (i) TIJ y Kvpia?/ TWV ay&lt;W vT/crreiaSv, of which the 
beginning (apx 7 )) is noted at Ephes. 2 irpiirov ovv u/xas fo-rw on fol. 
252 a, and the end (re Xos) at Ephes. 9 /naAiora Trio-raV on fol. 254 a; 
(ii) tv rfj /J Vtjfj.r] TOV dytou tyvartov, of which the beginning (ap^r)) is at 
Rom. 3 eyw ypa&lt;o&gt; on fol. 259 b, while the end is not marked, or at 
least I have no record of it (see below, n. p. 429). 

This MS was very carelessly transcribed for the editio princeps. 
Thus in Ign. Mar. i Paceus prints Kpirroo-i, A^/xTyv, Trapayyva, ib. 2 
ijTifJia.a-fj.wiDV, KeXtvOevra, av eyvous (for avuyvovs), epijvrjv, ib. 4 a.va.K\iJT&lt;i&gt; 
(for avejKXiJTd}), ov ryev (for OVK ev), TrpocrSoxo/aevos i&lt;7$os (for Trpoa-8oKwfj.vo&lt;: 
/xicr^os),etc., in all which cases the words are correctly written in the MS. 
Not unnaturally editors have been misled by these phenomena. Thus 
Zahn (Ign. et Polyc. Ep. p. xx) writes Paceum codicis scripturam satis 
fideliter expressisse...ipsa vitiorum, quibus ilia scatet, ratio ostendit. 
Ne manifestissimos quidem errores emendavit etc. Thus the very errors 
of the editio princeps have lulled subsequent editors into a false 
security ; and the MS, though easily accessible, does not appear to have 
been collated since with the printed text. Through the intervention of 
the English Foreign Office the Munich authorities kindly allowed the 
MS to be sent to England for me, and I collated it throughout. 

2. Vaticanus 859 [gj, collated by Dressel, who marks it [V], and 
thus describes it ; membraneus, foliorum quaternariorum maj. 288, 
saec. xi, graeca ac docta manu scriptus ... Codex est optimae notae, scri- 
bendi quidem ratio nostrorum Graecorum, idcirco ob itacismum vocales 
ac diphthongos haud raro permutans. Inscriptiones rubrae. Nierses 
ille Ghelazensis, qui eum olim possidebat, in calce epistolae Barnabae 
notulam sermone Armeniaco adscripsit. Qui cum anno 1173 obierit, 



104 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

facile apparet Angelum Maium, cum [consentiente ?] Jacobsono (Patres 
Apost. ed. pr. p. v) codicem saeculo forsitan xiii assignaret, in hoc 
quoque errasse . 

I have inspected the volume myself. It contains a collection of 
miscellaneous patristic tracts and sermons. The Ignatian Epistles are 
immediately preceded by the letters of the false Dionysius the 
Areopagite. Fol. 149 b begins rtrco lepdp-^rj pam;cravTi 6Y eTTiOToX^s 
rts o 1-17? cro&lt;ias oT/cos K.r.X., the Qth letter of this pseudo-apostolic father. 
This continues for some pages. On fol. 151 b col. 2 below the middle 
is KCU rrjv [J.f.v KO.T* airtav, rrjv Se KOL@ vTrap^iv, rrjv Se Kara /Ae$etv, Kai aXXa 
aXXw?. tus ry KO.T aura ovv TrpaorTjros, Iv 77 KaraXvfrai K.r.X. The first 
part as far as ws ^ Kar aura belongs to the pseudo-Dionysius (p. 800, 
ed. Corder.) : the remaining words from ovv Trpacmjros onwards are from 
the Ignatian Epistle to the Trallians 4. There is no indication of the 
transition from Dionysius to Ignatius in the original MS, but a marginal 
note in Greek in a later hand -writing points out the dislocation, to 
which attention is also directed by a drawing of a hand and by a mark 
of separation in the text, this mark however being placed not after 
ws r) KCIT avrd (its right place) but after aXAa aXXws, so that the words 
ok i j KO.T avra are wrongly assigned to Ignatius. This fact enables us 
to trace the parentage of other MSS, which I shall describe afterwards. 
Thus the Ignatian Epistles are defective at the beginning, the Epistle to 
Mary of Cassobola and part of that to the Trallians being wanting 1 . 
The epistles then follow in the usual order as already described. After 
the Ignatian Epistles follows the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 
which is blended with the Epistle of Barnabas, just as we have seen 
that the Dionysian letter was blended with the Ignatian, the junction 
taking place in the same way in the middle of a sentence. The Epistle 
of Barnabas ends on fol. 211 b, and after its close is the Armenian note 
already mentioned. The rest of fol. 2 1 1 b is left blank, and on fol. 2 1 2 a 
begins the Protevangelium Jacobi. 

The MS was collated by Dressel, from whom I have taken the various 
readings in the Ignatian Epistles. 

3. Ottobonianus 348, also in the Vatican Library. This MS was 
collated by Dressel, who describes it Chartaceus, foliorum quaterna- 
riorum min. ineuntis saeculi xiv , and pronounces ex uno fonte cum 
Vaticano fluxisse videtur . Having inspected it myself, I believe it to 
be a lineal rather than a collateral descendant of Vatic. 859, and per- 

1 Dressel (p. 230) quotes the authority (17? for ov). This error is inexplicable, 
of this and the two MSS which I shall They do not any of them commence till 
next describe, for a reading in Trail. 3 the end of 4. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 105 

haps a direct copy. It contains the eleven Ignatian Epistles in the 
same order, followed by the Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas welded 
together in a like manner, the Epistle to the Trallians being mutilated 
at the beginning and commencing at the same place as in the older MS. 
This is far from convincing in itself; but there are other indications. 
The ungrammatical ws rj KO.T avra ovv Trpaor^ros of Vatic, 859 becomes 
&lt;os 77 K.O.T aura ovv Trpaor^s in Ottob. 348. The natural inference from 
this fact is that it was copied after the marginal note to the older MS 
had been written, and the transcriber, having been thereby misled as to 
the point at which the Ignatian Epistle begins, takes offence at the 
grammar and alters accordingly. I have not noticed any -reading in 
Dressel s collation of the Ignatian Epistles inconsistent with the sup 
position that it was copied from Vatic. 859 : and, having myself 
examined the vv. 11. of both MSS in the Epistle of Polycarp, I am con 
firmed in this view by the minute differences, which are at once 
explained by the phenomena of the older MS. Still it is barely possible 
that Ottob. 348 was copied not from Vatic. 859 itself, but from 
some MS closely allied to it. The headings to the epistles are simpler 
than in the older MS, being of the type TOV avrov Trpos /xayv^cn ovs 
eTrio-ToXr} rpirrj. Dressel says of Ottob. 348 Adsunt in margine scholia, 
adnotationes, correctiones ac conjecturae haud contemnendae . He 
has not remarked that these marginal notes are chiefly in the Epistle to 
the Romans, where they are merely various readings derived from the 
text of the Metaphrast. Elsewhere its corrections of the text of Vatic. 
859 are for the most part very obvious. These marginal notes are in a 
different hand from the MS itself. 

The title page (fol. i a) has TOU dyiov Upo/xapTvpos tyvan ou TOV 
$oc/&gt;opou eTTUTToAat in rubric : then Trpos TpaXX^uious tTrtcToA.?/ Seurepa, 
with a side note XeiVei rj dp^ r?ys Trpos rpaAA^o-ious cTrio-ToX^s ft , Trjs 
Se 7rpajT7?s TO TraV, but the last line 1-775 Se TrpcoTT/s TO irav seems to be 
by a different hand. The text begins about two-thirds down fol. i b. 

4. Laurent. Pint. vii. Cod. 21, in the Laurentian library at Florence, 
described in Bandini Catal. MSS Grace. Bibl. Laurent, i. p. 269. Some 
vv. 11. are given from it by Ussher, who designates it Flor., and a fuller 
but still partial collation appears in Dressel [F]. The volume contains 
(i) The Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp (with the Epistle of Barnabas 
attached to the latter); (2) Hippolytus de Consummatione Mundi, de 
Antichristo, and de Secundo Adventu. The MS is ascribed to the i5th 
century, but seems to belong rather to the i6th. 

The Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Barnabas in this MS appear 
to have been derived (so far as I have observed) immediately from 



106 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Ottob. 348. The title page presents exactly the same appearance, ex 
cept that the words 1-775 Se Trpwrr/s TO TTO.V are omitted ; the fragment of 
the Trallians begins with the same words cos 77 /car aura ovv 717x107775 
and in the same part of the corresponding (second) page; and the 
readings agree, excepting such alterations of spelling or otherwise as 
might easily occur to a moderately intelligent transcriber. Moreover 
in one instance at least the scribe has clumsily incorporated a marginal 
note of Ottob. 348. The Epistle to Polycarp at the close has the 
words dfj.ijv. 7} x&lt;*p ; but Laur. vii. 2 1 reads a/x?)v 77 x*P ts " 70)S T( ^ co " 
117 ju0 v^iav (see Bandini p. 270), the words urtos TO Oeov elrj p.eO 
v/xwv being unintelligently copied from a conjecture (to-ws) in the 
margin of Ottob. 348, which was intended to supply the supposed 
omission. 

5. Paris. Grace. 937, formerly Colbert. 4443, described in the Catal. 
MSS Bibl. Reg. n. p. 183, where it is assigned to the i6th century. 
This MS has every appearance of being a facsimile of the last-men 
tioned. The title page, commencement, headings, etc., and general 
appearance are exactly the same. Moreover the Epistles of Ignatius, 
Polycarp, and Barnabas, are followed by the same three treatises of 
Hippolytus. In the Paris MS however after these treatises other works 
are added (see the Catal. 1. c.), which are wanting in the Laurentian. 
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp ends in this MS in the same way as 
in the preceding, 77 x"P ts " ws T0 ^ ^ ^ e "? / X ^ v/u,o5v. In the only 
portion for which I have examined both MSS carefully the Epistle of 
Polycarp the phenomena suggest that Paris. Grace. 937 was copied 
directly from Laurent, vii. 21, or (if not so) was a second transcript 
made from the same MS about the same time ; e. g. in 4 the marginal 
reading of the Laurentian /xo/xos o-KOTren-ai is introduced into the text of 
the Parisian. But possibly a closer examination of other parts might 
show that the relation is not quite so simple. 

6. Paris. Suppl. Grace. 341, a small 4to written on paper; a volume 
of miscellaneous contents, containing various works, some in manu 
script (apparently in different hands), some printed. At the end of the 
first part, which is chiefly occupied with the treatise of Gregory Nyssen 
Trepi Karao-KevTjs dvOpwirov, the transcriber has written on a blank leaf 
(fol. 91 b) Patavii exscriptum anno ab incarnatione servatoris nostri 
Jesu Christi M.D. xxxn . After the second part, which contains the 
Christus Patiens, is written Venetiis anno salutis M.D. xxxv sexto 
decimo Cal. Octobris . The two printed works which are bound up in 
the volume bear the dates 1558 and 1553 respectively. The Ignatian 
Epistles stand at the end of the manuscript portion, and immediately 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 107 

before the printed works. It may be inferred therefore that they were 
written somewhere about the middle of the i6th century. 

Cotelier in his preface states that for the Ignatian Epistles he 
made use of codice Claudii Jolii praecentoris ecclesiae Parisiensis . 
He gives the various readings of this manuscript in his margin, 
designating it simply MS , without mentioning the name 1 . This 
Claude Joly, who has a certain position in the literary history of 
France, was made precentor of Notre Dame A.D. 1671 (the year 
before Cotelier s edition appeared) and died A.D. 1700. He had a good 
library, which he left to the Chapter of Notre Dame. The MS used by 
Cotelier was evidently this Paris. Suppl. Grace. 341, for on a fly leaf 
it has the entry A la Bibliotheque de 1 Eglise de Paris n.2 , and it 
appears as no. 214 in the manuscript catalogue of the books which 
came to the National Library from Notre Dame. The variations more 
over agree with those of Cotelier s MS, so far as I have tested them, 
though they are frequently quite unique. 

This MS evidently belongs to the same class as the four preceding ; 
for it begins at the same point in the Epistle to the Trallians. The 
general title is TOV dyiov lepo/Aaprvpos iyvoiTLOv TOV 6fo&lt;f&gt;opov eVio-roAcu, 
followed by the special title irpos rpaAX^o-ious eTrto-roXi} Sevre pa. As in 
the MSS previously described, the epistle itself begins in the lower part 
of the second page, ws 17 KO.T avra ovv Trpao r^s, the upper part being 
left blank. 

This fact indicates its general relationship, but its lineage may be 
more closely determined. A comparison with Ottob. 348 seems to 
show that it was derived mediately or immediately from this last-men 
tioned MS. Thus Ottob. 348 gives in the margin a large number of 
various readings derived from the Metaphrast. In Paris. Suppl. Graec. 
341 these readings are incorporated into the text, with occasional 
exceptions where they are given as marginal alternatives. It is un 
necessary to give examples, for any one may satisfy himself on this 
point by comparing Cotelier s various readings taken from his MS with 
the marginal alternatives of Ottob. 348 as given by Dressel. The coin- 



1 Zahn, by no fault of his own, has he gives viov, whereas it should be viov 

been misled by the manner in which Xpurrov. Sometimes Cotelier himself is 

Cotelier gives the variations. Thus p. incorrect ; but his faults are chiefly of 

194 for Magn. n r^v lovoaiuv Zahn omission. On the whole however his 

gives the v. 1. of our MS as rV T &v "Ion- collation is as full as we should expect 

Saltav, whereas it should be TWV lovdaiuv from any critic of his age. 
(om. TTJP), and in Magn. \i Irjffou Xptcrroi! 



108 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

cidences however are even more numerous than appear from Cotelier s 
collation. Thus in Rom. inscr. the correction of ^co/xe voi?, 7r7rA77/xo/ze- 
voi9, into yvw[j.evr]i , TrcTrA^pco/AeV^j/ (the words however being written 
with o for w in the Paris MS), is common to both ; and so in other cases 
which he has omitted to record. The incorporation of these marginal 
readings of Ottob. 348 is not always very intelligently made. Thus in 
Rom. 9 rfj oS&lt;3 TT) Kara trapxa Kara Tro Xtv K.T.X., the words 177 Kara. 
adpKa. are omitted in the interpolator s text, but inserted in the marg. 
of Ottob. 348 from the Metaphrast ; whereas the transcriber of our MS 
has simply substituted KOTU a-dpKa. for Kara 7roA.iv in the text. I have 
only examined this Paris MS very partially ; but, so far as I have ob 
served, all the phenomena suggest that it was copied directly from 
Ottob. 348. At all events it has no independent value and is useless 
for all critical purposes. 

In his note on Magn. 8 Cotelier writes participium wooT^ crai/, 
quod sequitur in codice Thuaneo, quodque agnoscit barbarus interpres . 
He is evidently alluding to a Greek MS ; and as in his preface he only 
mentions using one Greek MS for these epistles and in his margin here 
gives vTroaTTJa-avTi as the reading of this MS, it may be assumed that he 
is referring to it also in his note. But how comes he to describe it as 
belonging to Thuanus (de Thou), when in his preface he states that 
Claude Joly was the owner of it ? Elsewhere, so far as I am aware, he 
never designates it Thuaneus. The difficulty seems not to have oc 
curred to subsequent editors. Whiston, who in his edition of these 
epistles (Primitive Christianity i. p. 102 sq.) gives the various readings 
of Cotelier s MS throughout, marks it T and calls it that of Thuanus 
(Advertisement p. ii). So too Cureton and Zahn designate it without 
misgiving. This ready acquiescence of later editors is probably due to 
the fact that they did not use Cotelier s original work (A.D. 1672) but 
one or both of Leclerc s editions of Cotelier (so certainly Zahn p. xxiii, 
note i ; and for Whiston see Advertisement p. iii), in which Cotelier s 
preface, containing an account of the MS, is omitted. I am disposed 
to think that in codice Thuaneo is a slip of Cotelier. He elsewhere 
frequently gives the readings of a Latin codex Thuaneus of these 
epistles, which I shall describe below, and may accidentally have 
substituted the wrong name in this place. It is difficult to see 
how the MS of Claude Joly can ever have belonged to the library of 
de Thou. In the catalogue of de Thou s library, published by Quesnel 
(Paris 1679) a few years after Cotelier s edition appeared, but before 
this library was dispersed, there is no mention of a Greek MS of the 
Ignatian Epistles, whereas the Latin MS is duly entered, A codex 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 109 

Thuaneus therefore could hardly have been in Joly s possession at 
this time. 

It will have appeared from the description that the last four MSS 
have no independent value, as there is every reason to believe that 
they are lineally descended from Vatic. 859. They may therefore be 
safely neglected. It would be worse than useless to encumber the 
apparatus criticus with their various readings. 

7. Nydprucaanus [g 3 ], the MS from which Gesner printed his edition. 
The editor (praef. p. 4) says Graecum exemplar manuscriptum nactus 
[sum] ex bibliotheca Cl. V. piae memoriae D. Gaspari a Nydprugck 
[i. e. von Nienburg, or Newenburg]. I have investigated in all likely 
quarters, and cannot find that this MS is still in existence. As it does 
not appear to have been seen by any one since Gesner, it may have 
been given as copy to the printer, in which case it would probably have 
been destroyed at the time. 

Gesner appears to have published his edition without any know 
ledge that he had been anticipated ; for his language distinctly implies 
that he is giving the Greek of these epistles for the first time. His 
ignorance however is difficult to explain. His preface is dated 1559, 
while the title page of the Ignatian Epistles bears the date 1560. Yet 
not only had the editio princeps appeared three years before (1557), 
but in the following year (1558) Morel at Paris had followed it up 
by an edition founded on it. 

This text differs very widely from any other, and the eccentric 
readings must be attributed to arbitrary invention. They plainly have 
no traditional value. These variations are of different kinds. Some 
times they consist in the capricious substitution of synonyms : e. g. 
Magn. 9 VCOTTJTO, for KCUVOTTJTO, Trail. 9 KoiAto, for /capSta, Rom. 4 CTTI- 
ore AAw for lvTt\\ofj.ai, Ephcs. 10 Aeyere for curare. Sometimes a word of 
different import is substituted with the idea of improving the sense, 
the substituted word being not unfrequently suggested by similarity of 
sound; e.g. Magn. 10 /xto/x^ cr^Tac for (Ufufanfrai, Rom. 2 SuA$eiV for 
StaXutfynu, Philad. 8 avOevriKov for aOiKrov, TrpoKptVerai for irpoicttrat, 
Smyrn. 3 a~fjfj.a for TfJ.rjfJ.oL, Polyc. 4 OTTO TOV Kvpiou for oVo TOU KCHVOV, 
ib. 7 av-ov dyain](rY]Te for auro a7rapTtcrr;re, EpJlCS. 1 6 e/CKXijcriav for StSaor- 
KoAtui . On this principle the Latin words in Polyc. 6 are all changed ; 
Siaa-aXtvOrj being substituted for Sto-eprcap tVp&Q, TO. 8e TroAe/UKa 
for TCI Se7ro (riTa, TU d$Aa for ra aKKCTrra. So tOO *A/3vtp is substituted 
for A/JeSSaSai in Magn. 3, where the historical reference is unintel 
ligible ; and in the same context the unusual word eKKpe/^s is changed 
into tKi Kpf/j.r)6fL&lt;;. Again ; a very frequent motive of change is the 



HO EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

desire to simplify the grammar, where the sentence is abrupt or ellip 
tical : e.g. the insertion of rj fv^ TT^OS in Polyc. 2, and of Se e/c/JaXXcTe 
in Ephes. 8 ; or the omission of os *at in Magn. 4 ; or the substitution 
of i/ e yw 8e for i^eywv and of wv for TOVTCOV Philad. 4, and again of avros 
d IlaCXos for Ka0ak IlauXos in Tars. 7. Instances of all classes of varia 
tions might be largely multiplied. 

It is difficult to say how far these readings are due to the scribe of 
the MS or of its prototype, and how far to the editor of the printed 
text. The substitution of Greek words for Latin in Polyc. 6 would 
seem to show that the corrector was more familiar with Greek than with 
Latin, and thus to point to the scribe rather than to the editor. But 
whoever may have been their author, they are valueless for critical 
purposes. A primary test of correctness in the readings of the Long 
recension is conformity with the pre-existing text of the Middle form 
on which it was founded; and this test the characteristic readings of 
the Nydprugck MS generally fail to satisfy, thus condemning themselves. 
As a rule also, they diverge from the old Latin version. In a very few 
cases indeed they may seem to be confirmed by this version ; e. g. in 
the curious substitution of avdevTixov for aOiKrov, and TrpoKpivfrau for 
TrpoKttTtu, Philad. 6, where the Latin has principatus, praejudicatur. If 
these readings be not, as we are tempted to suspect, emendations of 
the editor who had the Latin version before him, they must be more 
ancient than this version ; but even then they are condemned by refer 
ence to the text of the Middle form, which has O.QIKTOV and TrpoVemu 
like the other MSS of the Long recension. 

The eccentric readings of this MS therefore must be set aside. But 
on the other hand it contains an ancient element of some value ; and 
cannot be altogether neglected, though it requires to be used with dis 
crimination. 

8. Comtantinopolitanus [g 4 ]. This is the important MS from which 
Bryennios first published the Epistles of S. Clement in their complete 
form (A.D. 1875), and is described accordingly in my Appendix to 
S. Clement of Rome p. 224 sq. It bears the date A.D. 1056. The 
Ignatian Epistles begin on fol. 81 with the Epistle of Mary to Ignatius, 
and occur in the order which is usual in this recension. 

I am indebted to the great kindness of Bryennios, now Metropolitan 
of Nicomedia, for a collation of the Ignatian Epistles in this MS, 
procured for me through the mediation of our common friend 
Dr Hieronymus Myriantheus, Archimandrite of the Greek Church 
in London. The collation is made with the text of the Ignatian 
Epistles in Migne s Patrologia Graeca. Where there was any chance 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. Hi 

of a variation escaping the eye of a careful collator, I have recorded the 
fact that the reading of this MS is inferred ex silent io. 

The MS maintains the same character in the Ignatian letters which 
has been noticed in the Epistles of Clement (Appendix p. 226 sq.). 
Here, as there, it exhibits manifest traces of a critical revision, which 
detracts from its authority. But after due allowance made for this 
editorial interference, it remains an important aid to the criticism of the 
text; and moreover it has a special value as being the only Greek 
MS which preserves the thirteen Ignatian Epistles of the Long recension 
(including the Letter of Mary to Ignatius) entire. 

9. Vatic. Regius (Rcginensis ?) 30 [g 6 ], a Vatican MS collated by Dres- 
sel and called by him [R]. He thus describes it (p. Ivii); Membraneus, 
foliis octonariis, saeculi xi ineuntis. Insunt Opp. Dionysii Areopagitac 
cum glossis haud indoctis, necnon ad loannem Apostolum spectantia 
(i 1 60). Postea fragmentum Epistolae Ignatii ad Ephesios exhibetur 
in sex foliis cum dimidio . The fragment extends from the beginning 
of the epistle to 18 TTOV Ka^x^cris TWV \c-yo-. This epistle is numbered 
A, which points to an arrangement differing from the common order, 
where it would be IA. 

10. Barber. 68, in the Barberini Library at Rome. At the 
beginning is written S. Ignatii Martyris Epistolae Graecae ex Codice 
Vaticano a Leone Allatio erutae , and below is the number 428. Dressel 
wrongly copies it ex codice Vaticano 428 a Leone Allatio erutae , and 
adds Cod. Vaticanus frustra quaeritur, cum ille numero 428 insignitus 
Ignatium non contineat, neque ad Vaticanum 859 aut Ottobonianum 
348 ne ex longinquo quidem accedat . The correct position of 428 
points not to the number of the Vatican MS from which it was copied, 
but to the number of the transcript itself in the collection to which it 
at one time or other belonged, as I ascertained by personal inspection. 
Montfaucon indeed (Bibl. Bibl. i. pp. 116, 131, 142) mentions a Vatican 
MS of the Ignatian Epistles numbered 4248, but I was informed on the 
spot, that there was no Greek MS corresponding to this number. This 
transcript (Barber. 68) contains the twelve Epistles of Ignatius in the 
order usual in the Long recension. The Epistle of Mary to Ignatius is 
not included. Dressel in his preface (p. Ix) promises to designate this 
MS C, but in his notes it appears as B. 

But what is the value of this professed transcript ? In the margin 
Allatius gives various readings from the famous Medicean MS (see above, 
p. 73 sq.), and in reference to these Dressel describes him as haudraro 
suas conjecturas pro libri scripti lectionibus tacite venditans . How 
just this accusation is, any one may see for himself by comparing these 



H2 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

marginal readings with any fair collation of the Medicean MS itself. 
But I can prove to demonstration that his text is even less trustworthy 
than his margin. On a closer inspection of the text of this transcript, I 
became more and more convinced that its characteristic readings were 
taken from some printed edition of the Ignatian Epistles ; and at 
length I obtained direct proof of this. In Hero 4 this transcript reads 
ct fjirj em TWI&gt; TTpwruv 7r/)a&gt;TO7rAacrTa&gt;v, inserting the worse than superfluous 
Tr/Dwrwr. This reading is obviously false, and is not found in any other 
MS. But it occurs in some printed texts, and I have been able to trace 
its history. It appears first in Ussher, and for the moment I was per 
plexed to explain its appearance. But turning to the Antwerp edition 
of Ignatius printed by Plantinus (A.D. 1572) I found the solution. The 
last words of the last line on p. 53 in this edition are cl /XT} CTTI, and 
below is written TWV Trpia- according to a common practice of giving 
the catch words to carry the eye forward, as the next page begins with 
TWV TrpwTOTrXcicrTaj^. Ussher must have had his text printed from a copy 
of this edition; and the compositor has carelessly read on continuously 
CTTI TUV Trpo) | TU&gt;V TrpwTOTrXaoTwv. Ussher indeed found out the mis 
print, for in his table of errata Trpwrwv is directed to be omitted ; but 
Voss, not seeing this, prints CTTI TWV TT/JOJTWV TrpwroTrAao-Ton/ after Ussher. 
A happy blunder ; for it enables us to detect the imposture of 
Allatius. Allatius, professing to transcribe a Vatican MS, really tran 
scribes the text of Ussher or Voss. Nor is this the only case in which 
he is clearly detected. Thus in Smyrn. 6 the transcript of Allatius 
reads ov TT/S (0175 cuowov, for on 0)775 cuwi/tov. This position of the 
article is a solecism in Greek, and it is not found in any other MS. 
But the sense seemed to require a negative (which appears also in the 
Latin version), and accordingly the early editor Morel (A.D. 1558) 
substituted ov T^S for on. He would have respected Greek usage more, 
and have diverged less from MS authority, if he had read ov simply for 
OTI. But his solecism was perpetuated in later editions, till it reached 
Ussher and Voss, and from one or other it was taken by Allatius. 
Again in Tars. 9 this transcript reads aveTrtcmyToi with the printed 
editions, though the word does not occur elsewhere and could hardly 
be used in the sense required here. The other MSS vary between 
aveTTtoraToi and dveTrurraT^Toi, both these words being found elsewhere, 
and both perhaps possible in this context. Again in Philipp. 11, where 
the editio princeps had T^a cra?, Morel boldly substituted ea&gt;o-as and is 
followed by later editors ; accordingly elwo-as is found in this transcript, 
though no MS has any reading at all resembling it. Again in Magn. 13 
the correct reading is d^oirXoKov Kai Trvcvp-ariKov o-re^avou TOV 7rpeo-/3u- 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 113 

where by a fanciful metaphor the circle of presbyters seated 
round the bishop are regarded as a spiritual wreath fitly woven about 
him. In some MSS however Trpfa-fivTepLov has been corrupted into 
n-pevjSvTfpov, and or&lt;dvou is in consequence changed into a proper 
name Stephen. In this connexion the epithet dio7rAoKou is quite out 
of place, and Morel substituted diovi /&lt;ou sua authoritate , as Ussher 
truly says, and in this he was followed by most later editors, though 
not by Ussher or Voss. So diovt*ov appears in the transcript of 
Allatius. These are some of the more decisive instances in which 
Allatius copies a printed text; but many more might be adduced. 
Thus alfjiMTtav for cTTrcp/xarajv, Trail. 10, was Morel s conjecture : a7rc- 
Setev for aTnj\ey(v, Mctgn. 3, appeared first in an edition of Plantinus, 
being suggested by a7rr/ Aeiev a misprint of the editio princeps ; 1X77- 
&lt;f&gt;caav was first substituted for fL\Kvvav, Philad. 5, in the edition of 
Plantinus, where the editio princeps has flXrjvo-av ; TTfTrXypofopyfjievr) 
for TrfTr\rjpwp.lvr}, Smyrn. prasf., was an early editorial correction, founded 
on 7rfTrXir)po[j.evy, again a misprint of the editio princeps. All these 
are devoid of MS authority, and yet all appear in this transcript. In 
several passages also this transcript follows the capricious alterations 
of g 3 where they are found in no other MS, and the strong presump 
tion is that in these cases also the transcriber must have derived his 
readings from some printed text. Lastly, it occasionally introduces 
readings which are found only in the text of the Middle form, and 
which (there is good reason to believe) never had a place in the Long 
recension ; e. g. di/acrrdo-ci for. air^o-ei in Polyc. 7. 

The case against this transcript might be considerably strengthened ; 
but I believe that sufficient has been said to show its worthlessness. 
It contains in fact a made up text. Allatius must have had before him 
more than one printed edition, for he could not (so far as I have ob 
served) have got the readings TU&gt;J&gt; Trpwrwv TrpuTOTrXda-Tw Hero 4 and 
dtoviKou Magn. 13 from the same edition. He professes however to 
have taken the epistles from a Vatican MS ; and this may be so far 
true, that together with his printed texts he did employ such a 
MS. But, if so, can we identify it ? After we have thus traced the most 
characteristic and striking readings of this transcript to printed editions, 
it no longer remains an obstacle to the identification of the MS in 
question with Vatic. 859 or with Ottob. 348, that its text ne ex lon- 
ginquo quidem accedit to that presented by either. A more for 
midable objection is the fact that, whereas the transcript contains 
the twelve epistles complete, these two MSS want the whole of the first 
epistle and the beginning of the second. But with his other aids 
IGN. I. 8 



114 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

before him, Allatius could easily have supplied the omission. Until some 
other Vatican MS therefore is discovered which better satisfies the 
conditions, it may be presumed that the MS referred to was one of those 
with which we are acquainted. At all events sufficient has been said to 
show that this transcript is quite useless for critical purposes. Nor has 
the investigation been superfluous ; for, if we had been obliged to 
accept its text as an authority, wholly new phenomena would have 
had to be considered, and the entire subject would have been thrown 
into confusion. 

ii. Bodl. Auct. D. Infr. 2. 19 (see Coxe s CataL Cod. Mamiscr. 
Bibl. Bodl. i. p. 627), a small vol. parchment, in a comparatively recent 
(i7th century) hand. Its history is given by Bp. Fell on the fly leaf: 

Septembris 17 A. 1673 cum ex itinere Harburiam Comitatus 
Leicestriae pertransirem, codicis hujus copia mihi facta est ; eundemque 
dono dedit egregius vir et de re literaria optime meritus D nus Johannes 
Berry, scholae ibidem Grammaticalis ludimagister. Codicem ipsum 
Oundleiae in Agro Northamptoniensi apud Bibliopolam neglectum, et 
inter scruta delitescentem, pretio satis exiguo redemit. J. FELL. 

This MS must also be the same which is mentioned in Bernard s 
CataL Libr. MSS Angl. et Ilibern. (Oxon. 1697) no. 7099 Ignatii 
Antiocheni Epistolae Graece, as belonging to the library of the 
Rev. H. Jones ; for Jones was the successor of Bp. Fell in his living of 
Sunningwell and came into possession of several of his books. 

This MS contains the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius, but in 
the interpolated text. It is thus quite unique. 

In the Vind. Ign. p. 57 sq. (ed. Churton) Pearson writes: Habeo 
exemplar MS Graecum epistolarum Ignatianarum mihi a viro docto et 
antiquitatum curioso communicatum sine fictis et supposititiis (septem 
enim tantum sunt) sed cum assumentis quidem diu post Eusebium, 
imo et Gelasium, factis, epistolas hoc ordine repraesentans ; Trpos Tpa/\- 
Arjcn ous A. Trpos Mayrqcn ous B. Trpos ^tAaSeA^fts T. Trpos 2/uvpvai ovs A. 

77/305 IToXli/CapTrOV {.TTLCTKOTTOV S/Al pDJS E. 7T/DOS E&lt;e(riOVS ~. TTQOS Pw- 



This description entirely accords with the Bodleian MS. 

In other passages Pearson refers to a MS which he calls Leicestrensis 
(Minor Theol. Works n. p. 443, Epist. Ign. p. 15), and Smith also 
mentions this MS on one occasion (Epist. Ign. p. 70). Elsewhere again 
Pearson designates a certain MS as Anglicanus ( V. I. p. 490, Ep. Ign. 
PP- 33&gt; 3 8 &gt; 44)- Both designations would be appropriate to the 
Bodleian MS. It was found by Bp. Fell in Leicestershire, and it is the 
only Greek MS of Ignatius known to exist in England. 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 115 

The identification moreover is further confirmed when we come to 
examine the readings. Pearson mentions four readings of Atlglicartus, 
all of which are found in this MS: Ephes. 12 jznj/iovevei v/*&lt;3v ( V. I. 
p. 490); Polyc. 7 O-VVTOVOV (Ep. Ign. p. 33); Magn. 10 v7rep6T0e (Ep. 
fgn. p. 44) ; Ephes. 12 7rapaSo0a s ye TOJI/ with a marginal reading TrepioSo s 
la-re ran/ (/&gt;. ^-/z. p. 38). The last coincidence would be almost 
decisive in itself, since this marginal reading is quite unique. Two 
readings are also given as from Leicestrensis, which agree with the 
Bodleian MS, ruv /car avS/m Smyrn. 5 by Pearson (Ep. Ign. p. 15) and 
tVio-KOTTou Polyc. 8 by Smith (Ep. fgn. p. 70). Hitherto therefore all the 
facts conspire to identify the Anglicanus and Leicestrensis with each 
other 1 , and with the Bodleian MS. But there is one statement which 
seems inconsistent with this identification and which Churton ( V. I. p. 58) 
urges as fatal to it. In his treatise de Annis Primorum Romae Episco- 
porum (Minor Theol. Works n. p. 443) Pearson adduces Ava^cX?/ as 
the reading of Leicestrensis in the spurious epistle ad Mar. 4, which 
epistle is not contained in our MS. This however was a posthumous 
work left unfinished by Pearson ; and there is probably some confusion 
with the parallel passage in Trail. 7, where our MS does write this name 
Am/cX^ros 2 . There is therefore no sufficient ground for questioning 
the identification. 

But if so, it becomes important to ascertain the character and history 
of this MS, since Pearson ( V. I. p. 57 sq.), when discussing the genesis 
of the Ignatian Epistles, grounds an argument on the fact that it con 
tains only seven letters, though in the long form. 

From this MS Whiston (Primitive Christianity Revived} gives various 
readings, designating it B (as being already in the Bodleian Library). 
With this exception it has been overlooked by Ignatian editors, and no 
one seems to have examined it carefully before myself. When I first 
turned over the leaves, I saw at once that it had been written after the 
Ignatian controversy had arisen, and that the transcriber had con 
sequently picked out the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius and 

1 Against the identification of Angli- as distinct from Pearson s MS. 

canns with Leicestrensis Churton (1. c.) 2 Careful as he was, Pearson could 

writes id quominus credam, obstat quod sometimes make great mistakes even in 

duos codices distinguit Smithius Nott. his finished works. Thus in V. /. p. 517 

p. 70. This is a mistake. Smith there he writes Tertullianus for Hieronymus, 

mentions Augiistanus, but not Angli- while giving the reference and quoting 

cattus, in connexion with Leicestrensis. the words of the passage. See also my 

Lipsius (Syr. Text. d. Ign. p. 48) falls notes on Philad. n AyatfoTroSi (n.p.iSo), 

into the mistake of treating Leicestrensis and on Stnyrn. i^"A\Kr]v (ll. p. 325). 

82 



Il6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

isolated them from the rest, as alone genuine 1 . I supposed however that 
they might have been copied from some older MS. But a further 
examination enables me to say confidently that it is taken from the 
2nd edition of Morel, Paris 1562. The transcriber is very careless and 
ignorant. He omits and miswrites constantly. But I have collated 
nearly the whole volume, and have not found a single reading which 
cannot be traced to Morel, when proper allowance is made for errors of 
transcription. 

This relation betrays itself in many ways. Thus in Ephes. inscr. 
the scribe has imitated the contraction of ^Vw/ieVr/v as it appears in 
Morel s type, though generally he writes the letters separately. Thus 
again in Rom. 9 the first o of juo vos in Morel s edition is faulty, so that 
the word looks like /u vos ; accordingly our scribe has written it /xiVos 2 . 
Nor are these the only instances where the peculiarities or imperfections 
of the type have misled him. Contracted words for instance are fre 
quently read and written out wrongly by him. Moreover this MS exhibits 
a number of Morel s readings, which were due to conjectural emen 
dation, and which (being demonstrably wrong) could not have occurred 
in any MS independently. 

In the following readings for instance, for which there is no manuscript authority, 
Leicestrensis (L) agrees with Morel (M) : Trail. 3 ov Xo-y/fo/mt, ML r;i&gt; \oylo/jLai ; 
ib. 7 a&lt;r&lt;j&gt;a\lfff6e ovv robs nwvrovt, ML 7rp6s roi)s TOIOVTOVS, ib. AvtyKXrjros, ML 
AvckXijros ; ib. 8 yuAXoj/ras, ML fj.t\\ovati&gt; (in M the accent is on the contracted XX; 
in L it is placed on the on) ; ib. 10 airfpfjidruv, ML at/jLaruv (in M the two last 
syllables are contracted, so that the position of the accent is not obvious; L writes 
: Magn. i /card debv, ML (caret 0eoO ; ib. 3 irvevpa. tanv, ML irvevfj.a o 
; il&gt;. 6d({&gt;, ML Otov (the editio princeps misprinted it 0ew, and hence M s 
conj. Oeov) ; ib. Kareppiirov, ML Kartpdirov ; ib. 5 ruv tlpri^vuv, ML TUV ripTintvuv ; 
ib. 8 direiOovvras, ML aTUTTovvras (the ed. princ. misprinted it airfirovvra.?, and 
hence M s conj.); ib. 9 Kal dpyiais, ML cis apytais ; ib. 13 d!;ioTr\6Kov...&lt;rTe&lt;pdvov 
TOV irpeafivrepiov vfj,uv, ML allots iKov... 2,Tf&lt;f)dvov rov irptffpvrtpov v/uwf which is 
based on a misconception (see p. 112 sq.) ; ib. 14 ijvw/uev^s, M ripufj.fvr)s, L fipu/j.evrjt ; 
Philad. inscr. &lt;rvyK\v&lt;ravTes, ML &lt;TvyK\ycravTfs (a misprint of the ed. princ.); ib. 3 
O.VTOVS &lt;f&gt;vTelav, ML aur&s tpvreiav; ib. n &gt;) dyawi] TUV ddf\(j&gt;uii&gt;, ML tv dyairg ruv 
aSf\(puv (apparently a misprint of M in his 2nd ed., for it makes no sense ; it is 

1 This is done, for instance, by Ve- scribe did not use the first edition of 

delius in his edition of 1623, some years Morel (1558), but the second (1562). In 

before Ussher s discovery of the genuine the first edition fivu/jtvyv is uncontracted, 

Ignatian text. Vedelius divides the and ^o^os is clearly printed. So again in 

epistles into two books quorum prior Philad. 5 the MS has t t\Kvaav with the 

continet epistolas genuinas, alter sup- second edition, whereas in his first edition 

posititias. Morel read d\ri&lt;t&gt;f&lt;Tav. 

1 These two instances show that the 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. Ii; 

correct in his first) ; ib. 4 rrjs ri2v v6/*uv /teX^r?;?, ML rjjj roO vop.ov /ue\^r?;j (the ed. 
princ. printed incorrectly TTJS ruv VO/J.QV /ueX^rTjy, which M emended accordingly) ; 
Smyrn. inscr. ireir\T)pu[j.ti&gt;y, ML Treir\7)po&lt;f&gt;opr)/j.hr] (the ed. princ. misprinted it 
ir(TT\r)po/Ji{i ri, and M emended) ; ib. 6 STL fcoijs alwviov, ML 01! T^J fw7?s at wWou 
(where M s emendation introduces a solecism: see above, p. 112); Polyc. i rb 
firirvxfiv, ML TOU tirirvxelv ; ib. 8 fviffKoiry, ML tiriffKoirov ; Ephes. 5 ivaKficpa- 
phovs, ML dvaKpffjLa/jfvov^ (this conjecture of M was founded on the corrupt reading 
of the Aug. MS dva.K(Kp(/j.a/jivovf reproduced in the ed. princ.); ib. 9 ffuvoSoiwo- 
pouvTas, ML ffwoSoiiropoi vra (this is a mere misprint in M s -2nd ed. ; it is correct 
in the ist) ; Rom. 5 K.Q.V aura 5 e/cdvra /c.T.X., ML /cai aura & ta.v tuovTa. K.T.\. 
(the ed. princ. has icai aura 82 e/cocra, after the Aug. MS, and M supplied the missing 
tap or aV in the wrong place). 

The origin of this MS therefore can hardly be disputed. It may 
safely be set aside as worthless ; and so Pearson s argument, founded 
on the unique phenomenon which it exhibits, must fall to the ground. 

It will thus be seen that all the Greek MSS except four g t (Au- 
gustanus), g 3 (Vatic. 859), g s (Nydpruccianus), g 4 (Constantinopolitanus), 
with the addition perhaps of a fifth g 5 ( Vatic. Reg. 30) for the greater 
part of the Epistle to the Ephesians, may be discarded, as having no 
independent value. Of these four g, is the most important, and g, 
comes next; while g 3 and g 4 bear on their face the signs of literary 
revision, but are not without their value as subsidiary evidence in con 
firmation of readings found in other authorities. 

(ii) LATIN. 

The date of this version is uncertain. Ussher (Polyc. et Ign. Ep. 
p. Ixxxv) hazarded the opinion that it was made in the same century 
in which the Ignatian writer himself lived. This view was plainly 
untenable and is retracted by Ussher himself in his table of Emen- 
danda. It must be remembered however that he placed the spurious 
Ignatian writings themselves at the close of the sixth century (i. e. pro 
bably two centuries or more after their proper date), so that he 
was not so very wide of the mark with regard to the epoch of the 
translator as he might seem at first sight. No date indeed can be 
assigned to this version, except within somewhat wide limits. Of 
Latin writers Gregory the Great is the earliest who is alleged as 
quoting the Long Recension of the Ignatian Epistles (Op. vn. p. 320, 
Venet. 1770). But the very expression, Ameri Gratia, which he cites 
is wanting in this Latin version ; and even if he is here quoting the 
interpolated rather than the genuine letters, which is somewhat doubtful 
(see ii. p. 850 sq.), he himself intimates that he derived his quotation 
not from the epistles themselves, but from his Greek correspondent 



IlS EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Anastasius of Antioch, and we may even infer from his language that 
he had no direct acquaintance with them. It may be presumed there 
fore that at the close of the sixth century, when Gregory wrote, this 
Latin version was not yet in existence. On the other hand it is 
certainly quoted by Ado of Vienne (1874) more than once in his Liber 
de Festiv. Apostolorum (on xiv Kal. Mart, from Ephcs. i for One- 
simus, on Prid. Non. Mai from Antioch. 7 for Euodius). Between 
these dates therefore the translation must have been made. 

The epistles occur in this version in the following order; (i) to 
Mary of Cassobola, (2) Trallians, (3) Magnesians, (4) Tarsians, (5) 
Philippians, (6) Philadelphians, (7) Smyrnreans, (8) Polycarp, (9) Anti- 
ochenes, (10) Hero, (n) Ephesians, (12) Romans. To these is added 
the Laus Heronis or Prayer of Hero to Ignatius. Some MSS interpose 
between the Epistle to the Romans and the Laus Heronis the 
Bollandist Acts of Ignatius (see n. pp. 365 sq., 370). Others again 
prefix the correspondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John 
(see n. p. 653 sq.). But neither has any necessary connexion with 
this version. On the other hand the Epistle of Mary of Cassobola 
to Ignatius is wanting in all the extant MSS of this version, and 
probably never formed part of it. 

The following is a complete list of the MSS which have come to 
my knowledge. Probably however others may lie hidden in public or 
private libraries of which no catalogues exist or are accessible. 

i. Regincnsis 81 (called Regius 81 by Dressel p. Ivii), belonging 
to the collection of Christina Queen of Sweden, in the Vatican library. 
It is described by Dressel (1. c.) and more accurately by Reifferscheid 
Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Italica p. 369. Dressel says indole 
atque aetate notabilis, cum accedat ad saec. ix ; but Reifferscheid 
assigns the part containing the Ignatian Epistles etc. (fol. 13 97) to 
the eleventh century. This part comprises (i) The twelve Ignatian 
Epistles, (2) The Laus Hyronis, (3) The Epistle of Polycarp, (4) The 
Life of Polycarp, Polycarpus johannis apostoli discipulus etc.; after 
which the scribe has written five hexameter verses. Dressel only gives 
four (and these not quite correctly), omitting the third and most im 
portant Quern lector sancti fore cognoscat juliani. The headings 
and endings of the Ignatian Epistles are very simple (e.g. Explicit 
secuttda, Incipit tertid). A former owner was one Loys Cartier. Dressel 
collated this MS, and calls it Reg. It is apparently the most ancient 
and best of the extant MSS. 

Ussher (In Polyc. Epist. Ign. Syll. Ann. p. ii) says, Cum intel- 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 19 

lexissem in bibliotheca Cl. V. Alexandri Petavii scnatoris Parisiensis, 
Pauli filii, vetustissimum exemplar aliud conservari; quicquid et illud 
continebat, humanissimi Claudii Sarravii, senatoris itidem Parisiensis, 
beneficio sum consecutus. Accordingly he gives various readings from 
this MS from time to time. Judging from these, we infer that it must 
have been very closely allied to Regin. 81. Thus they agree in such 
readings as Ephes. 9 clarificabit for glorificabit , Ephes. 21 que 
(or quae) misistis for quern misistis , Philad. 1 1 Chatopo for 
Agathopo , Mar. 4 Anencletum for Anacletum or Clctum , Tars. 
6 glorifica me pater (the addition of pater ), Philipp. 2 spiritus 
paracletus (the omission of sanctus after spiritus ). Like Regin. 81 
also it contained the prayer of Hero. As Petau s MSS generally passed 
into the library of the Queen of Sweden, to which also Regin. 81 
belongs, we are led to suspect that the two should be identified. 
Unless however either Dressel s collation of Regin. 81 or Ussher s of 
Petav. is inaccurate, this cannot be; for they do not always agree 1 . 

The next seven manuscripts are all Burgundian and seem to be 
closely allied. 

2. Trccensis 412, in the public library at Troyes, described briefly 
and not very happily 2 in the Catalogue General des Manuscrits des 
Biblioiheques Publiqiies des Departements n. p. 184. It belonged for 
merly to the monastery of Clairvaux and was marked G. 4. The 
Ignatian Epistles are immediately preceded by S. Augustine s Com 
mentary on the Galatians, which ends cum spiritu vestro fratres. 
amen. Then follow; (i) The twelve Ignatian Epistles, Incipil 
scriptum ignatii episcopi martyris discipuli johannis evangeliste ad 
inariam 1 (fol. 115 a); (2) The Bollandist Acts of S. Ignatius, Kalendas 
februarii. Passio sancti ignatii martiris discipuli beati johannis apostoli 
et evangeliste: Cum trajanus romanorum suscepisset imperium etc 
sollempniter celebratur. Explicit, hucusque historiam passionis ejus 
conscriptor ipsius? This is followed by testimonies concerning Ignatius: 

1 The above account of these MSS was criticism, Robert de Lincoln passe pour 
written some time before Zahn s edition le traducteur latin des lettres de S. 
appeared. I find that Zahn (p. xxvi sq.) Ignace, mais 1 ecriture de ce manuscrit 
very confidently identifies the two, and me parait antdrieure a Robert, qui est 
probably his view is correct. mort en 1253. The Latin version of the 

2 The compiler of this catalogue is Middle recension is ascribed with great 
guilty of two great errors in a very few probability to Robert of Lincoln (see 
lines, (i) He says La premifere epitre above p. 76); but no one ever sup- 
de S. Ignace est adressee \ la Sainte posed him to be the translator of the 
Vierge. The first letter is addressed to Long. 

Mary of Cassobola. (?) He hazards the 



120 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Quid vero de eo vel epistolis ejus eusebius historiographus vel iero- 
nimus presbyter etc.... extra portam dafniticam in cimitherio de roma 
antiochiam delate. Passio sancti ignatii explicit? (3) The Praise of 
Hero. Incipit laus hironis etc....prius faciebas. Expliciunt epistole 
sancti martiris ignatii seciindi antiochie episcopi sed et gesta passionis 
eius et laus hironis discipuli et successoris eius. (4) The Epistle of 
Polycarp. Epistola policarpi martiris smirneorum episcopi discipuli 
sancti johannis incipit. Policarpus et qui cum eo...amen. Explicit 
epistola sancti policarpi episcopi et martins. This MS is ascribed to 
the 1 2th century in the Catalogue: in folio sur beau velin , manu- 
scrit de 145 feuillets en belle minuscule. I have myself inspected it, 
and collated it from the end of Polycarp s Epistle. 

3. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 1639 (formerly Colbert. 1039), parchment, fol. 
double columns, described in the Catal. Cod. MSS Bibl. Reg. in. p. 162, 
where it is assigned to the i2th century. On the fly leaf is written 
Hunc solemnem librum dcdit huic monastcrio beats marie magistcr Johan 
nes de burgtindia etc. As in the Troyes MS, the Ignatian Epistles 
follow upon S. Augustine s Commentary on the Galatians : fol. 177 a... 
cum spiritu vestro fratres. amen. Explicit cxplanatio sancti augustini 
super epistolam ad galathas. Incipit scriptum ignatii episcopi et 
martyris discipuli ioJiannis evangeliste. Ad mariam etc. It contams 
the same Ignatian matter; (i) The twelve Epistles, (2) The Martyr- 
ology etc., (3) The Praise of Hero, (4) The Epistle of Polycarp. The 
last however is followed by Passio sancti aygulfi abbatis sociorumque 
ejusj which ends the volume. 

Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers gives collations 
from a MS belonging to the collection of Thuanus (de Thou). This 
MS is included in the catalogue of de Thou s library, Catal. Bibl. 
Thuan. n. p. 457 (Paris. 1679, and Hamburg 1704), from which it 
appears that the contents of the volume were exactly the same as 
in Paris. 1639, though these contents are very heterogeneous, com 
mencing with Ruffinus translation of Origen on the Romans and end 
ing with the Passion of S. Aygulf. I infer therefore that this must 
be the same MS, and that it passed into the Colbert collection with 
de Thou s MSS generally, whence it was transferred to the Royal Library. 
I have already (p. 108) pointed out Whiston s mistake about the MS of 
Thuanus. 

4. Bruxellensis 5510. So numbered in the Catal. des MSS de 
la Bibl. Roy. des Dues de Bourgogne, where it is assigned to the 
first third of the i2th century (xi^). The Ignatian matter (including 
the Epistle to Polycarp) is exactly the same as in the two preceding 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 12 I 

MSS (the catalogue gives it imperfectly), and coincides in all essential 
respects. 

5. BrttxeUensis 703 ; see the Catal des MSS etc., as before. 
The date there assigned to it is the last third of the isth century. 
The Ignatian matter (with the Epistle to Polycarp) is the same as in 
the last. The catalogue wrongly describes the Ignatian letters, as 
Epistolae ad Mariam. I collated both MSS for the end of the Epistle to 
Polycarp, and from the close resemblances there and elsewhere I infer 
that Bruxell. 703 was copied from Bruxell 5510. This book belonged 
to the Jesuits College at Louvain, before it came to the Bibliotheque de 
Bourgogne. 

6. Bruxellensis 20132, not included in the printed catalogue, but 
assigned in a manuscript catalogue to the second third of the i6th 
century, and this is apparently about its date. It contains (i) The 
twelve Ignatian Epistles ; (2) The Epistle of Polycarp ; (3) The correspond 
ence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John. Then follows De vita 
ft moribus sancte marie virginis sanctus epiphanius etc. The twelve 
Ignatian Epistles and the Epistle of Polycarp appear to have been 
copied directly or indirectly from Bruxell. 5510. The book belonged 
to the Bibliotheque de Bourgogne. 

7. Carolopolitanus 173, in the Library at Charleville, described in 
the Catal. Gen. des Manuscr. des BibL Publ. des Departem. v (1879), a 
folio MS of the i2th century on parchment. The Ignatian matter con 
sists of (i) The twelve Ignatian Epistles, (2) The Acts of Ignatius, 
(3) The Laus Heronis. It is immediately preceded by Gregorii 
Nazianzeni Opuscula and followed by the Epistle of Polycarp. 

8. Carolopolitanus 266, described in the same catalogue ; likewise a 
parchment folio MS of the i2th century. Its contents are there stated 
to be (i) Eusebii Caesariensis Historia Eccl., (2) Tractatus ejusdem 
adversus Sabellium, (3) Incipit Eusebii Pamphili liber de incorporali et 
invisibili, (4) Incipit de bonis operibus ex epistola beati Pauli ad 
Corinthios secunda, (5) The twelve Ignatian Letters. 

9. Oxon. Balliolensis 229, at Balliol College, Oxford, described in 
Coxe s Catal. Cod. MSS qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxon. hodie asservan- 
tur (Oxon. 1852) i. p. 75 sq. as codex membranaceus in folio, ff. 171, 
sec. xn exeuntis, binis columnis exaratus. It is one of the books 
bequeathed to the college by William Gray, Bp of Ely (t 1478). For 
an account of Bp Gray s library see Mullinger University of Cambridge 
p. 397. The Ignatian matter begins on fol. 103 a. It comprises (i) 
The twelve Epistles, (2) The Laus Heronis, and is followed by the 
Epistle of Polycarp. This MS was used by Ussher. 



122 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

10. Palatinus 150, in the Vatican Library; collated by Dressel 
who describes it (p. Ivii; comp. p. lix) membraneus, foliis quater- 
nariis min., saeculi xiv. The Ignatian matter commences the volume, 
and consists of the twelve Epistles, followed by the Laus Heronis. 
The subsequent contents are the Epistle of Polycarp, seven Epistles of 
S. Antonius Abbas, the Pastor of Hernias (a second Latin version, not 
found in any other MS and published for the first time by Dressel), and 
the Enchiridion of Xystus the Pythagorean. Is this the Vatican MS 
which Turrianus, quoted by Ussher (p. cxxii), mentions as omitting the 
name of S. Paul in Philad. 4 ? It fulfils the condition. 

n. Laurentianns PI. xxiii. Cod. 20, in the Medicean Library at 
Florence, described in Bandini s Catal. Cod. Lat. Bibl. Laitr. i. p. 727 
sq., codex membranaceus MS in folio saec. xv. The earlier part 
of the volume contains the correspondence of Paulinus of Nola. 
Then follows the Ignatian matter, which consists of (i) The corre 
spondence with the Virgin, preceded by the testimonies of Hicronymus 
and others, (2) The twelve Epistles, (3). The Laus Heronis, followed by 
(4) The Epistle of Polycarp. Upon this follow immediately (fol. 228 b) 
the seven Epistles of S. Antonius, as in Palat. 150. The other treatises 
however are not the same in the two MSS. 

12. Vindobonensis 1068, in the Imperial Library at Vienna, described 
in Denis Bibl. Cod. MSS Theol. Bibl. Palat. Vindob. Latin, n. p. 874 
(where it is numbered cccxci), cod. membraneus sec. xiv. It is 
written in a very small neat hand, and contains among other v/orks (i) 
fol. 72 b, The Epistle of Polycarp, followed immediately by (2) Hierony- 
mus de Vir. III. 16, with the heading leronimus in libro illustrium 
virorum capitulo de beato Ignatio in hunc modum scribit, and (3) The 
twelve Ignatian Epistles in the usual order. In prefixing the Epistle 
of Polycarp this MS is unique. The other treatises in the volume do 
not throw any light on its connexion with other Ignatian MSS. 

13. Oxon. Afagdalenensis 78, in the Library of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, described in Coxe s Catal. Cod. MSS Coll. Oxon. n. p. 43 sq., 
as cod. membranaceus in folio, ff. 290, sec. xv, nitide exaratus, manu 
Joh. de Rodenberga scriptus. It contains among other matter (i) fol. 
213 a, The correspondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John ; (2) 
fol. 2 14 a, The twelve Epistles introduced by Ignatii duodecim cpistole 
ad diversos] but without the usual headings to the several epistles ; (3) 
The Laus Heronis ; (4) The Epistle of Polycarp, with the heading 
Epistola policarpi ad philippcnscm ecdesiam! Its date is approximately 
fixed to the isth century by the fact that one of the treatises is the 
Latin version of the Life of Gregory Nazianzen by Gregory the Presbyter, 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 123 

translated by Ambrosius Camaldulensis who died A.D. 1490 (see Ussher 
Proleg. p. cxxiii). Great stress was laid on this MS by Romanist writers, 
because it omits the words et Paulus in the enumeration of married 
saints and worthies in Philad. 4. This led Ussher (1. c.) to call attention 
to its late date. It was used by Ussher throughout 1 . 

Eleven of these MSS (here numbered 2 12) or at least ten (for the 
information respecting Carohpolitanus 266 is not precise) are connected 
together by the headings of the epistles, which are substantially the 
same in all, though somewhat remarkable in themselves ; e.g. ad 
philippenscs de baptismo scripta de endamno [variously corrupted] per 
eiiphanium [variously written] Icctorem navim a scensurum ; again, ad 
hironem diaconum ecdesiae antiochcnae quern ei dominus ostendit sessurum 
in sede ipsius ; again ad ephesios scripta de Smyrna de imitate. These 
headings are given in Dressel s edition as they appear in Palat. 150, and 
the other MSS only differ in minor points. 

Of the thirteen MSS enumerated, I have derived my knowledge of 
two [i, 10] from Dressel, and of two [7, 8] from the printed catalogue. 
The rest I have inspected, though cursorily in some instances, and have 
collated for the end of the Epistle of Polycarp. 

These are all the Latin MSS which I know to be extant. In Mont- 
faucon s Bibliotheca Bibliothccarum i. p. 227, no. 422 of the MSS of 
Monte Cassino is stated to contain Epistolae D. Ignatii ad Romanes et 
Ephesios. I have inspected this MS. It contains (fol. 131) not the two 
Epistles mentioned, but only the opening sentences of the Epistle to 
the Romans, Ignatius qui et...fundatae in dilectione et fide Christi. 
The mistake has arisen from a very careless reading of the title, which is 
Divi Ignatii Epistola ad Romanes de Smyrna per Ephesios. Among the 
MSS at S. Gall again Haenel in his Catal. gives no. 454 Epistolae S. 
Ignatii a notis posterioris aevi. Codex insignis. This MS also I have 
seen. It is a fine copy of Adonis Martyrologiitm followed by other 
works. Among these is the following Ignatian matter : (i) p. 343 
sq. the Bollandist Martyrology, Gloriosa incipit passio sancti ignatii 
episcopi. Cum traianus suscepisset...a fidelibus solemniter celebratur : 
(2) p. 368 (the last page in the book), The Correspondence of Ignatius 
with the Virgin and S. John. This last is written in a much smaller 
and later hand, as if to fill up a blank page at the end of the volume. 
Of the veneranda antiquitate nobilis [codex] qui asservatur in amplissima 
bibliotheca invictissimi regis Pannoniarum Matthiae Corvini, of which 

1 In one place (p. 7), commenting on codex. This must be a slip for Magcla- 
Ephcs. 9, Ussher speaks of Mertonensis lencnsis. 



124 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Baronius (s. ann. 57, 64) speaks, I know nothing. Ussher regards 
this as a pleasant dream ( suaviter somniavit ), inasmuch as the Buda 
library had been plundered several years before by the Turks (Proleg. 
p. cxxv). The few volumes of this once famous library which still remained 
at Constantinople were sent back by the Sultan to Buda a few years 
ago; but in the catalogue of 45 MSS thus returned there is no mention of 
Ignatius (see Academy 1877, June 2, p. 487; June 23, p. 557; August 
1 8, p. 167). 

While this sheet was passing through the press, the second volume 
of Funk s Fatres Apostolici was published; and his speculations re 
specting the sources of the earliest printed editions call for some remark. 
He attempts to show that the editio princep s of J. Faber Stapulensis (A. D. 
1498), which contains only eleven epistles (omitting the Epistle to Mary 
of Cassobola), was taken chiefly from Regin. 81, but that some other MS, 
probably Balliol. 229, was also used by him. He had propounded this 
view shortly before in the Theologische Qiiartalschrift LXIII. p. 142 sq. 
But if so, it is difficult to see why Faber Stapulensis should have omitted 
the letter to Mary of Cassobola, which is found in both these MSS; nor 
does it seem at all probable that Balliol. 229 would have been accessible 
to him, as it was already in the library of Balliol College with Bp Gray s 
other books. Funk s inference is based on the tacit assumption that he 
could not have used any other MS except those which are not only 
known to us but have been collated surely a most precarious assump 
tion. Of the thirteen MSS which I have described above, only five are 
enumerated by Funk, and apparently he is not aware of any others. 
Yet I should be over sanguine, if I supposed that my list of thirteen had 
altogether or almost exhausted the extant MSS; and in the early days of 
printing it was by no means uncommon to place a MS in the printer s 
hands for copy, so that it was then and there destroyed. The epistle 
to Mary of Cassobola was first printed by Symphorianus Champerius 
(A. D. 1536) in an edition of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite and 
of Ignatius. Funk seems to have shown (p. xx) that for this epistle he 
used Palat. 150, for he reproduces the special blunders which appear in 
this MS and are not likely to have been found in another. 

All the extant MSS of this version, which have been examined, belong 
to one family. All omit the latter part of the Epistle to Polycarp, 
ending abruptly at the words passibilem vero propter nos ut homi- 
nem. Moreover all reproduce the same errors, which are due to some 
blundering scribe or scribes in the course of transmission. Zahn (praef. 
p. xxix) gives the following instances: Magn. 3 A/JcSSaSaV ; Ahab et 
Dadan (the proper names however being variously spelt); Philad. 3 



MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 12 



acrrtvas a. verbis mails quae for ab herbis malis 
quas ; Ephes. 6 o pariKoV Se uVSpa prospectorem autem verum for 
virum ; Ephes. 10 a A/xupa falsa for salsa ; ib. 19 aorpa... ^0/305 
eyeVovTo sidera corusca facta sunt , where corusca should be 
chorus . Within this family, however, we might be tempted to dis 
cover two sub-families; (i) those which have the simple headings 
(Regin. 81, MagdaL 76), and (2) those which agree in the elaborate 
headings (the remaining MSS). On this supposition it would be our first 
impulse to assign a later archetype to those which have the elaborate 
headings. In this instance however the assumption would be wrong. 
There is no special analogy between Regin. 81 and Magdal. 76, the former 
being the best and the latter one of the worst of the extant MSS. Nor 
would it be correct to regard the more elaborate headings as an indica 
tion of a later date here, as is commonly the case. In the heading to 
Philippians for instance, De baptismo must have been derived immedi 
ately from the Greek Trepi. /foTn-ioyxaTo?, which is erroneous in itself and 
probably originated in a marginal gloss (see n. p. 772). 

This version is exceptionally slovenly and betrays gross ignorance 
of the Greek language. Frequently sentences are rendered without any 
regard to the grammar of the original. Two or three examples will 
suffice, though they might be multiplied to any extent. 

P7 ovv dvaurBijrtu Z&gt;p.tv r-fjs XP 7 / "" Non enim sentimus utilitatem 

TO TT/TO? dvrov. coV fjLLfir)a"r)Tai 77/u.as cjus, nisi nos tentaverit. Secun- 

KdOd 7rpa.crcroiJ.cv, OV K In eayj,cV. dum autem quod agimus, jam non 

Magn. 10. erimus, nisi ipse nos miseratus 

fuerit. 

6a.va.rov KdTfcfrpoinrjrrav [JUKpov Mortem contempserunt, parum 

yap ciTretv v/?pewv KCU TrXrjy^v ov dicentes esse injurias et plagas et 

p.rjv Be, dXXd /cat /xera TO eTrtSet^at alia nonnulla propter ipsum susti- 

tavToV K.T.X. Srnyrn. 3. nere. Nam et postquam ostendit 

se, etc. 

o irdvTo. xdXwv KIVWV ei? TTJV O.VTOV ipse omnia evocans et movens 

KaTao~Keinjv ov /xeraytvwcrKCJv tTrl in suam praeparationem, non re- 

w* 77 yap av ov cognoscens; in tantum enim mala 

Trovrjpo ?, aAA f-n-^crOfTo erant non omnia; malignus autem 

K.T.X. Philipp. 4. sentiebat etc. 

So again we have such renderings as HavXov...fjL(/jM.pTvpr)iJ.vov Pauli... 
martyrium consummantis (Ephes. 12), ov A^o-erai v/xas n TWV vorjp.dr^v 
TOU oLaftoXov nolite vos vulnerare in aliqua contagione diaboli (Ephes. 



126 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

14; did this arise from a confusion with the Latin lacdo, laesi, the word 
being read Ar/crcre?), ojJSevos Ao yoi/ TroioO/Acu TWV Seu cov nulli iniquorum 
istorum facio sermonem (Tars, i), Trapo^uo-ynoOs acredines (Polyc. 2), 
and the like. So too orai /wjv is almost universally translated with an 
entire disregard of the mood. In Ant. 1 2, Hero 8, it is rendered nutrivi ; 
in Trail. 13, Magn. 12, Tars. 8, 10, Ant. 14, Ephes. 2, adquisivi ; in 
Philipp. 15 adjutus sum ; in Philad. 4 memor sum . In one passage 
indeed, Rom. 5, it is correctly rendered utinam fruar , but this passage 
happens to be given in Latin by Jerome (de Vir. III. 16) after Eusebius, 
and the Ignatian translator reproduces Jerome s rendering. With these 
instances of blundering before us, we may question whether the transla 
tor really had any different reading before him, when we find him giving 
auxiliatrix for Sia/Jovfroi; (Ephes. 8), laus, laudabilis for evwo-ts, ^vw/Ae- 
vr/s (Magn. 13, 14; cornp. ib. i). Other passages however seem to 
show that he used a text which had many corruptions; e.g. adjutorium 
($o-f}Qua.v for ofjLOTJOeiav) Polyc. i, habui (e?x.ov for eTSov) Ephes. 2, pla- 
citum voluntatis ejus (evSo/ofo-ei for ou SoKtjo-et.) Trail. 9 (comp. ib. 10 
voluntarie complacens ), Christi dimicationem (^pto-ro/ia^tav for 
Xpta-To/xa^tav) Philad. 8, festino (o-Treu So/Aai for o-7reV8o/Aat) Antioch. 8. 

These examples will have shown that this Latin version is absolutely 
worthless for interpretational purposes, and that even its textual value is 
limited. Still it was evidently translated from an older form of the Greek 
than any preserved in extant Greek MSS, and there are not a few passages 
in which we are able to correct errors or to supply omissions by its 
means (see e.g. n. pp. 730, 738, 748, 750, 758, 785, 826, 853, etc.). 
The cases are very rare however, in which its value for textual purposes 
is affected by variations in the readings of the Latin MSS themselves, and 
in all such cases the correct Latin reading is at once determinable without 
any elaborate weighing of authorities; e.g. in Rom. inscr., where the 
Latin alternatives are fide Christi and lege Christi , and the Greek 
Xpto-roji^u/Aos and xp&lt;.o"7-oVo/xos, we at once reject fide Christi , because it 
has no connexion with either Greek reading. Under these circumstances 
it seemed to me that I should only be wasting time and encumbering 
my pages to no purpose, if I attempted to produce a revised text of this 
Latin version with its proper apparatus criticus, and I have been content 
to avail myself of the labours of my predecessors (see n. p. 717). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 

TT seems advisable, as a preliminary to the discussions relating to 
" the priority and authenticity of the several Ignatian Epistles, to 
give the passages in ancient authors in which mention is made of 
Ignatius and his writings, or in which they are quoted directly or 
indirectly. This course is suggested for convenience of reference, and 
has been adopted by Ignatian editors generally. It is superfluous to 
acknowledge obligations to predecessors in this case, where the harvest 
has been already reaped and where at the utmost only the scantiest 
gleaning is left to the last comer. 

I. 

POLYCARP [c. A.D. Iio]. 

Epistula ad Philippenscs i, 9, 13. 

I . Svvexapyv vjjiiv /.teyaXajs ev K^oiw T^IOJZ l-^crou 
Xptcrrai, Se^a/xeVot? rd /xi/zT^tara Trjs 01X17 Oovs dya 77775 KOI 
, 019 errcfiaXev vfjuv, rou? eVetXry/xeVov? rot&lt;? 
Seayxot?, aTwd CO-TLV StaS^/xara ruv 01X77 #aj? 
VTTO eou /cat rou Kvptov TJ(JLO}V e /cXeXey/xeVajv. . . 

9. TlapaKoXa) ovi&gt; Travra? v/xa? Tr&iOap^elv TW Xoyw 
777? OLKaLocrvvrjs /cat dcr/cet^ Tracrav VTTO[JLOVTJV, rjv /cat etSare 
/car o&lt;/&gt;$aX/zovs ov JJ.OVQV iv rots /za/ca/Hoi? Iy^arta&gt; /cat 
Za&gt;cri/xa&gt; /cat Pov&lt;/&gt;w, ctXXa /cat eV aXXot? rot? e^ i5yua&gt;v /cat 
tv avrw IlavXw Kal rots XotTrot? aTroo-roXot? TreTretcr/xeVovs 
ort ovrot TrdVres OYK eic KGNO N !AP&lt;\MON, aXX* eV vrtcrret 
/cat St/catocrv^, /cat ort et? roi/ o&lt;^etXo/&gt;te^o^ aurots roT 



128 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

etcrt Trapa rw Kv/n&&amp;gt;, GJ /cat avveTraOov. ov yap TON 

HrATTHCAN AIOONA, ttXXct TO&gt; V1Tp TJjJLOJV a.7ToOo.v6vT(L /Cat St 

as VTTO TOU 0eou aWoTaVra. 



13. Eypai/fare /zot /cat v^aet? /cat Iy^arto9 tz/a, edV 
Tt? aVepx^rai e ^S %vpiav, /cat ra Trap v/zc3i&gt; oVo/co/xtcr?; 
ypa/x/xara* o?rep Trot^crco, eai \d/3a) Kaipov evderov, etre 
eya etre oz^ 7re)u.i//cj 7rpecr/3eucrovTa Kat Trept v^aiv. ra? 
e7rtcrroXa9 ly^artou ra? Tre/x^^etVa? ^jatv VTT aOrov, /cat 
aXXa? ocra? et^o/xev Trap ^1^, e7re)u,i//a/xe^ v/xtv, /ca$ws e^eret- 
\acr0c atrtP e? v^oreray/xe^at cicrt r^ eVtcrToXi^ ravrr) e 
&lt;i&gt; /xeyaXa w^eX^^^at $vvTj&lt;T(78e. Trepte^ovcrt yap TTLCTTLV 
/cat VTTO^OVY^V /cat vracrav ot/coSo/^T}^ 77^ et? TW Kvptoz/ 
f]^(t)V avrjKOVcrav. Et de ipso Ignatio et de his qui cum eo sunt, 
quod certius agnoveritis, significate. 

For the notes on these passages see n. pp. 906, 921 sq., 931 sq. 

Besides these direct references to Ignatius and his writings, the 
Epistle of Polycarp presents several coincidences. For his inability 
(3) KaTaKoAou0iycrai rrj croe^ta roC yua/capiou Kat cvSo^ou IlauAov, comp. 
^w. 4 ; for the warning ( 4) XtXrjOev avrov ov Scv K.T.\. comp. Ephes. 
15 ; for the metaphor ( 5) 6v&lt;ria.&lt;nripiov cou comp. Ephes. 5 with the 
note (n. p. 44) j for 5 ws eoi Kai Xpio-roO Sta/covot comp. Sinyrn. 10 
with the note (n. p. 316); for 5 vavnurffOftivavf TOIS Trpeo-ySuTe pot? 
Kat StaKoVots ws 0e&lt;3 Kat Xprr&lt;3, comp. Magn. 6, Trail. 3, Smyrn. 8 ; for 
6 /A?; a /xeAowres x$P a&lt;i V op(f&gt;avov comp. Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 4 ; for 6 
ot vayyeA.t&lt;Ta //.evoi ^/Aas K. T. X. comp. Philad. 5, 9 (comp. Magn. 8, 9, 
Smyrn. 7) ; for 6 TWV ev VTro/cptVet (frepovroiv TO ovo/xa TOV Kvptou comp. 
Ephes. 7; for 8 St ^/xas-.-TravTavTrt/xcivev comp. Polyc. 3 ; for 9 TOV vTrep 
Ty/xwv d-TroOavovra Kat Si 7//xas VTTO TOU eoO dvacrravTa comp. Rom. 6 for 
10 firmi in fide, mansuetudine Domini alterutri praestolantes comp. 
Ephes. 10 ; for 10 vae autem per quern etc. comp. Trail. 8; for 
1 1 ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis comp. Trail. 8, Magn. 1 1 ; 
for 1 1 in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus etc. comp. Ephes. 1 2 ; for 
12 nihil vos latet comp. Ephes. 14. 

This letter was written immediately after the journey of Ignatius to Rome, and 
before the writer had received intelligence of the martyr s fate. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 129 

2. 

MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP [c. A.D. 156]. 

TKcnrd(raTO TO 6rjpioi&gt; Trpoor/3iacrdiJivos : 
comp. Rom. 5 KO.V avra Se [TO, 6rjpia] e/coWa fir) 0d\r), 



22. o /xa/ca/Hos IIoX.v/capTros ov ytvoiro a&gt; rfj /SacrtXeta 
IT^CTOV Xyaicrrou Trpo? TO, ^X 1 ^? evpedrjvai T^/xa? : comp. Ephcs. 
12 ITavXou...ato/xa/ca/)tcrrov ov yeVotro /xot VTTO rd 
vpe0r)i&gt;aL, orav Qeov 



This Letter of the Smyrnaeans, containing the account of Polycarp s martyrdom 
(which happened A. D. 155 or 156), was written not long after the event itself. 



LUCIAN [A.D. 165 170]. 
De Morte Ptregrini 1 1 sq. 

[Lucian relates this story in a letter to Cronius. The hero is Pere- 
grinus, who called himself Proteus a name not inappropriate to one 
who was all things by turns (/xvpias rpoTras rpaTro/ievos). The main 
incident is his self-immolation by fire at the Olympian games. Lucian, 
arrived at Elis, overhears a eulogy of this Peregrinus from an admirer, 
the Cynic Theagenes, who among other complimentary terms de 
scribes him as TOV V Svpt a Scfc iTo. On the other hand an unfriendly 
critic, a philosopher of the Democritean school, in Lucian s hearing 
paints the earlier life of Peregrinus in the darkest colours. Among 
other abnormal crimes he had murdered his own father. This getting 
wind, he took to flight, and wandered from land to land. During his 
wanderings he fell in with the Christians.] 

I I . oTerrep Kal T.TJV Bav^acrrriv (ro^iav ra&gt;v XP L(T ~ 
navtov e^e/xa^e Trepl rr)i&gt; naXcucrnVr^ rot? lepevcri Kal 
ypafj.jj.a.Tevcri.v avrajz; vyyev6fievo&lt;;. /cat ri yo-p\ 

avrov? OOt4fap 7rpo^&gt;iJTrj&lt;; /cat 6(.acrdp^&lt;; /cat 
/cat Tra^ra fjiovos O.VTOS atv /cat TMV /BifiXuiv ra? 
e^yetro /cat 8tecra&lt;^et, TroXXa? Se auro? /cat 
/cat cu&lt;? Otov avrov e/ceti/ot riyovvro /cat vop.o0Trj 
ic.X. I. 




130 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

/cat TrpoorTdTrjv eTreypa(f&gt;ov TOV fieyav yovv eKelvov ert 
(7/8ovori TOV dvdpojrrov TOV Iv rfj TiaXa.LO TLvr) dvacrKO\o- 
TncrOevTa, OTL Kauvrjv ravrrjv TeXeTrjv elcryjyayev es TOV j3Cov. 
12. rore 817 /cat criAXi7&lt;/&gt;$et9 eVt TOUTO o IIpwTeu? evei 
ets TO Seo /uajT^ptoz , OTrep /cat avro ou /xt/cpw avrai a 

rrpos TOV erj&lt;; ftiov /cat r}i&gt; reparetav Kat 
cot epajj^ TV-y-^avv. enel S ow&gt; eScSero, ot 
l a"VjJL(f)opav Troiovjjievoi TO TrpayjJLa TTOLVTO. IKLVOVV 

/xe^ot avroi^. etr eTret TOUTO 

17 ye a\\r) Bepaneia Tracra ou irapepyais, aXXd crur 
/cat eajffev fj.tv vOi&gt;$ rjv opciv napa rw 
TTtpifJLevovTa ypaSta X 1 ?/ 3015 Twds /cat TratSta 6p(j&gt;avd, 
ot Se eV reXet avraji/ /cat crv^e/ca^euSov e^Soi^ /xer avrou 
$La(f&gt;0LpovT&lt;; rovs Sea/xo^uXa/cas* etra SetTrm Trot/ctXa eto~e- 
/co/xt^ero /cat Xoyot tepot aurwi IXeyovTO /cat o /3eXrtcrT05 
ert yap rovro e/caXetro /catvos Saj/cpctT^s VTT 
TO. 13. /cat /r&gt;}v Ka/c ra&gt;i^ ei^ Acrta TroXecov 
rtves, TQJV xpio-TLavaiv crreXXo^Tcuv avro rou 
KOLVOV, fior)0TJcrovT5 /cat ^ r v^ayopevo~o^res /cat 
TOV avbpa. dp-nj^avov Se rt TO Ta^o? e 
Tt TOIOVTOV yeV^Tat S^/iocrto^ eV ySpa^et yap, a^et- 
Sovcrt TrdvTMV. /cat 8^ /cat TO&gt; IlepeyptVaj TroXXa TOTC 7;/ce 
Xpi7jLiaTa Trap avra&gt;v errt Trpo^acret TCOI^ Secr/xa]v /cat Trpocr- 
oooi/ ou jjLLKpdv TavTrjv eTrot^VaTO TreTret/cacrt yap avTov? 
ot /ca/cooat/xo^e? TO jua&gt; oXov dddvaTOL ecrecr^at /cat /3tcucreo-- 
aat TOZ^ act ^povov, Trap 1 o /cat /caTa^po^oucrt TOU BavaTOV 
/cat e/covT5 avTov? eVtStSa acrt^ ot TroXXot- eVetTa 8e o VOJJLO- 
o TrpwTog eVetcrei avTovs ws a8eX(^ot TrdvTCS elev aX- 
, evretSa^ aTra^ TrapaySa^re? #eot&gt;s /xev TOV? EXX^vt/ccu? 
a7rapvr)o~(ovTai, TOV Se dveo-KoXoTno-fJievov eKelvov cro(f&gt;Lo-Tr)v 
avTO)v Trpoo~KW(t)o-i /cat /caTa TOU? e/cetz^ov vo/xous 

ovv diravTuv l to"^? /cat /coti^a 
g a/cpt^ov? mo-Tea)? TO, TotavTa TrapaSe^a/xe^ot. 
TOLVVV 7rape X#&gt;7 Tt? et? avTOu? yo-^5 /cat 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 131 

/cat Trpaiy/JLCLO L xP r ) (T @ aLL Swa/xevos, O.VTIKO. /xaXa TrXoucrtos 
zv /Spa^el eyeVero tStwrats dvOpcoTTOLS eyyavuv. 

[He was released by the governor of Syria who, being a man of a 
philosophic turn, would not gratify his craving for martyrdom. Then 
he returned to his own country, but was arrested there on the charge 
of parricide. He managed however to cajole the people and was set 
free.] 

1 6. e^Vyet ovv TO Seurepof TrXaz^cro/^efos, IKO-VCL ec 



j]v. /cat ypovov p-tv TLVCL OVT&JS e/Sdcr/cero, etra 
n /cat e? e/cetVov? uxf)6r} yap TL, w? oT/u,at, 
TOJV a7roppTJT(t)V aurots ou/cert 7rpocrte/xeV 

/c.r.X. 
[He then went to Egypt, and became a Cynic.] 

18. cKcWev Se ovrw Trapfa/ceuacr/xeVo? ?rt 
eTrXevcre, /cat aVo/3as rrj? ^eco? cvOvs eXotSopetro Tracri /cat 
jLtcxXtcrra rw /3acrtXet ; irpaorarov O.VTOV /cat ij/JiepojTaTov etSw?, 
a&gt;(TT acr^aXaJs eroXjaa. 

[After other wanderings, having failed in obtaining the notoriety 
which he sought in any other way, he declared his intention of im 
molating himself by fire at the Olympian games which are now being 
celebrated, and for this he is already making preparations. It is said 
that he now calls himself Phoenix, in allusion to the story of this bird ; 
he also repeats certain ancient oracles. His followers will doubtless 
say that they have been cured of fevers (TerapTcuW) by his intervention 
(Si* avroi)) and will build an oracular temple and a shrine (xpyo r lP lov 
Kal aSuroj/) over his pyre. The Sibyl herself, so Theagenes is reported 
to have said, had predicted his self-immolation and apotheosis. Thus 
far the story is told by the Democritean philosopher, whom Lucian 
overhears. From this point onward Lucian relates the incidents in his 
own person. 

Lucian arrives at Olympia. He is present when Proteus discourses 
on his coming self-martyrdom. Having lived the life of a Hercules, he 
desires to die the death of a Hercules, that he may teach men to 
despise death (Oavdrov Kara^povclv). Nevertheless he puts it off again 
and again, hoping that some intervention may prevent the necessity of 
his fulfilling his promise. At length, after the Olympian games are over, 

92 



132 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the great event comes off at Harpine, some twenty stades east of 
Olympia. It takes place at night in the moonlight. Lucian goes 
thither.] 

36... Kal Trpoo-e\66vTes aXXos aXkayodev dv^av TO irvp 
jjieyLo~Toi&gt; are aVo SaScoi Kal fypvydvw o 8e, /cat /xot Ttavv 
77877 7rp6o~^ TOV vovv, diToOefJievos T?)v irrjpav Kal TO Tpifiaj- 
viov KOL TO HpdK\6Lov e/ceti o poTfa\ov ecrTir) eV ovovrj 
pvTTtocrr) aKpi(Ba&gt;&lt;s. etra Tjret Xi/3avajT6V, eJs CTri^aXoc eVt 
TO TTVp, KOL avaSdvro? rtvo? eVe jSaXe re /cat eiirtv e? 
aTro/3\TTO)i&gt; Kal yap Kal TOVTO TT/OO? 
rj ne&lt;nr)u(Bpia Aat/xoi^e? ^rpwot /cat 
Trarpwot Se^ao-^e /xe evjae^et?. ravra etTraiv 77178^0-0^ e s 
TO irup, ou /AT)V ecopaTO ye, aXXd Trepieo-\edf] VTTO 



[Many arrived too late. Lucian met them on his return.] 

39...a7reo~T/3e^)ov 8 ow Tots TroXXov? avToJv \eyiov 
TeTeXecr^at TO epyov, ot? /U.T) /cat TOVT* avTO 
7)^, /ca^ avTov t8etv TOZ&gt; TOTTOV /cat Tt \e 
veiv TOV Trvpos. evOa 817, ca eTalpe, /JivpCa irpdyuaTa 
avracrt StT^yovjLtevo? /cat avaKptvovo~i Kal a/cpi/3ajs iKTfvvda~ 
voju,eVot9. et juez ovi^ tSot/xt Ttva j^apievTa, \jji\a av ojcnrep 
crot TO, Tfpa^OevTa Stiyyov/x^^, vrpo? 8e TOUS /3Xa/ca? /cat 
77/365 Tr}^ aKpoacriv K^rjvoTa&lt;; tTpaytooovv TL trap* eaavTov, 
cos eTretSi) dvr)(f)0 r) fJLv TJ Trupa, eve/3aXe 8e ffrepwv eavTov 
o IIpcoTeu?, o~eto"/xov TTpoTtpov aeydXov yevopevov crvv /xv- 
TTJS 7775, yt&gt;i// dvaTTTd^.evo^ K /xecr^s T^S ^&gt;Xoyo? 
65 TO^ ovpavov dv6 pwrrivri fjieydXy TYJ &lt;f)0)vrj Xeya)z&gt; 
ya^, /8atVa&gt; 8 e s "O\v^Tfov. 

[He subsequently overhears -one of his audience repeat his own 
story, and relate] 

4O...CU? /xeTct TO KavOrjvai Oedo-aiTO avTov iv \evicfj 
lo-0fJTi {JiiKpov euirpoo-Bev Kal vvv aTroXtVot 
&lt;f&gt;ai$pov ev Trj 7TTa&lt;f&gt;a&gt;i&gt;a&gt; OTTOO. /coTtVw TC ec 
eVt TraVt TrpocreOrfKe TOV yvira, Stojavv/xevos T) 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 133 

dvaTrrdpevov e/c rrjs Trvpds, 6V eyw fiLKpov e/x- 
d(f&gt;y)Ka 7reYecr$at KarayeXoSz/ra Tc3i&gt; dvoTJrcov /cat 
/3Xa/a/ca5i&gt; rov rpoTrov. 41. eVvoet TO Xot7roz&gt; ota et/cos cV 
avTaJ yevr)&lt;jecr6ai, Trotas /xe* ov /xeXtrra? eTncrTTjo ea Oai eirl 
TOV TOTTOV, TtVa? Se Te rrtya? ov/c eVao~ecr^ai, TiVa? Se 
va&lt;; OVK eTri,7rr7o~ecr$at KaBdnep evrt TOV HcrtoSou 
Kal TO, ToiavTa. et/cova? /xev yap ?rapa Te HXetwv 
Trapa Te TO)^ (itXXwi/ EXXiy^wv, ofs /cat e7reo~TaX/ceVat eXeyov, 
avTt/ca /xaXa oTSa TroXXa? avao-T^cro^eVa?. &lt;ao~t Se Tracratg 



Ttv? /cat TTdpatveet? /cat vp,ov$ /cat Ttva? 
TOUTW -rrpeo-^evTa? TaJf eraipajv )(LpoT6inrjcre z/e^payye 
/cat vepTpo^p6fJL,ov&lt;; Trpocrayopevo a?. 
[A little lower down Lucian says] 

43. ekeu a...7raXat oicrQa ev0vs a/covcra? yitov oYe 
Svyota? St^yov/xeVou a&gt;? ctTro TpwaSo? cru/XTrXeiJcrat/xt 
/c.T.X. 



The self-immolation of Peregrinus took place according to the Chronicon of 
Eusebius (II. p. i/osq., ed. Schone) in Olymp, 236 (i.e. A. D. 165). There is no 
reason to question the date, which must have been well known, the event being so 
exceptional. Moreover it agrees well with the chronology of Lucian s life, and with 
the notices in this treatise and elsewhere ; see Keim Ct Irtts 1 Wahres Wort p. 144 sq., 
Harnack in Herzog s Real-Encyklopddie s. \. Lucian von Samosata vm. p. 775. 
This satire of Lucian appears to have been written not very long after the event. 

4- 

MELITO [c. A.D. 160 170]. 

The coincidences with this father will be seen in the notes on Ephcs. 
7 (n. p. 48), Polyc. 3 (n. p. 343)- 

5- 
CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND LYONS [c. A.D. 177]. 

For coincidences with the Letter of these Churches, which is pre 
served in Eusebius H. E. v. i, see the notes on Ephes. n (n. p. 62), 
Rom. 9 (n. p. 230), and comp. 33 e xP^ v 7 r v&lt;; yevvai ous d9\t)T(l&lt;: 
7Toi*ci\ov VTTo/ieiVuvTus uywi a Kal /xeyaXto? viKijcravras u.Tro\af3eiv TOV /tteyav 
T&gt;;S a^^apcrtas &lt;TTt&lt;f&gt;avov with Polyc. 3 /xcya Xov ecrTiv a^X^rov K.T.X. There 
are also other minor resemblances. 



134 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

6. 

ATHENAGORAS [c. A.D. 177]. 
In SuppL i is the strange expression TOV Xoyou IgaKova-rov 



^s yeyovo ros. This may have been suggested by the well- 
known words in Ephcs. 19 rpia. Mucm/pio. Kpavyrjs. 



THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH [c. A.D. 180]. 

Comment, in Evangelia i 4 (p. 280, ed. Otto). 

Quare non simplici virgine sed desponsata concipitur Christus ? 
Primum ut per generationem Joseph origo Mariae monstraretur; secundo, 
ne lapidaretur a Judaeis ut adultera : tertio, ut in Aegyptum fugiens 
haberet solatium viri : quarto, ut partus ejus falleret diabolum, putantem 
Jesum de uxorata non de virgine natum. 

This passage seems plainly to be suggested by Ephes. 19; but a twofold doubt 
rests on the authenticity of this work which claims to have been written by Theophilus 
of Antioch. ( i ) A commentary on the Gospels bearing the name of this father was 
known to Jerome, but his language throws some doubt on its authorship; de Vir. III. 
25 Legi sub nomine ejus [Theophili] in Evangelium et Proverbia Salomonis commen- 
tarios, qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum elegantia et &lt;ppd&lt;rei non videntur congru- 
ere. The superiora volurriina are the treatise ad Autdlycum and other works (doubt 
less genuine) which Jerome mentions, following generally Eusebius H. E. v. 24. 
Elsewhere however he refers to and quotes this work, as if it were the genuine 
production of Theophilus: Eptit. 121 (Ad Algasiam) Op. I. p. 866 sq.; Comm. in 
Matth. praef. Op. vn. p. J-. (2) There are grave reasons for supposing that the 
extant commentary is not the same which was read by Jerome but a later work 
written originally in Latin and compiled from Latin fathers. Thus the comment on 
the carpenter s son (i. 120, p. 295 ed. Otto) is found almost word for word in S. 
Ambrose (Comm. in Luc. iii. 2, Op. I. p. 1313), and the remarks on the body and 
blood of Christ (i. 153, p. 301) appear in Cyprian (Epist. Iviii. 5, p. 754, ed. Hartel). 
See more on this subject in Otto s preface, p. viii. Zahn however (Ign. Epist. p. 
329) supposes that these fathers borrowed from the extant Latin work, which he asserts 
to be a translation from the Greek, and he promises to discuss the subject at some future 
time. I wish to suspend judgment until I have seen his arguments; but as at present 
advised I am constrained to believe that the passage before us is taken from Jerome 
(Comm. in Matt, i, Op. vli. p. 12), whose words will be quoted below in their proper 
place. 

For a coincidence in the genuine extant work of Theophilus, see 
the note on Trail. 6 (n. p. 168). Zahn also (p. 89) compares Smyrn. 2 
with ad Alltol. i. 10 or yap clcriv 6eol aXX et8wXa...Kat Sat/wwa a/ca^apra- 
yivoivro 8 ovv TOIOUTOI 01 TTOIOWTCV aura Kai 01 eXTrt^oi/Tcs CTT avroi?, but 
this is taken from Ps. cxv. 8, cxxxiv. 1 5. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 135 

8. 
IRENAEUS [c. A.D. 175 190]. 

Adv. Haereses v. 28. 4. 

Quemadmodum quidam de nostris dixit, propter martyrium in Deum 
adjudicatus ad bestias, quoniam Frumentum sum Christi et per denies 
bestiarum molor ut mundus panis inreniar (Rom. 4). 

The original Greek is given by Eusebius (see below, p. 139). 

This is the only direct quotation; but coincidences are not unfre- 
quent and sometimes striking. Thus the phrase irviiv a&lt;0apo-iW (Ephes. 
17) occurs in Iren. iii. n. 8 (see n. p. 73) ; and the language respecting 
the Docetics (Trail. 10, Smyrn. 2) is reproduced in Iren. iv. 33. 5 (see 
ii. p. 175). I have also pointed out striking coincidences in Smyrn. 4 
to Iren. iii. 2. 3 (see n. p. 298). Zahn (p. 331) among other passages 
compares Ephes. 7 ousSel-.-cKKXiVciv with Iren. ii. 31. 3, iii. 4. i ; Ephes. 
9 /?tWvTes TO. &lt;3ra with Iren. iii. 4. 2; Ephes. 19 o6tv eXt cro K.T.A. with 
Iren. ii. 20. 3 mortem destruxit etc. ; Magn. 8 e/xTrveo /xcrot K.T.A, with 
Iren. iv. 20. 4 ; Trail. 6 ot xat i&lt;3 K.T.\. with Iren. i. 27. 4 (a remarkable 
coincidence, see ii. p. 166). 

9- 
CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA [c. A.D. 190 210]. 

For coincidences which suggest that this father was acquainted with 
the Ignatian letters, see the notes, n. pp. 72, 8r, 129, 171, 337. 

10. 
ACTS OF PERPETUA AND FELICITAS [c. A.D. 202]. 

The expression ut bestias lucraretur ( 14) is probably taken from 
Rom, 5 oVcu/iT/i/ TWV Oijpiuv K.T.X. These Acts likewise present other 
coincidences with the Epistles of Ignatius; e.g. 10 coeperunt me favi- 
tores mei oleo defrigere quomodo solent in agonem (comp. Ephes. 3 
V7ra.\fi&lt;j&gt;0rjvai with the note), and 18 Christi Dei (comp. Trail. 7, 
Smyrn. 6, 10, with the note on Ephes. i below, n. p. 29 sq.). 

1 1. 
TERTULLIAN [c. A.D. 193216]. 

For parallels to the letters of Ignatius in this father see n. pp. 48, 
175, 349 sq. They are sufficiently close to render it highly probable 
that directly or indirectly Tertullian was indebted to this early martyr. 



136 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



12. 

ORIGEN [t A.D. 253]. 

(i) De Oratione 20 (i. p. 229, Delarue). 

OyAeN (J)AiNOMeNON K*AON ICTTLV (Rom. 3), oiovel 

V &gt; 

KCU OVK 



(ii) /;/ Canticum Canticorum Prolog, (ill. p. 30). 

Denique memini aliquem sanctorum dixrsse, Ignatium nomine, de 
Christo, Metis autem amor crucifiocus est, nee reprehendi eum pro hoc 
dignum judico (Rom. 7). 

This treatise is extant only in the version of Ruffinus. 

(iii) Homilia, vi in Lucam (HI. p. 938). 

KaXws eV IJLL& Tuv paipTv- Unde eleganter in cujus- 

pos rivos e7rtcrToXaJi&gt; yeypCLTTTaC dam martyris epistola scriptum 
TOV lyvdnov \eyw TOV /xera TOV reperi ; Ignatium dico, episco- 

purn Antiochiae post Petrum 
secundum&gt; qui in per se C utione 
w iv Pwuri ^1701015 uav&gt;i- 



Romae pugnavit ad bestias : 
eAA6e TON 



, Prindpem saeculi hujus fatuit 

TOY AIOONOC TOYTOY H nAf&gt;0NIA 

M&lt;\pi &lt;\c (Efties. 19). virginitas Marine. 

This homily is extant as a whole only in Jerome s version, but the particular 
passage is preserved in an extract which Delarue printed from Grabe s papers. 

See also the parallels quoted n. pp. 333, 337 ; and compare Horn, i 
in Levit. (n. p. 187, Delarue) Quae fuerint legis principia, qui e tiam 
in prophetis profectus accesserit, quae vero in evangeliis plenitudo per- 
fectionis habeatur with Philad. 9. 



13- 

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS [A.D. ?]. 

vii. 4 6 Az/Tto^eta? Se [e^etporo^^ eVto-KOTro?] Evo Sto? 
VTT e/xou Herpov, lyi/artos 8e VTTO ITauXov. 

In the earlier books the influence of this Apostolic father is umnis- 
takeable; see the notes, n. pp. 119, 120, 121, 122, 138, 158, 172, 33.1, 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 137 

337. Compare also Apost. Const, ii. 25 ot TTO.VTWV ras a/uapTi as /Sacrra- 
ovTs with Polyc. I. 

The passages from the earlier books are for the most part substantially 
the same in the Syriac, which is thought to preserve an earlier form of 
the Apostolical Constitutions, and which Lagarde has translated back 
into Greek (Bunsen s Analeda Antenicaena ir. p. 35 sq.). 

14. 

PEtER OF ALEXANDRIA [A.D. 306]. 
See the passage quoted from Polyc. 2 in the notes n. p. 337. 



EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA [c. A. D. 310 325]. 
(i) Chronicon il. pp. 158, 162 (ed. Schoene). 

Ann. Abrah. Vespas. 

2085 i Antiochiae secundus -episcopus constitutus 

est Ignatius. 

On the chronological bearing of this notice see below, n. p. 469 sq. In Jerome s 
revision it is attached not, as here, to the first year of Olyrtip. in, but to the number 
of the Olympiad itself. 

Ann. Abrah. Trajan. 
2114 i 

Johannem apostolum usque ad Trajani tempora (vitam) 
produxisse Irinaeus tradit. Post quern ejusdem auditores 
cognoscebantur Papias lerapolitanus et Polycarpus Smyrnae- 
orum provinciae episcopus. 

To this notice Jerome adds et Ignatins Antiochenus. On this addition sec 
above, i. p. 29 sq., and below, II. p. 472 sq. The notice in the Armenian comes 
after the year Abraham 5114 ; in Jerome it is attached to the year 2116. 

Ann. Abrah. Trajan. 
2123 10 

After this comes the notice of Ignatius martyrdom. In Jerome s revision it is 
attached to this tenth year. This notice is given at length below, II. p. 447, where 
also its chronological tearing is discussed. 

(ii) Historia Ecdesiastica iii. 22, 36 sq. 

22. AXXa /cat TO&gt;V CTT Afrto^etas EvoStou irpwTov 
Karaarai To?, Seurepos tv rots S^Xou/Aei/ots ly^cmos tyvai- 



138 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

pitf.ro. ^vpewv o/xotw? Seurepo9 /xerd rov rov 

rnL(av d$e\&lt;f&gt;ov rrjs ev lepocroXvyaot? KK\rj(TLa&lt;; /caret rov- 

roi&gt;9 TT}V \eirovpyiav eiyev. 



36. AteVpeTre ye ///r^ Kara rovrov? eVt r^9 Acrta9 

6{JuXr)TT]&lt;; HoXvKapiros, 7179 /card ^fMvpva 
O"ta9 77/909 rwv auroTrra;^ /cat VTrrjpeTotv rov Kvptou r?}v ?rt- 






77a/aoi/cca9 /cat airo9 7rtcr/co7ro9, ap rct rrvra on 
^taXtcrra Xoytwraro9 /cat r^9 ypa&lt;j&gt;r}&lt;; etS^wv,] o re rrapa 
7rXetcrrot9 etcrert vw Sta/3oi7ro9 Iyt arto9, ri^9 /car 



Xoyo9 S e^et rovrov O.TTO Svpta9 ITT! 

Qrjpuov yevkcrBai fiopav r^9 et9 
/cat 817 r7)v St A&lt;rta9 a^a/co/atS?}v /xer 7Tt- 
fypovptov ^vXa/c^ 7rotovjLtevo9, rct9 /card iroXtv at9 
7rapot/ct a9 rat9 8td Xoywv o/xtXtat9 re /cat rrporpo- 
vrat9 mppa&gt;vvv&lt;s, ev rrpatrois ^adXtcrra rrpo&lt;f)v\drreo 0aL 
atpeo"et9 ctprt rore rrpojrov [d^a^)vetcra9 /cat] e 
rrpovrpeire re drrpl e^ecrBciL rrjs rutv 
vvrep dcr(^aXeta9 /cat eyypd^&gt;aJ 
StarvTrovcr^at d^ay/catov T^yetro. ovrw o^ra ei 
^(tytevo9, e^^a o IIoXu/ca/)7ro9 17^, /xtai /u,e^ rij 
/card r^v *E&lt;^ecrov evrta roXTyv e/c/cX^crta ypctc^et, 7rotjU,e^O9 
avrrjs ^.v^^ovev^v O^^crt/xov, erepav Se rry ez^ Mayr^crta 
MatdVSpw, et ^a ird\iv tmo-Korrov Aa/xd yjvr]^jr)v 
/cat r^ ei^ TpdXXecrt Se dhXyv, 179 dp-^ovra rore 
oWa IToXvySto^ tcrropet. 77^09 ravrat9 /cat r^ Paj/xatajv e/c- 
K\r)o~ia ypd(j)6i, 77 /cat Trapd/cX^criv Trporetvet, cu9 /XT) rrapai- 
rrycrdjaei ot row jJLaprvpLov rrjs rroOovfJLei r)^ avrov 
craiev eX7rtSo9. e ^ wi /cat yS/m^vrara et9 eVt Set^ 
Trapa.0cr6ai d^iov. ypdfyti 817 ovv /card Xe 



Ano Zypi^c Me^pi Po jMHc 6HpioMA)(a) AIA pnc KAI 
cuc, NYKTOC KAI HiwepAC, eNAe^eweNOG ACKA AeonApAoic, ti 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 139 

fcCTI CTpATIWTIKON TAfMA, o l KAI 6 YepfeTO YMGN I X ei PYC 
r/NONTAI. EN Ae TO?C AAlKHMACI AYT60N MAAAON MAG HT6YOMAI, 
AAA OY TTApA TOYTO AeAlKAl oOMAI. ONAl MHN TOON GHpl oON TO3N 

6Mo) CTOI MOON A KAI efx MA| CYNTOMA MOI efpeGHNAi, A KAI 

KOAAK6YCCO CYNTOMOOC M6 K ATA(J) Are?N , OY\ tOCnep TINO3N 
AeiAAINOMGNA OYX H^ANTO- KAN AYTA Ae AKONTA MH GeAH, 
fcTOi npOCBlACOMAI. CYrfNOiMHN MOI XTe. Tl MOI CYM0epl, 
r&lt;i&gt; riNCOCKCO. NYN ApXOMAI MA6HTHC elNAI. MHA6N M 
CAI T(ON OpATCON KAI AOpATCON, F\A IhCOY XplCTOY e 

KAI CTAYPOC, GhplOON T6 CYCTAC6IC, CKOpniCMOl OCTO)N, 

i MeAooN, AAecMoi oAoY toy COOMATOC, KoAAceic roy 
AIABOAOY eic eMe epxecGcocAN, MO NON TNA MHCOY Xpicroy 
- 5)- 



Kat ravrcL /xei/ O.TTO rfjs $r)\a)6eicrr)&lt;; TroXew? rat? Kara- 
e/c/cX^o-tat? StervTrwcraro. -)JSr; 8* eVe/ceti a r^5 
^vpv^ yew/Aej/o?, aVo TpwaSo? rot? re eV 4&gt;tXaSeX^eta 
a?)^t5 Sta ypa&lt;j)-fj&lt;; o^tXel, /cat rjj ^^vpvata^v eV/cX^&lt;Tta, tSttu? 
re raj ravr^s Trpo^yov/xeVw UoXvKapTra) ov ola STJ O.TTO- 
OTTO\LKOV aVSpa ev /xaXa yvotpit^v, rr)v KO.T A^rtoveta^ 
avrw TroifAinrjv w? aV yj/^crto? /cat aya^o? TTOL^V Trapart- 
^erat, r^v ?rept avr^? &lt;^/)o^rtSa Sta crTrovS^? ^X e 
o 8 aurog S/xv/3^atot? ypa^ajv OVK otS 
iL, rotavra rtva Trept rou 



EfW Ae KAI MGTA THN ANACTACIN N CApKI AYTON 0?AA 

KAI nicref^ ONTA- KAI ore npdc TOYc nepi TTerpoN eAHAY 
66N, e 0H AYTO?C ( AABere, yHAA({)HCATe Me KAI TAere, OTI 
OYK eiMi AAIMONION ACCOMATON- KAI CYGYC AYTOY H^ANTO, 
KAI enicreYCAN (Smyrn. 3). 

Otoe oe avrov ro naprvpiov /cat d Etp^atos, KOL 
avrou fj-vrj/jLoveveL \dyutv 



Qc elne TIC TOON HMeTe po^N AIA THN npoc OeoN 

KATAKplGeiC TT p C OHplA, OTI 1?TOC e\M\ 06OY, KAI Al 

BHpi tOM AAH GOMAI, I NA KAOApoc A*PTOC eYpeGa&gt;. 4 



140 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Kal 6 IIoXv/capTro? Se TOVTGUV avrutv p,fjLvr)Tcu eV rfj 
&lt;f&gt;epofJLvrj avrov 7rpo&lt;s ^tXtTTTnycrtous e.Ti&lt;TTO\f), &lt;f&gt;darK(t)i&gt; av- 
Tots pijfjiao-L 

TTApAKAAO) OYN TTANTAC YMAC TTei9Ap)(e?N K.T.A. (see II. 
p. 921). 

Kat erj&lt;s eVt&lt;e/3er 

ErpAy^Te MOI KA I Ywe?c KAI MTNATIOC, K.T.A. (see li. p. 931). 

Kal rd fJikv Trepl rov \yvdnov rotavra. StaSc^erat S r e 
* auro^ r^ A^rto^eia? eTricrKoityv "Hpws. 

Eusebius again refers to the testimony of Irenaeus, //. E. v. 8. See alibve, p. 135. 

37. ASwoYov 8 DITTOS r\^iv aTravras e^ o^o/xaro? aVa- 
u,, ocrot TTOTC /cara TI}I&gt; trpojTrjv TOJV avroorroXcof 
e^ rat? /cara TT}^ olKov^iv^qv e/c/cX&gt;^crtat9 yeyovacrt 

17 /cat euayyeXtcrtat, rovra;^ et/corw? e^ wo/xaro? 
ypa&lt;f&gt;fj n.6v&lt;DV TTJV ^vr]yjr]v /carare^et)u,e^a, GJI/ ert /cat wf 
et? Tyjaa? 8t VTTO[Minr)fj.dT(av 7175 aTrocrroXt/c^? StSacr/caXtas 17 
^ejoerat a&gt;(nrep ovv a//,eXet row ly^artov ev at? 
i eVtcrroXats, /cat TOU KX^/xevros e 
fjLO\oyrjfj.i&gt;r) Trapd Tra-div, rjv e/c Trpo&lt;rd)7rov rfjs 
e/c/cX^crtas TT; Kopiv6ia)v SiervTrcycraro. 

38. Etpryrat Se /cat TCI lyi art ov /cat IloXu/cdpTrov. 



(ifi) Quaestiones ad Stephanum i (6^. iv. p. 88 1, Migne). 

-t Se TTOV d ctyto? dirfp, lymrtos ovo/xa avrw, rry? 
e/c/cXTycrta? Seurepos yeyoi^ai? /xerd rous dVo- 
crroXous e7rto"/co7TO9, ws dpa /cat TOI&gt; dpyovra TOV atw^os 
TOUTOV eXaBev T) TrapOevta Mapta9 /cat 17 TOV o-coTrjpos e^ 
yeVecrts Xe yet Se ovrws 

KA I e AABe TON APXONTA TOY AIOJNOC TOY TOY H n^pQeNi A 

KAI O TOK6TOC AYTHC, OMOICOC K&lt;\i 6 0ANATOC TOY 
XplCTOY TplA MYCTHplA KpAYfHC, ATINA 6N HCYX 1 ^ 060Y 

H (Ephes. 19). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 141 

1 6. 

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM [c. A.D. 347]. 

The resemblance of the passage quoted, n. p. 175, to Trail. 9, 10, 
Smyriu 2, 3, is striking. 

17- 

ATHANASIUS [A.D. 359]. 
De Synodis Arimini et Seleuciae 47 {Op. \. ii. p. 607, Patav. 1777). 

lyrartos ovv % o /xera row? ctTrocrToXov? eV A^rto^eta 
/caracTTa$et9 eTTtV/coTTo?, /cat /xaprv? TOV XptoTOv y&gt;d- 
/Lte^o?, ypd(f)0)i&gt; irepl TOV Kvpiov elp-qKev ETc lAipdc ecri 

CApKIKOC KAI TTNeyMATIKOC, rNNHTOC KAI AfeNNHTOC, fcN AN- 

Gpcjonco Oeoc, eN SANATCO ZOOM AAHSINH, KAI CK M^piAc KAI 
eK Oeoy (Ephcs. 7). rives 8e /cat raJv /xera lymrtov 
/caXot /cat aurot ypa^outrt^ *Ei/ TO dyeWi^ro^ d 
/cat etg d e ^ aurou vto? yt^crtos, yeV^/xa aXyBwov, Xoyog 
/cat cro^ta rou Trarpo?. et /xe^ ovi/ /cat TT^OO? TOVTOV? tvav- 
Ttw? Sta/cet/xe^a, ecrrw /cat 7T/3O? ra? crui^oSovs T^tttv 17 ^X 7 ) 
et 8e, 77)1^ eV Xptcrrw TTICTTW a\&gt;T&lt;av yivu&gt;crKovT.&lt;s, 7re7reto~/xe^a 
ort /cat d /xa/captos lyrarto? d/a^w? ey/3ai//, yevvrfTov O.VTOV 
Xeycuz/ Sta T?}V o~ap/ca d yap Xptcrrd? &lt;rap eyeVero- ayeV- 
vTjTov 8e, drt /XT) TOJV Trot^/xartui/ /cat ye^^ra)^ iomv, aXX vtd? 
e/c 



Thistreatise was written A.D. 359, as Montfaucon (p. 571) points out. Two chapters 
however (30, 31) were added a little later. The attempt to discredit the whole 
on account of these chapters, which there is every reason to think were inserted by the 
author himself, is futile. The treatise evidently arose out of the immediate circum 
stances to which it relates, and must have been the work of a contemporary. But no 
contemporary is so likely to have written it as Athanasius, to whom it is ascribed and 
whose style and treatment it reproduces throughout. The case is well stated by Zahn 
(/. v. A. p. 578 sq.)- The use which S. Athanasius here makes of these expressions of 
Ignatius is discussed at length below (ll. p. 90 sq.). The remarks of Cureton (C. /. 
p. Ixixsq.) seem to me to be altogether confused and confusing. 

1 8. 

SYRIAC MARTYROLOGY [c. A.D. 350?] 
The reference will be found below, n. p. 417. 

Reasons are there given for assigning this document to a date not later, or at. least 
not much later, than the middle of the fourth century. 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

r 

19. 
EPHREM SYRUS [t A.D. 373]. 

The coincidences with Polyc. 3 given in the notes (n. p. 342) cannot 
have been accidental. The same may be said, though not with the same 
degree of confidence, of the coincidence with Rom. 2, which is likewise 
noticed in its proper place (n. p. 202). For other coincidences pointing 
to the same conclusion see n. pp. 74, 76, 82, 168. 

The date of Ephrem s death, as given above, is taken from the MS, Brit. Mtts. 
Add. 12155 (see Wright s Catalogue p. 947). 

2O. 

BASIL OF CAESAREA [t A.D. 379]. 

Horn, in Sanctum Christi Generationem 3 (Op. n. p. 598, Gamier). 
EtyOT^rat oe TU&gt;V Tra\aiO)v TIVI KCU erepo? Xoyos ort virep TOV 

AA6e?N TON ApXONTA TOY AIOONOC TYTOY THIS! TTApOGNIAN THC 

MapiAc 17 rov l&lt;wcr&gt;7&lt; 7revoY)0r) /x^crreta 
\ijdr} ovv Sta rfjs jav^crreta? d e7rt/3ovXo&lt;? 

yap KaTaXwiv TTJS tSta? ctp^s TTJV Stcx, crapKos eTri&lt;j&gt;d- 
TOV Kvpiov yevrjQ-ofJLevrjv. 

It might have been supposed that this reference to Ephes. 19 was 
borrowed from Origen (see above, p. 136), to whom S. Basil is so largely 
indebted elsewhere; but the words KaraAuo-tv 1-179 iSta9 ap^s point to a 
knowledge of the context of Ignatius which he could not have derived 
from the passage of the Alexandrian father. 

Gamier (Praef. p. xv) gives reasons for questioning the authorship of this treatise 
of S. Basil; but he is not uninfluenced by doctrinal prejudices (see Galatians p. 284), 
and his arguments in this case do not seem to have any weight. 

21. 

JOHN THE MONK [c. A.D. 380390?]. 

Epistula ad Eutropium et Eusebium de Communione Vcritatis in Vita 
Nova, etc. 

All the saints who loved God, since their love towards him was 
hidden in the power of their soul, proclaimed their love by the voice, 
that is, by the death of the flesh which is the voice ; because they were 
not able in any other way to show their love, but by even going out of 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 143 

voice, in being divested of the flesh, that they might become word and 
not voice. For whilst they were in the world of the voice, they were 
men of the voice ; but after they are gone out of the world of the voice, 
they will become men of the word and not of the voice.... 

But that it might be not supposed that I speak from opinion, and 
not from grace, respecting the man of the voice and the word, we will 
show you evidently by bringing, as testimony to our words, the authority 
of one of the saints... the blessed Ignatius, the glorious martyr, who was 
the second bishop after the Apostles in Antioch of Syria, who, when he 
was going up to Rome in the testimony for Christ, wrote epistles to certain 
cities; and in that to Rome, when he was persuading them not to hinder 
him from the testimony of Christ, said, If ye be silent from me, I shall be 
the word of God ; but if ye lore my flesh, again I am to myself a voice 
(Rom. 2). And he implored them to cease from intreating respecting 
him, and begged them not to love his life of the flesh better than his life 
in the spirit. Were these things spoken in an ordinary way by this saint ? 
What then is this, that after his departure from this world he is to him 
self a word; but if he continue he is to himself a voice?,.. This man of 
God deserves to be reckoned amongst the company of the Apostles, of 
whom I had almost said, that whilst he was in the flesh in the world he 
had immersed himself from the world with his Lord : as he also himself 
said, Then am I faithful when I am not seen in the world (Rom. 3); and, 
// is good for me that I should set from the world in God, that I may 
rise in Him in life (Rom. 2). And again he said, Let nothing envy me of 
those that are seen and that are not seen (Rom. 5). That there might be 
no indignity therefore to the greatness of this man of God through what 
I say, I honour him in silence, and approach to the saying which he 
spake, If ye are silent from me, and leave me to die in sacrifice, / am to 
myself the word of God ; but if not, I am to myself a voice.... 

And this again, If 2 shall continue, lam to myself a voice : he desires 
to teach that the temporary life here is of the flesh in a compound 
person ; for the word is not of the flesh, but of the spirit ; but the voice 
is not of the spirit, but of the flesh, because all bodies have the voice 
only, but have not the word, inasmuch as they have not in them the soul 
in the person. For .every beast and bird, together with cattle and 
creeping things of the earth, utter the voice only ; but because man has 
in him a soul, and is not like the rest of the other bodies, he uses the 
word and the voice.... 

But I am not alleging, as in a discussion, proofs respecting the soul, 
to require many things to be said ; but I am sowing a few things into 



144 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



your ears, that they may be instruction for you. But more especially 
from the reasoning faculty of the word do we comprehend the power of 
the soul which is in us ; because the reasoning faculty of the word is not 
found in any of the bodies, as we have said, but in man only. . . . 

Thus also was it effected in this economy of Christ, that John the 
Baptist, because he was about to preach respecting God the Word, was 
called a voice ; / am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the 
ivay. For whom but for the Word the Lord, whom he preached that men 
should prepare a way in their souls for the coming of His doctrine ? The 
Son is therefore called the Word, in order that He might show us that 
He is from the Father in nature, like as the word also is begotten from 
the power of the soul. Our Lord therefore put on the flesh, like the 
word the voice : and more than is the mixture of the word with the 
voice, is the mixture of God the Word with the flesh which he put on. 

The passages in the above ex,tr,aqt which contain the direct quotations run thus in 
the original ; 




K cvcn 



K ocn ^_*.v*cn.T 



oc 



oc 



.i .rC ooArdja r^*^ \ v 




QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 145 

JLJia&l&ia :**zn ^_^a_nAu3L.^.i )cA 
. K orAK .l pi Axlsa .A rdJK K ocn . 



This passage is taken by Cureton (see Corp. Ign. p. 351) from the British Museum 
MS, Add. 12170, fol. 21 r (fol. 224 in Wright s Catalogue p. 749), apparently of about 
the 8th century. He compared it with another, Add. 14580, which is dated A.D. 866 
(see Wright s Catalogue p. 767). The text and translation will be found in Cureton 
C. I. pp. 205, 239 sq. From his translation I have taken these extracts. 

Works by the same John the Monk appear in numerous Syriac volumes in the 
British Museum (see the index to Wright s Catalogue p. 1296). Among them are 
other letters to these same persons, the monks Eutropius and Eusebius. One MS 
containing works by him (Add. 17169) is dated as early as A.D. 581 (see Wright s 
Catalogue p. 451). Who then was this John? 

In the MS Add. 17172, prefixed to various works by this John are the words, 
1 By the strength and help of the Holy Trinity we begin to write the book of the 
holy John, the monk and seer of Thebais. But first an account respecting him, that 
is, the blessed John, which was written by Palladius bishop of Jerusalem (it should 
have been Helenopolis ). Then follows substantially the same narrative which is given 
in Palladius Hist. Laus. c. 43 vepl IwaWou rou AVKOTTO\LTOV (see Cureton C. I. p. 351, 
Wright s Catalogue p. 760). In the course of this narrative occurs the following state 
ment ; Also he informed the blessed emperor Theodosius beforehand respecting 
things future, I mean respecting his being about to vanquish the rebel Maximus and 
to return from Galatia [i.e. Gaul , j see Galatians pp. 3, 31]. Then again he also 
foretold respecting the defeat of Eugenius (comp. Hist. Laus. 43, 46, pp. 1107 sq., 
1130, Migne). After this life follows the letter of John to Eutropius and Eusebius on 
the Spiritual Life, which is designated at the close as the work of my Lord John the 
monk and seer of Thebais ; and this again is succeeded by four discourses by the 
same writer in the form of dialogues addressed to these same persons Eutropius and 
Eusebius. 

It seems then, that this MS identifies John the Monk, the writer of these works, 
with John of Lycopolis, the seer of the Thebais, with whom Palladius had direct 
personal communications, whose life he writes, and from whom he obtained much 
information (which he retails) respecting other monks of the Thebais. This identifica 
tion is apparently accepted by Cureton (C. I. p. 351 sq.). 

But Falladius in a later chapter (c. 61) gives an account of another John, likewise 
a monk of Thebais. He too might be called a seer, for he received revelations (airoKa- 
\virTfTai avry) respecting the state of the monasteries, which proved true. This 
John is stated to have been the writer of letters and other works, whereas John of 
Lycopolis is not mentioned as an author. Moreover the subjects of his works are 
of the same kind as those of our John the Monk. They are addressed to monks, and 
they deal with the same topics (e.g. vvffufjj&gt;r)ffKfv airi&gt; rwv alffdijT^v eis ryv vdi\&lt;i&lt;.v 
avaxupelo K.T.\.; comp. Assera. Bibl. Orient, i. p. 432 debet visibilia...omnia con- 
temnere ). Our John therefore should more probably be identified with this person 
than with John of Lycopolis. If so, he was a contemporary of John of Lycopolis, of 
Evagrius of Pontus, and of other famous monks of the Thebaid; and his date as an 
author would probably be about A.D. 380 . ,90. He may also have been the same, 
\(\. I. I0 



146 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

as Zahn suggests (7. v. A. p. 222), to whom Ephrem Syrus writes, Op. Grace. 
p. i86sq. (comp. Proleg. p. 49) irpbs Iwdwijv /Mvdfovra (see Assem. Bill. Orient. I. 
p. 150). 

Assemani (Bibl. Orient. I. p. 431) identifies John the Monk, our Syriac writer, 
with John of Apamea, whom he places in the 6th century. Cureton (C. I. p. 352) 
seems to accept this date for John of Apamea, but rejects the identification. In both 
respects he acts too hastily. As regards the date Assemani s reasons are far from 
conclusive. On the other hand very much may be said for the identification, though 
rejected also by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 222) and others. Ebedjesu (Bibl. Orient. Hi. 
p. 50) gives the following list of the works of John of Apamea, Tres composuit 
tomos; necnon epistolas; de Regimine Spirituali, de Passionibus, et de Perfectione. 
There is extant a work of our John a letter to Eutropius and Eusebius on the 
Spiritual Life (Wright s Catalogue, pp. 451, 657, 757, 760, 767, 795, etc.); another 
in the form of dialogues with these same persons on the Passions (ib. pp. 452, 761, 
767, 805, 857, Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 431); another on Perfection (Wright pp. 
758, 768, etc.). I am therefore constrained to believe that the same writings are 
meant in both cases. There is indeed, so far as I know, no reason why John the 
Monk of the Thebais should not be John of Apamea. There were many Syrians 
among the monks of the Egyptian desert. In this case however Assemani s date for 
John of Apamea must be abandoned. One of the MSS of our John bears the date 
A.D. 581 (see Wright s Catalogue p. 451). 

Ebedjesu mentions two Johns : one (c. 39) as John simply of whom he gives no 
information, not even the title of his work; and another, as John of Apamea (c. 47), 
giving the account of his writings which I have already quoted. It is possible that he 
splits up one man into two ; or he may have erroneously assigned to the latter the 
works which really belonged to the former. At all events, if there be a mistake in 
the identification, it is Ebedjesu s, not Assemani s. 

The works of John seem to have been written in Syriac, so that we possess the ori 
ginals (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 431, Cureton Corp. Ign. p. 294, Zahn I. v. A. 
p. 222 sq., though Zahn expresses hesitation in his later work, Ign. Epist. p. 339). 
It was frequently the case that the monks of the Egyptian desert could not speak 
Greek, being either Copts or Syrians. Thus John of Lycopolis conversed with Palla- 
dius through an interpreter (Hist. Latts. 43, p. 1113). Moreover the quotations of our 
John from Ignatius are not translated from the Greek, but taken from the Syriac 
version. This appears from the fact that for avarelXu (Rom. 2) he writes I may 
rise in life with the Syriac (2) and the Armenian (A) which was taken from the 
Syriac, besides other slighter resemblances. 

Zahn (I. v. A. p. 223) objects to Cureton s translation certain 
cities, and contends that it must be rendered famous cities, like Lucian s &/56ots 
iro\f&lt;n.v (see above, p. 133). On this basis he founds an argument that John was 
acquainted with the Seven Epistles, since otherwise the expression would be meaning 
less. But the word certainly has this sense sometimes (e.g. in the Peshito of Acts 
xvi. 12 ri fit pas rivds, xviii. 23 xpovov riva; see also Payne Smith Thcs. Syr. p. 1556), 
so that the argument cannot be pressed. On the other hand the expression sowing a 
few things into your ears seems to be suggested by Ephes. 9 OVK elcurare ffirelpeiv eis 
VIM S, fiixravTH TO. ura K.T.\., a passage which is not found in the Curetonian letters. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 147 

22. 
HlERONYMUS [c. A.D. 390 415]. 

(i) De Viris Illustribus 16, Op. n. p. 842 (ed. Vallarsi). 

Ignatius, Antiochenae ecclesiae tertius post Petrum apostolum 
episcopus, persecutionem commovente Trajano damnatus ad bestias 
Romam vinctus mittitur : cumque navigans Smyrnam venisset, ubi 
Polycarpus, auditor Johannis, episcopus erat, scripsit unam epistulam ad 
Ephesios, alteram ad Magnesianos, tertiam ad Trallenses, quartam ad 
Romanes ; et inde egrediens scripsit ad Philadelphinos et ad Smyrnaeos 
et proprie ad Polycarpum, commendans illi Antiochensem ecclesiam ; 
in qua et de evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona 
Christi ponit testimonium, dicens ; Ego vcro ct post rcsurrectioncm in 
carne eum vidi, et credo quia sit ; et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos 
qui cum Petro crant, dixit eis ; Ecce palpate et videte quia non sum daemo- 
nium incorporate. Et statim tetigerunt eum ct credidcnint. 

Dignum autem videtur, quia tanti viri fecimus mentioned, et de 
epistula ejus quam ad Romanos scribit pauca ponere ; De Syria usque 
ad Romam pugno ad bestias, in mart et in terra, nocte et die, ligatus cum 
decem leopardis, hoc est, militibus qui me custodiunt ; quibus et cum bene- 
fcccris, pejores jiunt. Iniquitas autem eorum mea doctrina est ; sed non 
idcirco justificatus sum. Utinam fruar bestiis, quae mihi sunt praepa- 
ratae ; quas et oro veloces mihi csse ad inter itum, et adliciam \cas\ ad 
comedcndum me; ne, sicut \et\ alionim martyrum, non audeant corpus 
meum adtingere. Quodsi venire noluerint, ego vim faciam, ut devorer. 
Ignoscite mihi, filioli; quid mihi prosit, ego scio. Nunc incipio esse disci- 
pitlus, nihil de his quae videntur dcsiderans, ut Jesum Christum inveniam. 
Ignis, crux, bestiae, conf radio ossium, membrorumque divisio, et totius cor- 
poris contritio, et tormenta diaboli in me veniant; tantum ut Christo fruar. 
Cumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, et ardore patiendi rugientes 
audiret leones, ait ; Frumentum Christi sum, dcntibus bestiarum molar, ut 
pants mundus inveniar. 

Passus est anno undecimo Trajani. Reliquiae corporis ejus Antiochiae 
jacent extra portam Daphniticam in coemeterio. 

(ii) Adv. Helvidium 17, Op. n. p. 225. 

Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commo- 
vore, Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque 
alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem et Theo- 

IO 2 



148 EPISTLES OF S, IGNATIUS. 

dotum Byzantium, Valentinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae 
volumina conscripserunt ? 

(iii) Comment, in Matthaeum i. i, Op. vn. p. 12. 

Quare non de simplici virgine, sed de desponsata concipitur? Primum, 
ut per generationem Joseph origo Mariae monstraretur. Secundo, ne 
lapidaretur a Judaeis ut adultera. Tertio, ut in Aegyptum fugiens 
haberet solatium mariti. Martyr Ignatius etiam quartam addidit causam, 
cur a desponsata conceptus sit ; Ut partus, inquiens, ejus celaretur dia- 
bolo, dum eum putat non de virgine sed de uxore generatum. 

(iv) Adv. Pelagianos iii. 2, Op. n. p. 783. 

Ignatius, vir apostolicus et martyr, scribit audacter ; Elegit Dominus 
apostolos, qui super omncs homines peccatores erant. 

It is obvious from these passages that Jerome had no personal acquaintance with 
the writings of Ignatius. Thejirst passage ( Vir. III. 16) is taken almost entirely from 
Eusebius (see above p. 138). He only adds two particulars to the account of the his 
torian, (i) He is able to point out the source of the apocryphal quotation in Smyrn. 
3, of which Eusebius was ignorant (ou/c ot5 SiroOev), namely the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews, which he himself had translated (see the note II. p. 295 sq.). (2) He 
can point out the resting-place of the bones of Ignatius, the Cemetery at Antioch, 
which probably he himself had visited (see below, Ii.pp. 376 sq., 429 sq.). On the other 
hand he is so ignorant of the facts, that whereas Eusebius mentions two letters, one to 
the Smyrmeans and the other to Polycarp, Jerome blundering over I8i&lt;as (by which 
Eusebius meant in a separate epistle ) supposes him to speak of only one letter. 
This ignorance might have been pardoned if it had not misled the greatest of Ignatian 
critics. The one blot on the critical scutcheon of Ussher is his rejection of the Epistle 
to Polycarp as spurious on the ground that Jerome does not recognize it. The date 
of the treatise de Viris Illustribus is A. n. 392. 

The second passage (adv. Hdvid. 17) is nothing more than a bold rhetorical venture 
after Jerome s manner. Probably the sole foundation for this sweeping assertion,. so 
far as regards Ignatius, was the single fact known to Jerome (see the next passage) 
that Ignatius spoke of the virginity of Mary (Ephcs. 19). The description it is true 
would better apply to such passages as Trail, n, Philad. 6, in the Long Recension, 
where Ebion (a purely imaginary person) and Theodotus (who lived long after the 
age of Ignatius) with others are mentioned by name. But it is highly improbable 
that Jerome should have seen this recension, and we need not look for the same pre 
cision in him which we should expect in a more careful writer. Though well versed 
in works on Biblical exegesis, which was his speciality, he was otherwise extremely 
ignorant of early Christian literature. This treatise was written about A.D. 382. 

In the third passage (Comin. in Matt. i. i), belonging to the year 398, he pro 
bably borrowed the fact, which he mentions, from Origen as quoted above (p. 136); 
while in iht fourth, written about A.D. 415, in which again he professes to quote Igna 
tius, he is guilty of a blunder, for he assigns to Ignatius words which are taken from 
Barnabas. Here again he was probably indebted to Origen (c. Cek. i. 63, Op. l. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 149 

P- 378) who however ascribes the saying to the right author, so that Jerome was misled 
by a treacherous memory. 

For the notice of Ignatius in Jerome s revision of the Chronicon of Eusebius, see 
above, p. 137. 

23- 

S. CHRYSOSTOM [c. A.D. 390]. 
(i) Homilia in S. Ignatium, Op. n. p. 592 (ed. Montfaucon). 

EFKOMION EI2 TON AFION IEPOMAPTYPA IFNATION TON 
EOfcOPON APXIEHlSKOnON TENOMENON ANTIOXEIA2 TH2 
MEPAAH2, EI2 PftMHN AHENEX0ENTA KAI AYTO0I MAPTY- 
PH2ANTA KAKEI0EN AY0I2 EI2 ANTIOXEIAN KOMI20ENTA . . . 

. . . Hpurjv yovV rj/xd? Kopr) KO/atS^ via. /cat aTretpo ya/xo? 
V) fiaKapia. fj.dpTv&lt;s IleXayta ^tera TroXX.^5 r^5 e 
etcrrtacre anjjJLepov traXiv TYJV eKt^9 eoprr^v o 
ouro? Kal y.vva2o&lt;; /xaprv? lyi/arto 1 ? SteSe ^aro. Stac^opa 
5 TO- TTyoocrw/ra, cxXXa jata rf rpdire^a e^XXay/xeVa ra TraXcucr- 
/xara, aXX ef? d crre^a^o? Trot/ctXa ra aya^tcr/xara, aXXd 



TO auro BoaBelov 



O /xev ov*/ /cat/30? jy/xa? 7^817 Trpos TT}^ StTyy^criv rc3^ row 
TOVTOV KaTopOajfJLaTaji /caXet* o Xoytcr/xos 8e 
10 raparrerat /cat dopv/Belrat,, OVK ^(ov ri irpairov, ri 
rt rpirov TOCTOVTOV Trepippel TravroOtv T^/x 
s KOL TO.VTOV 7racr^o/xe^, otoi/ dV et rts et? Xet/xwi^a 
.icre\0u&gt;v, /cat TroXXi)^ /Ltei TT}^ po^oiviav i&cov, rroXv Se TO 
to^, /cat TO Kpivov TOCTOVTOV, /cat erepa 8e "qpiva cUvOy 
15 TTOi/aXa TC /cat Stct^opa, diropTJcreie TL irpwTov tS^, Tt Seirre- 
^ot , e/cao~TOU TOUV opoy^4va)V Trpo? eavTO /caXovi^TO? TO,? oi//t?. 
/cat ya/D /cat 7J/xet9 ets TW TrvtvpcLTiKov TOVTOV Xetttal^a 
lyvaTtou /caTop^w/xctTajv etcreX^oVTe? /cat ou^l 
aXX aurov TOU Trvev/xaTos TOI^ KapTrov Trot/ctXov Te /cat 
20 Std^opov eV T^ TOVTOV ^v^f) ^ew/xei/ot, 0opvftov{JL0a 
/cat Stavropov/xev, OT;/C e^ovTeg TTOV irpcorov rov 

e/cdo~Tov TOJV dpaj/xeVaii/ a?ro TOJI^ 
/cat 77/369 T^ Tr^9 otKetag evVpeTret ag 



150 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

eVtCTTrw/aeVov rrfv 777? ^v^? or//ti&gt;. cr/coTretre yap Trpoecrrrj 
777? trap* rf^iv e/c/cX^crta? yewatco? /cat /xera roaavT^? d/cpt- 
/3eta? /xe# 00-17? d Xpiaro? /3ovXe7at* 6V yap jueytcr7oi&gt; 
opoi&gt; /cat Kavova 777? eVtcr/co7r77? e&lt;f)rjcTev tivai e/cetvo?, TOVTOV 
OVTOS Std 7a)z&gt; epyojv eVeSet^xrro. /cat yap rou Xpto rou 5 
Xeyovro? a/covcras ort C TTOIMHN 6 KAAOC THN YYX^N 
TI GHCIN rnep TOON rrpoBATooN, /aero. Tracr^s a^Spetas 

vvrep rwv TrpoySara)^. crweyeVero roT? aTrocrroXot?. 

/cat rwv Trvev^aTLKcijv vap,a.T&lt;i)i&gt; aTnjXavcrev. OTTOLOV 
ovv elvat, et/cos rof awTpa^evTa e /cetVot? /cat Travra^ou cruy- 10 
yevojJLevov, /cat prjTO)i&gt; /cat aTropprjToiv avrot? 
/cat Toa-avrrjs eti/at So^avra avrot? ctpx^s a^tov ; 
TraXtz/ /catpo? ai/SpetW CTnfyjTtov /cat \jjv)(r)v TCOV T 
VTrepopwcrav a,TrdvT(DV /cat rw ^etw tf.ovcra.v epwrt /cat ra 
/XT} /8Xe7To/xe^a TCUV opw/xeVco^ Trport/xaJcra^ /cat jaera rocrau- 15 
7775 eu/coXi as TT}V crap/ca aTre^ero, /xe$ OCTT^? av rt? i/xartov 
aTroSucratro. rt ovi^ nporepov eLTrcojJiev ; ra)^ aTrocrroXw^ 
77}^ StSacr/caXta^, 77 ^ eVeSet^aro Sta TrdvTaiv ; 17 TT^S ?rap- 
0^0-775 ^775 TT)I&gt; vTTepo^Lav ; 77 T7)if OLKpifitiav 7179 ape777s 
jote^ 775 77}^ 7rpocr7acrta^ 7779 e/c/cXTycrta? w/cow^crev ; 7tz^a 20 
TTporepov avvfJU TJa-OfMei ; 7o&gt; /xap7vpa, 77 701^ eVt cr/coTroz , 77 

7OV a7TOCT7oXo^ ; TplTT\QVV yap (TT&lt;$&gt;aVOV 77 7OV 7T^V/&gt;ta7OS 

^P^ OVTOI r^v aylav eKeivrjv dve^cre Ke(j)a\yjv, 
Se TroXXauXov^ 7wz/ yap (n^dvotv e/cacr7oz&gt; et 

,e7a d/cpt/3etas dva7T7u^ r etv, evprjcreu /cat 
77/jttv fiKacrrdvovTa s crTe^dvov;- 

Kat et /3ov\crOe, trporepov eVt 70^ 7775 eVt(T/co7r^? 
.\9o)^v. ov So/cet et? ou7os eti/at o"7e / ^&gt;a^o5 jaoVo? 
ou^ av7Of dvarrrv^^v 7w Xoyw, /cat tyecrOe /cat Suo /cat 
7pet? /cat TrXetou? e au7ou 7t/c7O/AeVous TJ/xti . ou yap povov, 30 
6Vt 7ocrau7775 dp^g d^to? etz^at eSo^e, #av/Aa 
e yco, dXX 6Vi /cat Trapd 7w^ dytwv e /cetVwv 777^ 
eVe^etptcr^, /cat at 7&&amp;gt;i^ /xa/capta)^ aTrocrToX 
tepct? e /cetVr7? 771^^70 /ce^aX^?. ovSe yap jJUKpw TOVTO et? 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 151 

\6yov OVK eVetSr} TrXet w TTJV dwOev eVeo-Trdo-aro 
~)(dpiv, ouS ort $a\jji\o~Tpai&gt; eV auroV 7TOLrjo~av eXOetv 
Tr)v TOV Tn ev/Aaros evepyeiav povov, dXX ort /cat Trdo~av avraJ 
TI}Z&gt; eV dvOpoj-rroLS {JLapTvpr)o-av dpeTyv. TO Se TTW? eyw Xe yw. 
5 TiT6J ypd(f)a)v 6 ITavXo? Trore* orav 8e IlauXoi CITTO), ou 
TOVTOV (JLOVOV \4ya), aXXa /cat IleV^ov /cat Ia/ca&gt;j8o^ /cat 
ludvvyv /cat Trdvra. avTcov TOV ^opov Kaddnep yap iv 
Xvpa fjiia Sia^opot /Ltei^ at vevpat /xta 8e 17 ap/xovta, ovrcu 
/cat ez^ TW XPV r ^ v dTrocrToXojv /c.r.X Oapputv roivvv 

10 et7roi/u av, ort Traarav avrrjv /xera d/cptySeta? o /^ta/capto 
lyt arto? aTre/xa^aro eV TT; eavrou v//v^ /cat a^eTTtX^Trro? 
771^ wat aVey/cX^ro? /cat ovre av0d$r)&lt;; ovre opytXo? ovre 
Trdpoivos oure TrX^/cr^?, aXX dynamo?, d&lt;j)i\dpyvpo&lt;;, St/cato?, 
oo"to9, ey/cpari7&lt;?, cti/re^ojaevo? rov /card TT}^ StSa^^ 7rto~rou 

15 Xoyov, vr)(f&gt;d\LO&lt;;, cr(o(f)pa)v, /coo-/xtO9, /cat rd dXXa dVe^ d 
IlavXo? dirrjTrjo e. /cat Tts TOVTOJ^ aTroSet^t?, , (frrjcnv , avrot 
ot ravra etp^/core? avroV e ^etporoi^crav /cat ov/c di ot 
/xerd Tocravr^s d/cpt^Setag TrapaivovvTes erepot? TT)V So/ct- 
p,acrLai&gt; TTOtetcr^at TO)I&gt; /xeXXo^ra)^ eVt rw dpovov rr;? &PX*) * 

20 dvafiaiveiv ravr^g, avrot Trapepyo)? TOVTO eiroirjcrav dv. 

&gt;\ \ 5 &gt; \ TP&gt; \ / A A M 

aA.A et ^77 TrcLcrav etoov 717^ aptrrjv ravTTjv tv rrj Y/V^ row 

/JidpTVpOS TOVTOV TT&lt;f)VTVlJ,V7]V, OVK dl&gt; ttUTW TGLVTrjV .Ve^.l- 

pi&av TVJV dpxrfv eTSe? TTOJ? StTrXou? T^UI&gt; d o~Te^&gt;avo5 

(f)dvr) Trjs eVto-KOTT^? re w?, /cat Xa/x7T/3orepav 770117 o~e r?}z&gt; 
25 dp)(r)V TO TO&gt;V xeipoTOvrj&dvTtov O.VTQV dtw/xa, Trdcrav drro- 
Set^tv dptTrjs avrw p,apTvpov(rav ; 

BouXeo~#e /cat eTepov VJJLLV e/c/caXui//cu VTtfyavov dif OLVTOV 
TOVTOV P\ao-Tdvoi&gt;Ta ; amXoyto~6J/xe$a roi/ Kaipov /ca^ 6V 
r&gt;}^ dpyr)v ei/e^etpto-^ TOLVT^V ov yap ICTTLV Zcrov e/c/cXr;- 

30 o~tai&gt; ot/covo/x^crat vut , /cat roVe /c.r.X ojcnrep ovv 

Oav^dtp^v, ov% oTav T^cru^a^ovcr^s r?;9 ^a- 
/cat e ovpuov rfjs ^ryo? &lt;f&gt;epofjLevr}&lt;; $vvr)6fi rov? 

Stacrwo-at, dXX orav /xatvo/xeVov rou 
8tavto-ra/xeVa&gt;^ rwi^ /cvjadrcu^, avrwv rcov &8ov 



152 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

o~TacnaL &gt; 6i&gt;Ta)v, TroXXou ^et/xw^os ecrwOev e^wOev rous e/x- 

TrXeovra? 7roXto/&gt;/coiWo9, $vvr)6y KarevOvvai TO 

dcrc^aXeta? dirdo"r)S ovrcu /cat TOUS rare TTJV 

ey^etptcr^eVra? e/cTrX^TTecr^at ^pr) /cat dav^d 

TT\eov TWV vvv oiKOvo^ovvTutv avTtjv, ore TroXvs o vroXe/AO? 5 

^co9ev (!cr(t)0ev, ore diraXtoTepov crt TO ^vrov rrjs 

-^i/ Kal TroXX^s Seojae^ov eTTt/xeXetag, oTe KaOdirep 

fipe(f)os TO T^? e/c/cX^crtag TrX^o? TroXXirJ? f^prj^e rrj&lt;; 

Trpo^ota? /cat crof^&mxTTys Ttvo? TT^? /LteXXovcr^? avTO riOr)- 

vdo-6ai ^vxys ..... I0 

Et7ra&gt; /cat TtTaprov crr^avov e/c TT^S etrLO KOTrrjs rnuv 
dvicr)(ovTa Tavrr^s. Tt? oi)v e o~Ttv OVTO?; TO TT}^ TrarpiSa OVTOV 
ITTLT parr YJvai rr^v ^/xerepav. itTlirovov ^ev yap /cat e/caTov 
/cat Tret TTy/cop Ta TrpoarTrjvaL povov TO 8e TroXtt 

TocravTTp, /cat S-YJ^OV ets et/coo-t e/CTetw/xe^o^ 15 
TTOCT^S apeTi^s otet /cat cro^ta? ctTroSet^t^ etvat .... 
/cat aXXcu? Se TroXvs T^ TT^S TroXecu? TavT^s TOI @e&lt;u Xoyo?, 
cos /cat Std Tc3i/ tpyw avrtav e Sr^Xwcre. TO^ youv T^5 
e7rto~TaTT7^ ctTrcto"^? TleTpov, w TO,? /cXet? eVe- 
ovpdv&lt;av, u&gt; Trdvra ayetv Kat fyeptiv enerpeifje, 20 



ot/cov/xei^s dTrdcrrjs r) TroXt? avrippoiros rf ^/ 
E7reto&gt;) 8e CfJurfo BijV Herpov, /cat TT^TTTOV et; avrov 
a~Te&lt;f&gt;avov etoov TrXe/co/aez^ov OVTOS Se ecrTt, TO /XCT eKelvov 
TOVTOV StaSe^acr^at TT)V dp^v. ojcrirep yap dv Tt5, \Wov 25 
laipo)v peyav e/c ^e/xeXtcuv, tTepois dvrippoTrov e/cet^ov 
O"7rovod^et Trai Tcus d^Teto~aya-yet^, et /XT) yu-e XXot Trdcrav 
craXevet^ TT}^ ot/co8o/x7}i/ /cat aaBporepav iroielv OVTW 87} 
/cat Herpov /xe XXovTOs IvrevOcv dTro^ri^elv, erepov dvrippoTrov 
Herpov otoacr/caXov 7j TOU Tri eu/xaTog dvTto~&gt;^yaye ^dpi&lt;s, 30 
ao-T /AT) Tip -^817 ytvofjievrjv oiKoSojaT}^ TT; TOU 8ta8e^o/xeVov 
evTeXeta craOpOTepav ye^eV^at. 

ITeWe /xei/ ou^ &lt;TT6(f)di&gt;ovs dTT^piO^crd^Oa, ano TOV 
TT^S apxfjs, CITTO TT^S d^tas 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 153 

airo rrj? rou /catpou Sucr/coXia9, ctTro rou /xe rpou TVJS 7roXea&gt;9, 
ctTTO rr?9 dper7?9 rou 7rapaSoVro9 aurw rrjv eVto /coTr^i . 
rourou9 airavTas TrX^avras ivr^v /cat e/croi&gt; etTretz/, /cat 
e/SSo/xov, /cat 7rXetou9 rovrcoi^ dXX* ua /XT;, roV aircuna 
5 xpoVov et9 rw 7re/ot T^ eTrtcr/coTr^s di/aXwcrafTe? Xoyov, 
TOJV ire/H rou /xaprupos St^yr^/xarajv, ^&gt;epe XotTro*/ 
roi^ aBXov tKeivov tw/xev. . . . 
Ou rouro 8e e/ca/coupyrycrev o Stct/iSoXo? JJLOVOV, dXXa /cat 
erepov ou/c eXarrov rourou ou yap eV rat? 7roXeo-ti&gt;, wi/ 
10 irpoeio Tr)KLO av, rjfiiei, o~^&gt;drreo~(9at rou? 7Tto~/co7rou9, dXX* 
cts r^ dXXorptav dya&gt;v d^rjpet. eVotet oe rouro, 






epydcreo-^at rw /AO^^OJ r&gt;;9 oSotTropta? cX- 
TritfDV o 817 /cat eVt rou /xa/cayatou rourou 
15 yap r&gt;79 &gt;j/xere)oa9 7roXew9 t9 r^v Pcu/xryi 

tta/cpore)oou9 aurw rt^et9 rou? StauXou9 rou Spo/txou, /cat 
raJ /xT^/cet rr^9 oSou /cat rw TrXijOei ruv ^ttepajv ro 
aurou irpocr &oKaiv ou/c etSa&gt;9 ort 

/cat crvvaTro^rqp.ov rr^9 roo~auV&gt;79 
20 to"^u/3ore/309 /xaXXoi^ eytVero /cat r^9 /xer aurou 
oucrr;9 TrXetova Trapet^e r7;v dVoSet^ti /cat ra-9 
o-u^e/cporet /xetoVaJ9. at yap /card r7}v oSoi TroXet? cruv- 
Tpypv&lt;rat 7rdvTo6ev ^Xet^oi roi^ d&\.r)Trjv /cat /xerd TroXXwi/ 
e^eVe/xuov rajz^ e&lt;^o8tcov, eu^at9 /cat 7rpecr/3tat9 aurw o-uva- 
25 ywi to/xei&gt;at /cat aurat 8e ou r&gt;}v ru^ouo-av TrapdK\rjcrLV 
i/ov /xerd 7rpo#u/xta9 rooraur7y9 eVt OdvaTov rpe^ovra 
TOV /xdprupa, /xe^ 00-179 et/co9 77^ rw eVt y3ao-tXeta 
KaXou/xe&gt;oi&gt; rd ef ovpava&gt; /cat Std raiv epywv 
avTuv, Std r&gt;79 rou yevvaiov irpoOv^ia.^ e /cetVou /cat 
30 TTJTOS, ort ou Odvaros ^v e^&gt; 6V erpe^e^, dXX 

rt9 /cat /xerdVrao-t9 /cat 7rpo9 roz^ ovpavov dvd^Sacrt? /cat 
raura StSdo"/ca&gt;v /card TrdVai TroXtv aTrryet Std rcoi/ 
Std rwi/ Trpay/xdrajv aurc3i&gt;. /cat orrep evrt 
avvcfirj, ore rot IlauXot Sr7cravre9 /cat et9 rr}^ 



154 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

dVoo-rei Xai Tes eVo/uoi&gt; /aeV eVl 6a.va.rov ircpircw, 
Se rot? e/cet KaroiKovcrw lovSatois SiSdcrKaXoi&gt;, rovro 81} Kal 
Ctrl lyvariov yeyove perd Trepioucrias TIVOS. ovSe yap rot? 
rrjv Pca/Ji rjv OIKOVCTL jJiovoLs, ctXXd /cat rats eV rw /x-e cra) Kei/xe - 
TroXecrw dVacrai,? SiSacncaXos dV^ei ^avjaacrio?, rreiOajv 5 

rrjs Trapovcrryg ^GJ^S /cat fj,r)$V TjyeLcr0aL ra 
/cat rwi peXXovrw epav Kal TT/OO? roi^ ovpavov 
Kal vrpos [JLrjSev rcov ev rw rrapovn j3ia&gt; Sewaiv 
ai. ravra yap Kal ra rovrajv rr\eiova. Std 
epyo)v avrov? TratSevtot cuSeve, KaOdrrep ^Xto? ri? e^ 10 

avicr^v Kal rrpos rrjv bvcriv rpe^cov, /jiaXXov 8e 
Kal TOVTOU &lt;^&gt;atSporepo5. ovros /xe^ yap avatdev erpe^ev, 
ala-Brjrov aya)v (^w?, lyi/artos Se Kar(i)0ev dvreXa/jLTre, voyrov 
(frtoS StSacrKaXtas rat? r//v^at5 et tet?. KaKet^o? ju,ev et? rd 
TT;? Svo-ecu? dmoiv pepf) Kpvrrrerai Kal vvKra eu^eiw? eVayet, 15 
ovros 8e et? ret 7775 Sucrew? aTreXOaiv [J-eprj (fracSporepov 
dvereiXe, Kal TOV? Kara TT}V oSov aTravras evepye- 
rd jaeytcrra. e7ret8&gt;} Se rrjs TroXew? eTrefir), 
&lt;f&gt;i\o(j-o(f)eLV eVaiSev&lt;re. Std yap rouro Kal o @eos 
pyjcrev eKel rov fiiov avrov KaraXvcrai, ajcrre rr)v rovrov re- 20 
Xevri}^ StSacrKaXtov y.ve&lt;r6ai eucre/3eta9 rot? TT}^ Pw/ATp 
OLKOVCTLV dirao-iv. VjU-et? /xe^ yap rry rou eov ^aptrt ovSe- 
jatas e Seecr^e XOITTOV aTroSet^ew?, eppt^w/xeVot Kara ri}^ 

TTLCTTLV ol Se T^V PajfJLTjV OtKOV^TeS, ttTC TToXX 1 ^? TOTC a(TC- 

^eta? ovo"r)s eKet, uXeto^o? e^prj^ov j3or)0La^ Std rovro Kal 25 
IleVpos Kal IlauXos Kal JU.CT eKet^ou? OVTO? e/cet irdvres 
eOvOrjcrav . . . Iva 7775 a^acrracrectj? rou crravpoj^eVTOsXpicrrou 
Sid T&J^ epyw Trapdcr^covraL rrjv a7roSetftv .... e;rel TTOJS 
aV e^ot Xoyot ... /AT} povov Herpov Kal HavXov, dXXd Kal 

roi ovSe ecupaKora avro^ ovSe aTroXeXavKora avrov 30 

crwovcrias Tocravr^v i5?rep avrov rrpoOv^iav eVtSet^acr^at 
ws Kal avT&gt;)v St avro* eTTtSovz^at TT)V ^vvtjv ; 

fp ovi/ ravra epyw /xa^wcrtv ot TT}^ Pw/x^v otKoO^res dirav- 
res, crvvexajprfcrev o 0eos eVet reXetw^^at rov dyto^. Kal ori 



)ov 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 155 

77 ama, e avTov TOV TpoVov rrjs TeXevTrys TOVTO 
ov yap e^a&gt; Teiyoiv eV fiapdQpo), ovSe eV St/cao-- 
Tript oj, ovSe eV ywvta Ttz/t TT}V /caTaSt/caovcrav eSe^aro \jjrj&lt;j) 
ctXX eV /u-ecrw T&lt;W Oedrpu, Trjs TroXew? at cu /c 

, TOI&gt; TOV fjiaprvpiov rpoirov vnefjieive, 6rjpiO)v 
^e^eVrwv t^ VTTO rats a.7rdvTa)v oi//ecrt TO 
Kara TOV Bia(B6\ov, TOV? ^earas aTravra? 
TOJV aya^to~jU,aT6&gt;z/ TWV eavTov, ou/c dTro0VTJ&lt;TKCoi&gt; 
JJLOVOV ovTO) y.vva.ia)&lt;$, aXXa /cat jae$ 7^80^5 dTroOfTJcrKCov. 
10 ou yap cJ? 4 W1 ^? dTroppTJyvvcrOai, /xeXXwv, aXX aj? CTTI 
/caXov/xet o? /3eXTtco /cat TrvevjaaTt/cwTepa^, OVT&J? acr/xe- 
cwpa TO, Orjpia. TroOev TOUTO S^Xoi ; CCTTO TWI prjfMa- 
&v diro6vri&lt;TK.eiv /xeXXwv &lt;f)0eyaTo. a/coucra? yap 
OTt OVTO? at/rov TT^g Tt/xwptas o T/3O7TOS jaevei, Eyw 
15 BHpi coN CKGI NOON ONAI MHN, eXeye. TOtovTOt yap ot 
OTrep af frdcr^coa Lv vrrep TOJV epw/xeVcuv, /xe^ 17801^75 
/cat TOTC 8o/covo~t^ {Ji(f)opei(T0aL rrjs 7TL0vp.ia&lt;;, orav 

T) TO, ywofjieva. OTrep ovv /cat eVt TOVTOV &lt;rvve- 
ov yap TW Oavdrco JJLOVOV aXXa /cat T&gt;y irpoOv^ia 

20 ^TlXwcrat TOV? a7TOO~ToXoV9 O~7TvS* Kttt aKOVCOV OTt jU,ao~Tt- 

^^eVTe? e/cetj^ot /teTa ^apa? dve^c^povf, /3ov\r)6r) /cat avTos 
/XT) Tr^ TeXevTr} povov aXXa /cat T^ \o.pa, ju,t/ai7o~ao~^at TOU? 
8tSao~/caXov? Sta TOVTO TOON Gnpi ooN, eXeyei^, ONAI MHN. /cat 
TroXXa) TOVTUV TJfMepajTtpa Ta o-To/xaTa eVo/xt^et etVat T&gt;}S 

25 TOV rvpdvvov yXajTT/i?, /cat /xaXa et/coTcu? e/cetz^ /xev yap 
7rpo5 TT}^ ytcvvav e/caXet, Ta 8e TOVTWI^ o"TO/xaTa Trpos /Bacn- 
Xetai/ TrapeVejtxTret . 

ETretS?) Toivvv /caTeXvo-ev e/cet TT}^ ^(DTfV, /xaXXoi&gt; Se, 
eVetSr) Trpos TOV ovpavov dve/3r), TravrJi crTe^avtV^s XotTrov. 

30 Kat yap /cat TOVTO TT^S TOV @eov yeyovev ot/covo/xta?, TO 
TraXtv avTov 77-pog 7J/xas eVavayayetv, /cat Tats TroXeorc 
Stavet/xat TOV /xapTvpa. e/cetViy p,ev yap avTov crTa^ov TO 
at/xa iSe^aro, v/xets 8e TW Xeti//ctvw TeTt/x^o-^e* aVTiXavo-aTe 
eVto~/co7n7S vjixets, aTrT^Xavcrav e/cetvot TOV /xapTvptov. 



156 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



/cat VIKWVTOL /cat o-Ttavovptvov e/cetvot, 
v/xe(V o\iyov u/xaw auToi; -^povov 
o 0eos, /cat yaera TrXetoi o? v/xu 80^779 avrov 
/cat KaOdnep ol Savet^d/xevot ^p-^jaara /xerd 
aTToStSdao-ti aTrep d^ Xd/Swo-tv, ovra) /cat d eos TOI&gt; 5 
rt/xtov rovrov 6r)&lt;ravpov Trap V/AOJV oXtyo^ 

, /cat T&gt;7 TroXet Set^a? eKeivy, /xerd TrXeto^o? 
ctTroSeSoj/ce r^? XajaTrpor^ros. e^e7re)ai//aTe ya/3 eVt- 
CT/COTTOZ , /cat e Se^acr^e fJidpTvpa e^e7re)u,i//aTe jaer 
Kat Idt^acrBe f^era crTeffxivaiv /cat ou^ Vju,et? Se 
aXXa /cat Tracrat at e^ /xe crw TroXet?. TTWS yap avra? 
Sta/cetcr^at, dpwcra? ^Travayo^vov TO Xetyavov , Troa"r)v Kap- 
7)80^1^ ; TTOCTO^ ayaXXecr#at ; TroVat? 
/3aXXeti&gt; TW crre^&gt;a^tr^^ ; Ka.9a.Trep yap a 
yewatov rov? dt TaywvtcrTa? /caraTraXatVavra aTravra?, /cat 15 
/xerd Xa/xTTpas e^eXdovTa. 80^179 aTro TOV o-/cdju./xaro5, e 
ot Oearal ovS eVtyS^at r^? y^? d^&gt;td(7t, ^o 
ot/caSe /cat /xvptot? ySaXXoz/res ey/cw/xtots* 
8&gt;} /cat rov dytov Tore e/cetvot ctTro r??5 Poj/x^? at TroXet? 
e^5 StaSe^o/xe^at /cat eV cJxtcuv &lt;^&gt;epouo-at /xe ^pt r^5 20 
TroXecu? raurr^? TrapeVe/xTro^, ey/c6&gt;xttd^ovo"at rot crre^avtr^v, 
dvv^vova-ai rov dya)i&gt;o0eTr)v, /carayeXaJo-at TOV 8ta/3oXov, 
ort et? TO evavriov awra&gt; TrepterpctTrry TO cro&lt;^to-/xa, /cat oVep 
^o/xto~e /cara TOV /txctpTvpo? Trotett , TOVTO TJyrep auTov yeyot e. 
/cat TOTC /xev Ta? TroXet,? aTrdo~a? e /ceiW? w^cre /cat dvatp- 25 
uaxrev e^ e /cetVov 8e /cat /xe ^pt TI^? Trapouo~&gt;;9 
7rXovTtet TroXtv. /cat KaOdfrep Orjcravpos St^e/o}? 

^ ^/xepav, /cat ov/c eVtXetVcuv, 

Tou? /xerexoi/Ta? euTropojTepov? Trote? OUTW S&gt;) /cat d /xa/cd- 
ptog OUTOS lymrtos TOV? Trpds auToV ep^o/xeVov? evXoytcu^, 30 
Trappr;o-tas,yewatov ^po^ /xaTog, /cat TroXX^s dv8peta? Tr 
ot/caSe dTTOTre/xTret. /XT) TotVw crrj/xepo^ xioVoz/ dXXd /cat 



aurou SpeTTo /xevot /capTroy?. eo-Tt yap, ecrTt, Tov /xeTa 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 157 

Trapayivoptvov /zeyaXa Kapir^oracrOaL dyaOd ov8e 
yap TO, crw/a,ara IJ.QVOV dXXa /cat aural at OrJKaL TOJV ayuov 
7ri&gt;evfj.a.TLKrj&lt;; eurt TreTrX^paijueVat ^apiro?. . . Sto Trapa/caXcG 
Travras u//.a?, etre ei&gt; a#u/xta rts e&lt;rrt^ etre ei&gt; ^ocrot? 
5 K.r.X ...... evravQa Trapayti e cr&u, KOI Trdvra e/cetra ctTro- 

drjo-eraL /cat /xera TroXXrys eVai/T^et r^5 7)80^775, /cov^orepoi/ 
TO crvfetSo? eyayaTayitevo? aVo 7175 ^ewpta? yu-o^? . . . e\0o)v 
yap evravda /cat rov aytov tSaii TOVTOV a/ctir^ra eget ra 
/caXa .... wore dnacrL ^p^crt/Ao? d Orjcravpos, eVtTi^ 

10 TO /caTayoiyto^, Tot? ju.ei 7rrat/coo~tv tj^a ctTraXXaywcrt 
7retpao~/xa&gt;^, Tot? Se evrjfjiepovo iv Iva Pcflaia at/rot&lt;? 
TO, /caXa ..... aVep dnavra Xoyt^oyLtez/ot Tracrry? Te 



/cat ev&lt;/&gt;patfo/Aevot /cat /cepSatVoire?, /cat e/cet 
15 Tots aytot? TOUTOt? Kal d/ioSt aiTOt ye^eV^at 

/C.T.X. 

We have no means of ascertaining the date of this homily. It must however have 
been delivered during the period of S. Chrysostom s activity as a preacher at Antioch 
(A.D. 381 398). For the place and day of delivery, and for other matters connected 
with it, see I. p. 46 sq., 11. pp. 37854., 385, 416 sq., 430. 



The one quotation (Rom. 5 ovtuprp rdv OypLw) in this passage 
might have been derived from Eusebius / .". iii. 36. On the other 
hand there are various allusions and coincidences, which indicate an ac 
quaintance with the letters of the saint. Thus the simile of the lyre and 
its strings (p. 151, 1. 8) recals Ephes. 4, Fhilad. i, while that of pilot 
ing the ship of the Church (p. 151, 1. 31) reminds us of Polye. 2, and 
that of anointing the athlete (p. 153, 1. 23) appears in Ephes. 3. Again 
the mention of the delegacies which attended the saint (p. 153, 1. 22) 
is not explained by anything in Eusebius and betokens a knowledge of 
the epistles themselves, since the expressions of S. Chrysostom recal 
the very language of Ignatius (Rom. 9). Again the mention of S. Peter 
and S. Paul as the predecessors of Ignatius in the instruction of the 
Roman Church (p. 154, 1. 25) has its parallel in Rom. 4. Again the 
metaphor of the sunset and sunrise, in connexion with the saint s journey 
from west to east (p. 154, 1. 10), is expressed in language closely re 
sembling the martyr s own (Rom. 2 cis Sixriv aTro avaroX^s /x.tTaTre/xi/ a- 
KaXov TO Surai aTro Ko rr/xou Trpos eor, ?va ets avrov civaTctAo)). Again 



158 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the mention of his lover s passion (Ipws) for Christ (p. 155, 1. 15; comp. 
p. 150, 1. 14, TW Of tip eowav epcoTi) seems to be suggested by Rom. 7 

e/tos epws eo-raupwTat, as wrongly interpreted by Origen (see the note n. 
p. 222 sq.). Again the reference to the martyr s admonition to the 
Romans (p. 154, 1. 6) /rqSev y-yfiaOai. TO. y8X7rdju.va (comp. p. 150, 1. 15 
ra /XT; /3X7To/xeva TWV o pw/AeVcuv TrpoTi/xojcrav) is explained by Rotn. 3 ouSev 
&lt;/&gt;cuvoyu.evov KaAdV (see II. p. 204), though the quotation from 2 Cor. iv. 

1 8, which would make the coincidence with S. Chrysostom s language 
closer, is an interpolation in the text of Ignatius. Again the lan 
guage relating to the companionship of the apostles (p. 150, 1. 8) has 
a parallel in Ephes. n, though the application is different; and the 
desire of Ignatius to tread in the footsteps of the Apostles as mentioned 
by Chrysostom (p. 155, 1. 19) is illustrated by his own language in 
Ephes. 12, Philad. 5. With all these coincidences, I am constrained to 
believe with Pearson (V. /. p. 72 sq., 240 sq.) and others (e.g. Lipsius 
Syr. Text. p. 21 sq.) that this homily of S. Chrysostom shows an ac 
quaintance with the Ignatian letters themselves. The opposite view 
however is maintained by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 33 sq.). 

(ii) Horn, de Anathemate 3, Op. i. p. 693. 

BovXecr0e ^a.6elv old TI? ec^ey^aro, dyidg rts irpo 
StctSo^s ru&gt;v ct7roo~roXwv ye^d/Ae^os, 09 /cat 
r)uaro, Set/a^vs TOVTOV TOV Xoyov TO (fropriKov, 
roiovT(t&gt; e^prjo~aTO uTroSety^art ; ON rponoN d rrepiGeic IAYTCO 

iAA BAClAlKHN, lAlWTHC TYTX^ N ^"i &lt;*YTOC T6 KAI 01 AYTtp 

J */ ^ J e 

OiC TYpANNOI ANAIpOYNTAI" OYTOiC, &lt;P^&gt; 01 TH 
AeCHOTIKH ATTO(})ACei XpHCAMGNOI, KA % I ANA66MA THC 6KKAH- 
CIAC nOIHCANTeC AN9pOOnON, eiC TTANTeAH OAeOpON A 
6AYTOYC, THN A2lAN TOY Y OY A(J) Apn AZON T6C . 



The date of this homily seems to be A. D. 386 (see Montfaucon, p. 689). S. 
Chrysostom is supposed by Baronius to be referring to Smyrn. 9 d yap 6 paaiXevtrw 
tireyeipo/j.evos K.T.\. (found only in the Long Recension ; see II. p. 809), and Montfaucon 
acquiesces. In this case Chrysostom would afford the earliest testimony to the Long 
Recension. But Chrysostom s quotation differs widely in its language from this 
Ignatian passage, and his description of the author will suit any bishop of any church 
during the three centuries which elapsed from the Apostolic age to his own. 

(iii) Horn, xi in Epist. ad Ephesios 4, Op. xi. p. 86. 

Avi}/) Se Tt? aytos elTre rt SOKOVI&gt; etvai . 
7r\rjv aXV o/xojs tfyOey^aTO* ri Se TOVTO eo~Tiv 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 159 



AMA TAYTHN AYNACOAI elAAei^eiN THN 

/C.T.X. 

No name is here mentioned, and the passage does not occur in the genuine Igna 
tius. Doubtless S. Chrysostom was referring to some one else. A later John of 
Antioch however, belonging apparently to the twelfth century, ascribes this saying to 
Ignatius (Cotel. Man. Ecd. Grace, i. p. 176 r$ 8t t KK \r,&lt;riav 0eoO ffKavSaXlaavri 
ovSt fiaprvpiov o.l/j.0. /card, rbv 0eo(f&gt;6pov lyvdrtov dpicti fls avyx^PW^ comp. ib. p. 747). 
This is probably a pure assumption. There is something like the sentiment however 
in Hero ^. 

(iv) Horn, de Legislatore 4, Op. vi. p. 410. 
Aia TOVTO yewatos rt&lt;? ra)i&gt; dp^aiwv, lyi^arto? Se r\v 
ovo/xa avro) ouro?, iepajcrvi ^ teal jjiaprvpiO) Sta7rpei//a5, 
Xwv nvl tepee eXeye MnAeN ANey TNOOMHC COY 

, MHAe CY AN6Y fNCOMHC Oeof Tl HpATTe (PolyC. 4). 

This treatise, though its genuineness is defended by Pearson (V. T. pp. 73, 244 sq.), 
seems to be manifestly spurious. It is rejected by Ussher, as well as by Montfaucon 
and others. See also the valuable criticism of Churton in his edition of Pearson ( V. /. 
p. 247 sq., note). It may belong to the fifth, sixth, or seventh century. 

(v) Horn, de Pseudoprophetis, Op. vin. ii. p. 79. 

Hov EuoSios, TJ evcoSta 7179 eV/cX^cri as, /cat TCOV ay/W 
aTrocrroX&w StaSo^o? KOL JUI/ATJT^? ; TTOV lymrto?, TO rov 
eov 



This treatise also is manifestly spurious; see Montfaucon, p. 72. In the sentence 
immediately following the writer refers to Dionysius the Areopagite. 

24. 

CYRILLONAS [A.D. 396]. 

Metrical Hymns of this Syrian writer are preserved in a MS (Add. 14591) in the 
British Museum, belonging apparently to the end of the 6th century (Wright s Cata 
logue p. 669). One of these relates to the invasion of the Huns (A.D. 396) and was 
written at the time. It is translated whole (with his other hymns) into German by 
Bickell Ausgewahlte Gedichte der Syrischen Kirchenvdtcr etc. (Kempten, 1872) and in 
part also into Latin by the same in his Conspectus Rei Syrorum Literariae (1871) 
p. 34 sq. On this author see Bickell Ausgewdhlle Gedichte etc. p. 9 sq. 

In the passage Meridies qui plenus est omnium magnalium 
tuorum, conceptionis, nativitatis, crucifixionis tuae, e quo aroma ves- 
tigiorum tuorum adhuc spiral (p. 35), this juxtaposition of the three 
incidents seems to have been suggested by Ephes. 19. 



160 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

2$. 
RUFFINUS [A.D. 402 406]. 

Historia Eccksiastica iii. 36. 

Quibus temporibus apud Asiam supererat adhuc et florebat ex apo- 
stolorum discipulis Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum ecclesiae episcopus, et 
Papias similiter apud Hierapolim sacerdotium gerens. Sed et in nostra 
quoque tempora famae celebritate vulgatus Ignatius apud Antiochiam 
post Petrum secunda successione episcopatum sortitus est. Quern 
sermo tradidit de Syriae partibus ad urbem Romatn transmissum et pro 
martyrio Christi ad bestias datum: quique cum per Asiam sub custodia 
navigaret, singulas quasque digrediens civitates, ecclesiae populos evan- 
gelicis cohortationibus edocebat in fide persistere et observare se ab 
haereticorum contagiis, qui turn primum copiosius coeperant pullulare; 
et ut diligentius et tenacius apostolorum traditionibus inhaererent. 
Quas traditiones cautelae gratia, et ne quid apud posteros remaneret 
incerti, etiam scriptas se asserit reliquisse. Denique cum Smyrnam 
venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios 
eorumque pastorem, in qua meminit et Onesimi, et aliam Magnesiae 
civitati quae supra Maeandrum jacet, in qua et episcopi Dammei 
mentionem facit. Sed et ecclesiae quae est Trallis scribit, cujus princi- 
pem tune esse Polybium designavit. In ea vero quam ad Romanam 
ecclesiam scribit, deprecatur eos, ne se, tanquam suppliciis suis par- 
centes, velint spe privare martyrii, et his post aliquanta utitur verbis : A 
Syria, inquit, Romam usque cum bestiis terra marique depugno, die ac 
node connexus et colligatus decent leopardis, militibus dico ad custodiam 
datis, qui ex beneficiis nostris saeviores fiunt. Sed ego nequitiis eoruni 
magi s erudior; nee tamen in hoc justificatus sum. salutares bestias quae 
praeparantur mihi. Quando venient? quando emittenturl quando eis 
frui licebit carnibus meis ? quas et ego opto acriores parari et invitabo ad 
devorationem mei et deprecabor ne forte, ut in nonnullis fecerunt, timeant 
contingere corpus meum. Qitin imo et si contabuntur, ego vim faciam, ego 
me ingeram. Date, quaeso, veniam, ego novi quid expcdiat mihi. Nunc 
incipio esse discipulus Christi. Facessat invidia vel Immani affectus vel 
nequitiae spiritalis, ut Jesum Christum merear adipisci. Ignes, cruces, 
bestiae, dispersiones ossium, discerptionesque membrorum, ac totius corporis 
poenae, et omnia in me unum supplicia diaboli arte quaesita cumulentur, 
dummodo Jesum Christum merear adipisci. Haec et multa alia his 
similia ad diversas ecclesias scribit. Sed et ad Polycarpum, velut 
apostolicum virum, datis literis, Antiochennm ei ecclesiam praecipue 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 161 

commendat. Ad Smyrnaeos sane scribens, utitur verbis quibusdam, 
unde assumptis nescimus, quibus haec de salvatore proloquitur: Ego 
autem post resurrectionem quoque in carne eum scio fuissc et credo. Nam 
cum venisset ad Petrum ceterosque, ait eis; Accedite et videte quia non sum 
daemonium incorporeum. Qui et contingentes eum crediderunt. Scit 
autem et Irenaeus martyrium ejus et mentionem facit scriptorum ejus 
per haec verba : Sicut dixit, inquam, quidam ex nostris, pro martyrio 
Chnsti damnatus ad bestias, Frumentum, inquit, ego sum Dei: bestiarum 
dentibus molor et subigor, ut panis mundus efficiar Christo. Sed et Poly- 
carpus horum memoriam facit in epistula quam ad Philippenses scribit 
per haec verba ; Deprecor, inquit, omnes vos obedientiae operam dare et 
meditari patientiam, quam vidistis in Ignatio et Rufo et Zosimo, beatis 
viris, praecipue autem in Paulo et ceteris apostolis, qui fuerunt apud vos, 
scientes quod hi omnes non in vacuum, sed per fidem et justitiam cucur- 
rerunt, usquequo pemenirent ad locum sibi a Domino praeparatum: quo- 
niam quidem passiomim ejus participes extiterunt, nee dilexerunt praesens 
saeculum, sed eum solum qui pro ipsis et pro nobis mortuus est et resurrexit. 
Et post pauca subjungit; Scripsistis mihi et vos et Ignatius, ut si quis 
vadit ad paries Syriae deferat literas ad vos. Quod faciam, cum tempus 
invenero. Mittam vobis et Ignatii epistulas et alias, si quae sunt, quae ad 
nos transmissae sunt, ex quibus utilitatem maximam capiatis. Continent 
enim de fide et patientia instructionem perfectam secundum Domini prae- 
ceptum. Hactenus de Ignatio. Post hunc rexit ecclesiam civitatis 
Antiochenae Heros. 

This extract has no independent value being a direct translation from Eusebius 
(see above, p. 138) ; but it is given here for its adventitious interest, as a main source 
of the references to Ignatius in later Latin writers. 

26. 

THEODORET [A.D. 446]. 

(i) Epist. 68, Op. iv. p. n6o(ed. Schulze). 
Tavra Se r^lv TrapeSoarav ov /xoVoz/ ot aVoo-roXot /cat 
Trpo&lt;j)rJT(u, dXXa /cat ot ra TOVTMV ^ja^vev/core? criryypa/i- 
/Ltara, lyvarto?, Evo-ra^tos, A^avacrtos, BacrtXeto?, Tprjyo- 
/Dio5, Icocu ^s, Kat ot aXXot rrjs ot/covyaevry? ^cucrr^pe? /cat 
TT/DO TOVTGOV ot tv Nt/catot (7vve\Tr]\vd6r^ aytoi 

(ii) Epist. 145, Op. iv. p. 1026. 
Eucrra#tos /cat MeXerto? /cat &lt;J&gt;Xaj8tavo 
IG. I. 1 1 



1 62 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

ot tfxiHTTrjpes, /cat E^paija 77 rov Trvev/xaro? \vpa, 6 TO 
2vpa)V eOvos apScov o cr^/iepat rot? TT?S 
/cat IwdW^s /cat Arrt/co s, ot rrjs aXr^etas 

/cat ot TOVTWV TrpecrfivTtpOL, lyvartos /cat IIoXu- 
/cat Et/3^vato5 /cat lovcrrt^os Kat iTTTroXvros, w^ ot 
TrXetov? ov/c dp^iepeaiv TrpoXafMTTova-i povov, aXXa /cat TOH&gt; 
8ta/cocr/xovo-t \opov. 



(iii) ^w/. 151, 6&gt;/. iv. p. 1312. 

ri}v 8t8ao~/caXtW ot ^etot Trpo^Tai Trpocr- 
TOLVTTJV 6 Tuv dyitov aTTocrroXa;! xopos ravrrjv 
ot /cara TT)V ewav /cat TT)V ecnrepav ^La7rpe^javT&lt;; aytof 
ly^artos e/cetvos d TroXv^pvXX^ro?, o Sta r^ rou /xeyaXou 
ITerpov Se^tas TT}V a.p\ip(D&lt;Tvvr)v Se^a/Aevo?, /cat vTre/3 T^? 
et? X/Jtcrrot djitoXoytas Brjpojv yev6fjLevo&lt;5 dypicav ftopd. 

(iv) Dialogus i, Immutabilis, Op. iv. p. 49. 

Se o~ot rov Traveu^/xov r^s e/c/cX^o~ta9 StSacr- 
/cat ro e/cetVov Trept ri^g ^eta? evav6pa)7nja-ea)&lt;; &lt;f&gt;po- 
iva yvws rtva Trept r^s \rj(f)Beicnrj&lt;; eSo^acre ^&gt;uo"6W5. 
Se Travrw? lyvartov eitelvov, os Sta r^s rov /xeyaXov 
ITeVpou Se^ta? r^s dp^epaicrvinrj^ rr]v ydpiv eSe^aro /cat 

rov arviov o~re- 



Tov aytou lyvartou e7rto-/co7rov Avrtoxetas /cat 
e/c r^s upos Pw/xatovs [t S/iv/avatous] eVto~roX^?. 



TTerrAHpo(})opHMeNOYc AAHOWC eic TON KY PION HMCON, ONTA 
GK reNoyc A&lt;\YeiA KATA c&lt;\pKA, YION Oeoy KATA GeoTHTA KAI 
AYNAMIN, rereNNHMeNON AAHGooc eK nApeeNoy, BeBAnriCMeNON 
yno MajANNoy, FNA nAHpco0H HACA AIKAIOCYNH yn Ayroy/ 
eni TToNTioy TTiAAToy KA I HpooAoy reipApxcy KAGH- 
ynep HMOJN CApKi (Smyrn. i). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 163 

Tov avrov, K rrjs avrrjs eTncrroX^?. 

TI r^p o&gt;(}&gt;eAe?, eTnep we enAiNe? TIC, TON Ae KypioN MOY 

BAACCjnmeT, MH OMOAOfWN AYTON C Ap K0(t&gt;0 DON ; 6 Ae TOYTOM^ 

Ae rooN TeAeiooc AYTON ATTHPNHTA( ooc N6Kpoc{)opON (Smyrn. 5). 

Tov avrov, e/c 7775 avT^s eVtorroXTy?. 

Ei r&lt;^p TOJ AoKe?N TAYTA enpA)(0H YTTO TOY Kypi oY HMOON, 

KAfO) TO) AOK6?N A6A6MAI. TI Ae KAI 6MAYTON 6KAOTON AeACOKA 

TO) 9ANATCO, npoc nyp, npdc MAX^ipAN, npoc 0HpiA; AAA d 
errrc MAXAI PAC, errVc OeoY MONON eN TcL ONOMATI M 

XplCTOY, 6IC TO CYMTTA0e?N AYTCx). nANTA YTTOMeNC 
6NAYNAMOYNTOC TOY TCAeiOY ANGpCJOnOY, ON TINC 

ApNOYNTAi (Smyrn. 4). 

Tou avrov, e/c rrjs 77/305 E&lt;^eo-tov5 7rto"roA.^5. 

fAp QeOC HMOON |HCOYC XplCTOC KYO(})OpH6H 

MAPI AC KAT OIKONOMIAN Oeoy, GK cnepMATOc MEN AAYGIA GK 

TTN6YMATOC A6 AflOY, OC ereNNHGH KAI eBAHTICGH, FNA TO 

ONHTON HMOON KA6Apic9 H (Ephes. 18). 
Tov avrov, l/c r^s avr^s eTrtoToXi^?. 

ET TI 01 KAT ANApA KOINH HANT6C 6N TH X^P ITI ^ ONOMA- 

TOC cYNepxec6e eN MIA nicTei KAI eNi lucoy XpicTco, KATA 

CApKA K fNOYC AAYGlA, TO) Y ^p TOY AN6pOOTTOY KAI Y tp TO Y 

OeoY (Ephes. 20). 

Tov avrov, e/c rrjs avTTy? e77to~roX^?- 

ElC lATpOC 6CTI CApKIKOC KAI nNCYMATIKOC, feNNHTOC kl 

ATCNNHTOY, eN ANGpconai Qedc, eN OANATCO ZCOH AAH0INH, KA I 

K MAplAC KAI K OeOY, TTpWTON nAGHTOC KAI TOT AnA0HC, 

MHCOYC XpicToc 6 KVpioc HMWN (Ephes. 7). 

Tov avrov, e/c rr\^ Trpo? TpaXXta^ovs eTTtcrroXi^?. 

KoocjiooeHTe OYN, OTAN X 60 ? 10 I HC Y XpiCTOY YM?N (v. 1. 
HMIN) AAAH TIC, TOY ex rt NOYc AAYCI A, TOY e K MAP/AC, o c 
AAH600C ereNNH6H, ecfiArfe Te KA) enieN, AAH6a&gt;c eAicox6H eni 

II 2 



1 64 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

TTONTIOY TTlAATOY, CTAYpa&gt;0H KAI ATTeeANe, BAeTTONTWN 

enireiooN KAI enoypANicoN KAI KATAXOONIOJN (Trail 9). 
(v) Dialogus 2, Inconfusus, Op. iv. p. 127. 
Tou ayiov lyvariov eTTtcr/coTrov Airtoxeta? /cat p.dp- 
TU/DOS, K rrjs TT/DOS S/xupvatov? eTrtcrroX^?. 

EfOa TAP KAI M8TA THN ANACTACIN 6N CApKI AYTON OlAA 
KAI TTICTeY&lt;*&gt; ONTA KAI OT TTpOC TOYC nepi HeTpON HA06N, 
6({&gt;H AYTO?C, AA3T6, yHAA0HCAT M6, KAI TACTG OTI OYK 6IMI 

AAIMONION ACOOMATON- KAI eY6YC AYTOY H ^ANTO KAI e 
CAN (Smyrn. 3). 

Tou avrou, CK 717? avr^s e 

MeTA Ae THN ANACTACIN KAI CYN6(}&gt;Are KAI 
TO?C, d)C CApKIKWC KAI TIN e YM ATI KCOC HNOJM6NOC TCO HATpl 

(vi) Dialogus 3, Impatibilis, Op. iv. p. 231. 

Tou aytou ly^artov eTucr/coTrov Ai^rto^etas /cat 

TU/3O?, K TlJ? 7T/3OS S/XV/DVatOUS 7TtCTToXl7S. 

EYX^P CTI AC KAI npoc(})opAC OYK AnoAexoNTAi, AIA TO MH 

OMOAOre?N THN 6YX A P ICTIAN CApKA elNAI TOY CCOTHpOC HMO)N 
|HCOY XplCTOY THN YHep TOON AMApTKJON HMO)N nAGOYCAN, HN 

TH xpncTOTHTi 6 nATHp HfeipeN (Smyrn. 6). 
The year given (A. D. 446) is the date of the Dialogues. 

27. 

JOHN OF ANTIOCH [A.D. 435]. 

Epistula ad Proclum, Labb. Cone. iv. p. 531 (ed. Coleti). 

Etenim apud magnum martyrem Ignatium, qui secundus post Petrum 
apostolorum primum Antiochenae sedis ordinavit ecclesiam, et apud bea- 

tissimum Eustathium, etc etapud alios decem millia, ut non singulos 

percurramus, consona decerptis his capitulis invenimus. 

28. 

SOCRATES [c. A.D. 440]. 
Historia Ecclesiastica vi. 8. 

Se /cat odev TTJV o.p^rjv eXaySev TJ Kara TOV&lt;S 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 165 



dvTL&lt;j)Ct)i&gt;ov&lt;s VIJLVOVS o&gt; TTf KK\r)CTLa 

ta? TTJS Svpta? rpiros diro TOV aVo&lt;TToXou 
, 09 /cat rot? ciTrocrToXois awrots crwSter/3ti//ef, 
tSei&gt; ayyeXw^ Sta rwt a,VTL&lt;$&gt;a)Vtov vp.vo}v TTJV 
dyiav TptaSa V^VOVVTOIV, KOL TOV rpoTrov TOV opa/xaros 
rr; ei Ai^rto^eta eKKX-rjo-ia TrapeocoKev oOcv /cat eV Tracrcu? 
rat? e/c/cX^crtat? avrr; 77 Tra/mSocris 



29. 

TlMOTHEUS OF ALEXANDRIA [A.D. 457]. 

(i) ^4^. Diphysitas. 
.K .icaooo 



cvc 



rf^CV 1 S*xcn cm^uK oal^ i 

.i 

caL..i . 



.i ocn K .ifi s. K ocn 



J.1-LT3 &lt;-=&gt; .1 . 

.i ocp ^_r&lt; . r^Jni ^\r&lt;lra K coAr&lt; .v \ u 



1 66 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 




Of the blessed Ignatius, bishop and martyr, from the Epistle to 
the Smyrneans. 

. . . until they repent to that passion which is our resurrection. Let no 
man err. Even heavenly things and the glory of angels and principa 
lities, visible and invisible, unless they believe in the blood of Christ that 
it is of God, there is judgment even for them. He who can receive it, let 
him receive it. Let not place puff up any one ; for all this is faith and 
charity, than which nothing is more excellent (Smyrn. 5, 6). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Romans. 

There is nothing which is seen that is becoming. For our God Jesus 

Christ, being in the Father, is the more seen. The work is not of persua 

sion, but the Christian is of greatness when he is hated by the world. 

I write to all the churches, and charge all men that by my own will I die 

for God, if it be that ye hinder [me] not (Rom. 3, 4). 

And after a few [words]. 

// is better for me to die for the sake of Jesus Christ than to reign over 
the ends of the earth. I seek Him who died for us; I desire Him who rose on 
our account. The birth is appointed for me. Leave me alone, my brethren. 
Do not hinder me from life : do not desire that I should die. Do not give 
the world to him who desireth to be God s, neither entice me by any thing 
material. Leave me to receive the pure light. When I go thither, I shall be 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 167 

a man. Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God. If 
any one possess himself in himself, let him understand what I desire, 
and suffer with me, knowing those things which encompass me (Rom. 6). 

(ii) Testimonia Patrum. 




K ocorf 

Of the blessed Ignatius, bishop and martyr, from the Epistle to 

the Ephesians. 

Where is the wise ? Where is the disputer ? Where is the boasting of 
those who are called knowing ? For our God Jesus Christ was conceived 
of Mary in the economy of God, of the seed of David, and of the Holy 
Ghost : who was born and baptized, that He might purify the passible waters. 
And there deceived the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary, and her 
child-birth, and in like manner also the death of the Lord ; three mysteries 
of the shout, which were done in the silence of God (Ephes. 18, 19). 



1 68 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Magnesians. 

There is one God, ivho manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His 
Son, who is His eternal Word. He did not proceed from silence : who in 
every thing pleased Him who sent Him (Magn. 8). 

Of the same. 

Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God (Rom. 6). 

Timotheus, surnamed ./Elurus, properly the Cat, but possibly here the Weasel 
(Wright s Catalogue p. 1051), warmly espoused the Monophysite cause. The date 
given (A.D. 457) is the year of his accession to the patriarchate of Alexandria. He 
died A.D. 477, having been an exile during a considerable part of these twenty years. 
For more respecting him see Tillemont Mem. Eccl. xv. p. 782 etc., Le Quien Oriens 
Christ. II. p. 412 sq., Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. VII. i. p. 277. The fact of his 
writing against the fathers of Chalcedon is mentioned by Evagrius H. E. ii. 10. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12156, among other tracts relating to the Council of Chalcedon, 
contains these works : 

(i) Against the Diphysites by Timotheus. On fol. i a is the set of quotations 
from the Romans, as given above. 

(ii) Many Testimonies of the holy Fathers etc., apparently collected by the 
same Timotheus. On fol. 69 a, b, is the other set of quotations (Efhesians, Magnesians). 

A note in the MS states that it was presented to a certain monastery, A.D. 562 (see 
Cureton C. I. p. 353, Wright s Catalogue pp. 640, 648). The Syriac version therefore 
must have been nearly coeval with the writings themselves. The extracts are pub 
lished and translated by Cureton, C. I. pp. 210, 243. Dr Wright has kindly collated 
Cureton s texts with the Syriac MSS and revised his translations in the case of these 
and of the other Syriac extracts given in this chapter. 

30. 

GELASIUS OF ROME [tA.D. 496]. 
Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (Bib 1. Pair. v. iii. p. 671, De la Bigne). 

Ignatii episcopi et martyris Antiocheni, ex epistola ad Ephesios; 
Unus Medicus est, carnalis et spiritualis, factus et non factus, in homing 
Deus, in morte vita aeterna, ex Maria et ex Deo,primum passibilis et tune 
impassibilis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus (Ephes. 7). Et post pauca, 
Singuli, inquit, viri communiter omnes ex gratia ex nomine convenite in 
unam fidem et in uno Jesu Christo, secundum carnem ex genere David, filio 
hominis et filio Dei (Ephes. 20). 

The authorship of this work has been questioned by Baronius, Bellarmin, and 
others, chiefly on doctrinal grounds (see p. 667, De la Bigne). The arguments of 
Baronius are discussed in Smith s Diet, of Biogr. I. p. 620, s. v. Gelasius. For our 
purpose the question is not very important, since those who refuse to accept Gelasius 
the Pope as the author assign it to Gelasius of Caesarea or Gelasius of Cyzicus, who 
were his contemporaries. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 169 



DlONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE [c. A.D. 500]. 

De Divinis Nominibus iv. 12 (i. p. 565, ed. Corder.). 

Katrot eSo^e rtcrt rcov KaO* T^/xa? tepoXoywi /cat $eto- 
Tpov elvat TO rov epa)TO&lt;s oVo/xa rov rrjs ayahs ypdx^et 
Se /cat o #etos lyi/arto?, C CMOC epooc ecTAypcotAi (^?&lt;?w. 7). 

32. 

PHILOXENUS OF HIERAPOLIS [A.D. 485 518]. 
Epist. ad Patridum (Cureton Corp. Ign. pp. 220, 251). 

And Polycarp the disciple of John was burnt with fire, and Ignatius 
was devoured of beasts. 

This letter of Philoxenus (or Xenaias), Monophysite bishop of the Syrian 
Hierapolis (Mabug), is contained in the British Museum MSS, Add. 14649, Add. 14580, 
and Add. 12167; see Wright s Catalogue pp. 533, 768, 771. On this writer see 
Assem. BibL Orient. II. p. 10 sq. The dates given above are the limits of his 
episcopate. 

33- 

SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH [c. A.D. 513 518], 

(i) Cramer s Catena in Epist. Cathol. p. 67 (on i Pet. iii. 19, 20). 

2EYHPOY ...... ly^arto? Se d 6eo&lt;j)6po&lt;s /cat /xa/arv? ovrw 

&lt;f)r)&lt;ri na&gt;c HMeic AyNHcoMeeA ZHCAI xP c A VTOY, of KAI 
MAGHTA I ONTGC, TCO nNeyMATi we AIAACKAAON 

npOCeAOKOON KAI AlA TOYTO ON AlKAl cOC AN6M6NON, 

ri reipeN AYTOYC CK NGKpoiiN (Magn. 9). 



This great Monophysite leader was patriarch of Antioch from A.D. 513 to A.I). 
518, in which year he was deposed. The date of his death was somewhere about 
A.D. 540, a year or two before or after (see Assem. BibL Orient, n. p. 54). As the 
teaching of Ignatius seemed to favour Monophysite doctrine, he is frequently quoted 
by Severus. 

The title of the work to which this extract belonged is not given ; but quotations 
from commentaries of Severus on the Scriptures are not rare in the Greek Catenae. 
It is the only quotation of Severus from Ignatius extant in the Greek. The others 
are preserved in Syriac versions of his works. 



I 70 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

(ii) Adv. Joannem Grammaticum. 
n K .icruaoo 



:i en T n rc -i.oa.TJSn K acnnc .i .j C\ nm i 

r&lt;j&gt;xu_= ^* 



. -cn\K i crxrui K oonK K 

l^ ^CU.l 
.l OaA . 



ocrA . rdXVA&gt;^73 r^l ocrA . r^LXrj\ T&lt;*A.i OcrA . 
Ocal .r^lT T \^O3 reA OaA . rduvw^3 

^ ocrA . rrli. cx_xjj .^AxAA^JSO .1 OcaA . rdx.C\ T 

: : .intfn ^^^Oi^sn 
?3 ca!Li .1^ cnL.1 



.rC crAK .T 00^3.1=3 ^_ 
^ 
craA_*.l 



V, *^^ 



.T^ uiT *?3 

.K oco 



.T*-. 



PC* HIT m ^.cxria . rCLcaXr^ 
oocn m Mvsn caJLk.i K^cmA^ ^99.1 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 171 

:u=J orA ocn Kll^i even -cnocVur* K crArc .vu.1 
.i even .cri\_.i K ua ocn . rdjjLx_i_n 



oai.ix.1 OcrA ifiot. *n.V2 A x-).! ocn . jaAi KLocVxr. 
K .icn j* i ^ 



.i K . 1 vr&lt; 



K Av_*crxAr&lt; CQ^OXJL-U K ^-S^^.l oAo 1 " -^ J 
coA ^UK* K &gt; ^\at\ &lt; k.*?3 K .icn .v^.t ocn 
K ocn 



.coL.i .1^ cnL.1 
CV n On i t r .1 
.l : -A ^_C\Ut^ ^vu^vjm . r^ t, i T *73 



ac 



i^ cal*.i 
CUCT3 



rdA-S 
caA 



cnA 



.T ocn . 



oco 



o .K orArC 



I 72 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 




Of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the Epistle to 
the Romans. 

Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God. But it is 
found in other copies, which are more ancient than these, thus : Permit 
ye me to be a disciple of the suffering of my God (Rom. 6). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to Polycarp. 

Be observant of the times. Expect Him who is above the times, Him 
who is without times, Him invisible, Him who for our sakes became visible, 
Him impalpable, Him without suffering, Him who for our sakes became 
subject to suffering, Him who for our sakes endured in every manner 
(Polyc. 3). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

When ye were inflamed in the blood of God, ye perfectly accomplished 
a deed of like kind (Ephes. i). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1/3 

Of the same, from the Epistle to those who are in Magnesia. 

Take care to do ewry thing, the bishop sitting in the place of God, and the 
presbyters in the place of the session of the Apostles, who are entrusted with 
the ministry of Jesus Christ ; who before the worlds was with the Father, 
and in the end was manifested (Afagn. 6). 

Of the same, from the same Epistle. 

For the divine prophets lived in Jesus Christ : on this account, they 
were also persecuted, who by His grace were inspired with the Spirit, so 
that they who were not persuaded might be persuaded, that there is one 
God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His 
Word, who proceeded from silence, who in every thing pleased Him who 
sent Him (Magn. 8). 

That He proceeded from silence is, that He was ineffably begotten of 
the Father, and so as that no word, be it what it may, can comprehend, or 
mind. Therefore it is just that He should be honoured in silence, and 
not that His divine and unprecedented birth should be enquired into : 
who, having this exaltation, for our sakes became man, not convertibly, 
but truly, and in every thing pleased the Father when He fulfilled the 
obedience for us. 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Trallians. 

For when ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye seem to me 
not to be living as men, but as Jesus Christ : who for our sakes died, that 
believing in His death ye may flee from this that ye are to die 
(Trail. 2). 

Of the same, from the same Epistle. 

But if, like men who are without God, that is, do not believe, they say 
that in supposition He suffered, when they themselves are in supposition, 
I, why am I bound 1 Why then do I also pray that I may contend with 
beasts ? In vain then do I die. I belie therefore the Lord. Flee therefore 
from evil branches which engender fruits that bear death, which if a man 
taste he dies immediately (Trail. 10, 1 1). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Smyrneans. 

I praise Jesus Christ God, who has thus made you wise. For I knew 
that ye were perfect in faith immovable, as if ye were nailed to the cross of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and ye are confirmed in love 
in the blood of Christ ; and it is confirmed to you that our Lord in truth 
is of the race of David in the flesh, but the Son of God by the will and the 



174 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

power of God, who was born in truth of the Virgin, who was baptized of John, 
in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him. Truly before 
Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch He was nailed for us in the flesh, of 
which fruit we are, from His suffering divinely blest, in order that He may 
raise a sign to eternity by His resurrection for His saints and His beliei crs, 
whether among the Jews or among the Gentiles, in one body of His church. 
For all these things He suffered for our sakes, in order that we might be 
saved; and truly He suffered, truly also He raised himself (Smyrn. i, 2). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12157, containing the third book of this work, which consists of 
42 chapters, in a Syriac version. The work is there entitled The writing of the holy 
Mar Severus, patriarch of Antioch, against the wicked Grammaticus. The MS 
itself is described by Cureton (C. I. p. 355) and by Wright ^Catalogue p. 550 sq.). 
Wright ascribes it to the seventh or eighth century, and this agrees substantially with 
Cureton s opinion. The extracts are printed and translated by Cureton, pp. 212, 245. 
The quotations from Ignatius belong to the 4ist chapter of the book, which con 
tains a collection of testimonies from the fathers. They are on fol. 100 a, b. The 
Greek title of the work is /card rod ludvvov TOV Tpa/j.fMriKou TOV Kcu&lt;ra/^wy 
(Fabric. 1. c. p. 617). It was a reply to a book written by this John in defence of 
the Council of Chalcedon and directed against Timotheus (Anastas. Hodeg. 6, p. 102 
sq., ed. Migne). 

(iii) Abbrev. adv. Joann. Grammaticum. 



.i relijL=*J.V=a r^ocnr^.i -A 
.[l. K ^vu iuK ] K AvVwK i^=&gt; coL.l 



rC cuAK .l CQJ.I=&gt; 



Of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the Epistle to 

the Romans. 
Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering \of~\ my God (Rom. 6). 

Of the same, after some other [words], from the Epistle to the 

Ephesians. 

When ye were inflamed in the blood of God, ye perfectly accomplished a 
deed of like kind (Ephes. i). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. I 75 

Brit. Mus. Add. 14629. This MS, which is described by Wright (Catalogue p. 
754), commences with the concluding portion (iii. 39 42) of an abridgement of the 
last-mentioned work, the treatise against Joannes Grammaticus. It is ascribed by 
Cureton (C. /. p. 357) to the 7th or 8th century, and by Wright (1. c.) to the 
8th or Qth. In the part corresponding to the above passage from the larger 
work is the same quotation, Rom. 6. The variation my God for of my God (the 
omission of fl) must be ascribed to the accident or caprice of transcription. The 
Monophysite purpose of Severus in quoting Ignatius is entirely defeated by the change. 
It will have appeared from what has been said that this extract has no value as 
independent testimony, being derived from the last. 

(iv) Homiliae CatJiedrales. 
(a) Horn. 37. 

T-^ jaoa\^aAor&lt; A\ .1^.0 
.-vo K .icnflo.i 

. K .lCO-QD CV^V-wcVrC ^ __ rtoo\.-i -i ^ \ ^m 

\vK &gt; C\ . rc ^xCUto icx^ra oocn 
.Ti.n\-&gt; ^*.i .TA .oocn ^ikflo 
i ^ *gi \ ^jcn rfi-j^i. .oocn ^-vsoK .oocn 

.p^tn \ ^ ^n [marg. ^ **t^**i V] 
i craJ_..i rdJcn K ^XJ-I \ ^^K* K .ion \ N^rq 



- ^onr^^ . ^i \ Ai 

000.1 



On Basil the Great and on Gregory Theologus. But it was delivered 
in the church of the martyr the holy Ignatius. 

Thus in their will they seemed martyrs, for they were not held by 
their seats, neither were they bound by the pleasures of this world. 
Since then they emulated the God-clad Ignatius, they said, // is good to set 
from the world and to rise in Christ (Rom. 2). For this reason we have 
assembled you in this his house, the house of prayer, for the commemo- 



176 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

ration of these saints ; and we have proceeded in the discourse to their 
praises, honouring the teacher through his disciples, who well imitated his 
pastorate which was full of his sufferings. 

(b) Horn. 65. 

.flocuit on ~&gt; 
\i\n 



con .1^ cna 



,-. -i .1 cn_L:i 



OCOl^Q . nc .ij ^COO. 

.i -.en 
oco 



rtli^cra.i rdi^.rc A\cv\^ura.i r&lt;Lsicu.i oca 
it ^ 



ca_=3 caA K ocn 
O . r^^v. ca\ r^ 
t&lt;*oco -=&lt;_:k r^lirao-i .v^ Ar^.l oco 



r^ocn ^urC :uk K .icno /K aAxx.fV r^ M iT *a 

-.on . K oen *njj-iax_S73n oaA cv:^! ^ cnl 



K .ICO A \ * 

.ia \ - *.l 



AxcA 

i\ r^SOO n -) .^K* 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 177 



ocn K cnK . j K vbr : oocn i*Ma OCVCTJ 



o . 
aoco 



r^onn*?3 .1A, /rdtjio K ocni 

pa jJocu^r^Li-^-.K a : : K &u^u.ia ^\ ~&gt;on \. 
r&lt;lT_jj.l K aooK r&lt;ll_jtJSO.T_S 3. &lt; 1 ^ O-fia^K . K OCTJ 




On the holy Basil and Gregory; but a few additional words are spoken 
towards the end of it also respecting the God-clad Ignatius. 

In the same manner also the God-clad Ignatius, who now has set 
before us this spiritual banquet in his house, which is the house of 
prayer, and who rejoices in the praiseworthy virtues of his disciples, was 
appropriately named Ignatius from facts, because he foreknew things 
future; for any one who is only moderately acquainted with the lan 
guage of the Romans knows that Nurono, that is, Fiery, as we also 
say, was derived from hence ; for the Romans call the fire which is 

IG. I. \2 



178 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

lighted up and blazing, Ignem*. Who then is he that has in himself the 
flame, that is to say, the lamp of divine love, and is inflamed by the 
desire to suffer for Christ? The same who also in writing to the 
Romans said : Fire and beasts and ten thousand sorts of torments, let them 
come upon me, only may I be accounted worthy of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5). 
And since he had this within him for Him who was beloved, which is 
also wonderful, on this account also he cried, From within he saith to 
me, Come thou to my Father (Rom. 7). Not only then in the similarity J 
of the name, which, commencing with God, was appropriated to Basil 
and Gregory, did they resemble Ignatius, but also in the strenuous stand 
for the truth, in boldness of speech, in contests, in sufferings, in the 
harmony of preaching. For they knew God, and taught the Word of 
God who without conversion was made flesh and was crucified for us 
and suffered in the flesh ; while they little heeded the Simonian and Nes- 
torian advocacy, which is blinded and offended unholily at the suffering 
of the Godhead; for they were persuaded that the suffering did not touch 
that impassible one, although by way of the economy as one made 
flesh and made man He would be in sufferings when He was astonied at 
the sting of death which is against us, and of sin. And Ignatius indeed 
said, Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God (Rom. 6). 

* It is right to know also here that the Romans do not call fire simply Ignem ; 
but those fires which are kindled on elevated places, and show the signal of 
something which is not yet near; for example, such as those which are kindled 
upon hills and upon heights, and blaze and show the approach of enemies, ac 
cording to a compact and sign prearranged, which the Greeks call irvpyos : for 
this reason the teacher [i.e. Severus] says, Because he foreknew things future? 

(c) Horn, 84. 




1 This is Cureton s rendering ; and if priated to Basil as to Gregory. This 

it be correct, the reference is apparently rendering however requires a slight emen- 

to the words Oetxpopos, 6eo\6yos, though dation in the Syriac text as printed by 

the latter was not so specially appro- Cureton from the MS, 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 179 



.rc eoArt A .Tin \ K i 




.-Kflu.il *ri T. ^AcrA 

/P^^XQ 1 Tll ^iAci3 KlSO CXfl O 




On Basil the Great, and on Gregory Theologus. But it was delivered 
according to custom in the interior of the house of prayer of the 
God-clad martyr Ignatius. 

And they fixed their view towards heaven like the God-clad Ignatius, 
and looked for the excellent things which are above, and were stedfast, 
and dwelt with bodyless spirits, and were out of the flesh even when 
in the flesh. Take for me, as a proof of these things, the words of him 
who as in reality had put on God; For I say, not because I am bound and 
am able to understand the heavenly things, and the places of angels, and the 
stations of principalities, visible, to wit, and invisible, from this am I 
already a disciple ; for many things are lacking to us, so that we may not 
be lacking of God (Trail. 5). 

Let us therefore, since Christ is our head and master, and not man, 
as He says in the Gospels, be prepared for the kingdom of Heaven : like 
the saying of the martyr Ignatius, So that we may not be altogether lacking 
of God, to whom praise is meet for ever and ever. Amen. 

12 2 



l8o EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12159, containing a Syriac version, mutilated in parts, of the 
Epithronian or Enthroniastic Sermons (\6yoi tiri6p6viot or tvOpoviaffriKot) of Severus, 
so called because they were delivered by him from the patriarchal chair (A.D. 513 
518). On the nature of this work see Fabric. Bibl. Grcec. X. p. 617, ed. Harles, Mai 
Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. IX. p. 725, Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. pp. 494, 570 sq., Wright s 
Catalogue p. 534 sq. It is divided into three books, containing Horn, i 43, 44 90, 
91 125, respectively. 

These sermons were twice translated into Syriac (see above p. 25). Large 
portions of both versions are extant in the Nitrian MSS of the Vatican and the British 
Museum. Our MS contains the later version, made by Jacob of Edessa, A.D. 701, 
to whom the note on Horn. 65 is due. The colophon giving the date of the MS is 
mutilated, but enough can be deciphered to fix the year of writing to A.D. 868 
(Wright s Catalogue p. 545). On these homilies, delivered in the Church of S. Ignatius 
on the day of SS. Basil and Gregory, see above, I. pp. 24 sq., 48, and below, n. p. 
419 sq. The extracts relating to Ignatius are given and translated by Cureton (C. I. 
pp. 715 sq., 247 sq.). 

(v) Epistulae Severi et Juliani. 
eo-iaQ . KjjLiXJSQ cu_=j K*ocn V*x^..i cxco J 



K .icn ^o /.aocaSo Arc** vyK* K*ocn 

. K*crAKlX .T1\ 



.-V-.l 

K ocn 



vv~* 
^atTa.i 
O^ K lCTXQDO K ca^rciX -.-A jaajul 



o Klai ftr -i KUaoK* ^oaocWrc* . 




QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 181 

r^ - t* PC^a_so=3 .K crAr^ rcLx-JK* Aura 



._73 



Also Ignatius, in whom Christ dwelt and spake even as in Paul, and 
from this he was named the God-clad : for he wrote to the 
Ephesians after this manner. Ignatius : 

Ignorance -was dissipated, the ancient kingdom was destroyed, when God 
was manifested [as\ man for the renewal of life without end : and that 
which was perfect with God took a beginning. From hence every thing was 
moved at once, because the destruction of death was prepared (Ephes. 19). 

But also Ignatius, the God-clad and martyr, in writing to the Ephesians, 
teaches that Christ, in that He was passible, that is, in the flesh, 
after the trial of sufferings and of death was at the last impas 
sible : when still, in that He was always God, He was also always 
impassible. But he speaks thus. Ignatius : 

TJiere is one physician, carnal and spiritual, made and not made y 
amongst men God, in death true life, both from Mary and from God^ 
first passible and tJien impassible &gt; Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephes. 7). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 17200. This volume is written in a neat current hand of about 
the yth century and contains the correspondence of Severus of Antioch and Julian of 
Halicarnassus on the Corruptibility or Incorruptibility of the Body of Christ 
(Wright s Catalogue p. 554). It was translated by Paul of Callinicus, a contemporary 
of Severus (see Assem. Bibl. Orient, n. p. 46). The extracts from Ignatius are 
contained in a reply of Severus (fol. 32 a), and are given and translated by Cureton 
(C. I. pp. 218, 249). 

(vi) Refutationes Capitulorum Juliani. 
K .lcn-flo K cnArdA 




1 82 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



Of the holy Ignatius, the God-clad, martyr and archbishop of Antioch, 
from the Epistle to the Ephesians : who teaches that Christ was 
first passible in the flesh, and then impassible. 
There is one physician, carnal and spiritual, made and not made, 
amongst men God, in death true life, from Mary and from God, first pas 
sible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephes. 7). 

Brit. Mus, Add. 14529 (Cureton C. I. pp. 218, 249). On fol. 26 a sq. are The 
Eight Chapters of Julian of Halicarnassus with refutations (Wright s Catalogue p. 
919). The author is probably Severus, writes Cureton (p. 358). What may be the 
relation of this work to the last, I do not know. There is mention of a Kara rZv 
vpoa6-r]KCiv lovXtavov ffvyypa.fj.fj.a among the works of Severus (Fabric. X. p. 618). 
The Ignatian extract (Ephes. 7) appears on fol. 3?b. It is the same as in the previous 
work, and in the same words (except KO\ IK. Mapfas for &lt;!/c Ma/^as). Cureton (p. 358) 
ascribes the MS to the end of the 6th or the 7th century, Wright to the 7th or 8th 
century. 

(vii) Contra Codicillos Alexandri. 

,Ti1\ r^jj T ~).l C\cp ^.t .flOQiX^l XK* 

OK* r^vw relAisnAvJSa rd\ KY iK .! ooo 
: on T ki 



&lt;\1 Ti^ rdJK* Art 

-Sa-iA A^k. cV\ji&gt; r^ i 



rfcn rf.ico ^n : K ^u_L.\_4J^x-3 
pdfi^ ^^.cv* * V^J-M -1-^ ^AcrA 



. &lt;XLJJ tVu IT rq ^.Q T i~&gt; 

n-a-^ ^j=n ^ f f ex. ^V ** .i 
K crAre .tu.i . rc^ ilYii^V^xJSq rdl 
cnia r^ mx rq ^_cv.r_. ."us crA ocp K -i^i Oor&gt; 



1 A -u^Jtta without o. B 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 183 

. CQJi_=73 



&gt;i npf HS^r*" .Vw .eoA 




But Ignatius, who was in truth God-clad and martyr, who saw the 
ineffable mysteries, if ever any man did, so that he could even put him 
self forward and say of himself and this with a humble mind For 
I too, not because I am bound and am able to understand heavenly things, 
and the setting of the angelic places, and the princely hosts, things visible 
also and invisible, because of this, lo, am la disciple; [this Ignatius, I say,] 
when writing to those at Magnesia says thus : For the divine prophets 
lived in Jesus Christ. Because of this they were also persecuted, being 
inspired by His grace, in order that the incredulous might be persuaded 
that there is one God, who hath revealed Himself through Jesus Christ 
His Son. And a little after [he says] : How can we live apart from 
Him, whom the prophets too, since they were His disciples in spirit, were 
expecting as a teacher ? And because of this, He whom they were justly 
awaiting, when He came, raised them up from the dead. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 14533. An account of the Ignatian quotations which this Ms 
contains is given by Land Anted. Syr. I. p. 32 sq., n. 7 sq. They were overlooked by 
Cureton. On fol. 41 b (formerly 33 b) begins an extract entitled Of the holy 
Severus from the writings against the Codicils of Alexander. The Greek title of this 
work is Kara Kw5i/a X\wc A\edv8pov ffwrdy^ara (Fabric. X. p. 608). In this extract 
the Ignatian quotations occur, which are given by Land. The same extract is found 
in another MS, Brit. Mus. Add. 12155, f^ 5^ b ( see Wright s Catalogue pp. 929, 969). 
The MS 14533 s ascribed by Wright (p. 967) to the 8th or gth century, and by 
Cureton (Spicil. Syr. p. 98, where he gives a fragment of Melito from it) to about 
the 7th or 8th century. Prof. Wright assigns the other MS, Add. 12155, to the 8th 
century (p. 92 1). lie has re-transcribed the text for me and given an English translation. 
In the second and third lines Land s rendering has been retained, though not the 
natural rendering of the Syriac, which yields no adequate sense. There is perhaps 
some corruption in the Syriac text. The two MSS, Add. 14533, Add. 12155, are 
designated A, B, respectively in the notes. 

After some remarks of Severus himself, suggested by these extracts, follows a 
quotation, Of the same from the Letter to Anastasia the Deaconess? Land in his first 
volume had not stated, and apparently had not noticed, that the whole preceding 
passage, containing the Ignatian quotation, was taken from Severus ; but he did 

1 B ^ \ u . * B om. CIOGO . 



1 84 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

caution his readers against supposing that Ignatius was intended by this same 
person, adding that the mode of writing and form of quotation showed it to be an 
extract from the later father who cited Ignatius, and not from Ignatius himself (p. 35). 
Merx however (Zeitschr. fur Wissensch. Theol. 1867, X. p. 96), disregarding this 
evidence, asserted that the pseudo-Ignatian literature was thus enriched by another 
epistle hitherto unknown. In his second volume (p. 7 sq.) Land pointed out that the 
previous extract was stated to have come from Severus, and that from the whole com 
plexion of the MS the letter to Anastasia must also have been written by Severus. 
The evidence was complete, when Wright noticed that in the MS Brit. Mus. Add. 
14601 , fol. 1 1 5 b, the very same passage from the beginning of the Letter to Anastasia 
is quoted under the name of Severus of Antioch (see Zeitschr. fur Wissensch. Theol. 
1868, xi. p. 468). In fact a conclusive answer might have been given without 
applying to these more recently accessible sources of information, for a letter to 
Anastasia the deaconess is mentioned among the works of Severus in Assem. Bibl. 
Orient. I. p. 618, and in Fabricius Bibl. Graec. x. p. 619 (ed. Harles). 



Hymnus in Ignatium. 




.i OCD T^V T&gt; - K .TCTXQOO 



K c.cn ^JLCU&gt; vJ^.l 




r^ ui\ ir. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 185 



oco 



. r^&Ql -30*00:1 

On the holy Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch. [To the tune 

of] He is the Lord our God. 

Thou who didst show Thyself in the flame of fire on the bush, and 
in [the preaching of] the Gospel didst say, / came to cast fire in (upon) 
the earth, and I would it were already kindled; Thou hast shown unto 
us the [great] power of that [glorious and] divine fire, when Thou didst 
raise up (show) the God-clad Ignatius, the [wise] shepherd and [proven] 
martyr, who was [eager and] in haste to come unto the likeness of Thy 
passion, and by knowledge [clearly] saw heavenly things, when he pro 
claimed the right (true) belief* of Thy [life-working] advent which is 
in the flesh, and when he was imitating Thy humility [as Saviour], and 
was writing unto the believers, Not as Peter or Paul do I define (order) 
for you orders ; \^for\ they were \chosen\ apostles, but I am \a man\ con 
demned. By [means of] his prayers, Lord, [we beg,] give us a contrite 
[and humble] heart, and that burneth with the [ardent] zeal of faith. 

* As &lt;5/&gt;063oos is rendered by r&lt;LjJO CIX. ^io&gt; , it appears that 



Brit. Mus. Add. 17134 has been already described (p. 91), as containing Hymns of 
Severus translated by Paul of Callinicus, among which is one (fol. 48 a) in honour 
of Ignatius. It is also found in another MS, Add. 18816 (see Wright s Catalogue 
p. 339 sq.). The former MS contains two notes omitted in the latter, which only gives 
references. The first note gives the passages of Exodus and S. Luke to which the text 
refers; the second gathers together passages from Ignatius to the Romans, which 
illustrate the hymn. These passages are printed below, II. p. 686. The notes were 
presumably added by Jacob of Edessa, whose autograph this MS may perhaps be. The 
scribe has distinguished carefully between the words of the author (Severus) and those 
which were added by the translator for the sake of the rhythm, writing the former 
with black ink, the latter with red paint. These latter are marked in the transcript 
here given with an upper line. Wherever the translator deviates at all from the original, 
likewise for the sake of the rhythm, a more literal rendering is inserted in smaller 
characters between the lines. In the English version here given the additions of the 
translator are placed between [ ], and the interlinear literal renderings between ( ). 

This hymn is here printed for the first time. Assemani however (Bibl. Apost. 
Vat. Catal. II. p. 505) gives an extract containing the quotation from the epistle to 
the Romans from a Vatican MS. The text was transcribed and the hymn translated 
for me by Prof. W. Wright. 



1 86 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

34- 
ANONYMOUS SYRIAC WRITERS [after A.D. 500]. 

The Syriac quotations which follow are very miscellaneous. They occur for the 
most part in volumes of extracts, chiefly Monophysite. These extracts have not 
necessarily been taken in all cases directly from the authors by the compiler himself, 
but are often derived at second-hand through some previous writer who quoted them. 
This being so, as the works of Timotheus and Severus had been already translated 
into Syriac, we may expect to find the Ignatian extracts which they give reproduced 
in these later compilations. This consideration will account for the fact that, even in 
the same volume, we meet with quotations which closely resemble the Syriac Version 
of the Ignatian Epistles side by side with others which have much nearer affinities to 
the same passages as they appear in the Syriac translations of the Greek Monophysite 
fathers. The dates of these collections of extracts are uncertain. But as they belong 
chiefly to the period during which the Monophysite controversy was at its height, 
they may be conveniently placed here. 

(i) Demonstrations Patrum [Anon. Syr.,]. 

O i \^ Ir^.l rd^Cnftn W JaoQi \ \ ^p^ rdi_ .UD .1 (a) 

. rc .icnfloo 




rdl 



oca i oca 
K*i-* ix. r&lt;*..* 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 187 



.^en t&lt; n on s .1 *m . 




K sen 

-\ \y. . j.^ 



(a) Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the 

Epistle to the city of Philadelphia. 

Do not err, my brethren : he who deaveth to him that rendeth the 
church doth not inherit the kingdom of God (Philad, 3). 

(b] Of the holy Ignatius Theophorus, from the epistle which he wrote 

to the church which is in Asia. 

Let no man err : even heavenly beings and the glory of the angels 
and principalities visible and invisible, unless they believe in the blood of 
Christ who is God, there is judgment even for them (Smyrn. 6). 

Again of the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

For there is one physician, carnal and spiritual, made and not made, 
in man God, in death true life, from Mary and from God, first passible 
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephes. 7). 

(c} Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from his 

Epistle to the Smyrneans. 

/ warn you of evil men, who are beasts and possess only the form of 
men, that not only is it not right that you should receive them, but if it be 
possible ye should not even meet them, but only pray for them, that they may 
repent, which is difficult, but Jesus Christ hath the power over this 
(Smyrn. 4). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12155, A volume of Demonstrations from the holy Fathers 
against various heresies ; see Wright s Catalogue p. 921 sq., Cureton C. I. p. 358. 
The probable date of this MS according to Wright (p. 954) is A. Gr. 1058 = A.D. 747. 

The Ignatian quotations occur as follows, (i) Philad. 3, on fol. in a (Wright p. 
937). This must have been taken from the Syriac Version, for it closely resembles Sj, 



1 88 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

e.g. in rendering ff-xljpvri. dicoXovdei by adhaeret ei qui scindit ecclesiam. (2) Smyrn. 
6, on fol. 168 b (Wright p. 946). This is obviously taken from the quotation of 
Timotheus (see above p. 166), with which it agrees almost verbatim. (3) Ephes- 7, 
also on fol. i68b. This strongly resembles the quotation in Severus ; but, as the 
translation is strictly literal, the coincidence is not conclusive. (4) Smyrn, 4, on fol. 
262 a (Wright p. 954), a somewhat paraphrastic rendering which has no affinities 
with the Syriac Version as represented by the Armenian. Besides these, there is on 
fol. 56 a (Wright p. 929) the passage of Severus containing the quotations from 
Magnesians, which are given above p. 182 sq. 

(ii) Adv. Nestorianos [Anon. Syr. 2 ]. 

1 rdAacC^ jao^a (a) 

cvoa ^K O . rcLjxAx. JtocvOi^ i&ua ^idt.i K acn.i 
. r^ifn^p^ &aA.i r^&iV^Kla ijar&lt; 
. fallen r&lt; / gl\v.:i 




r^ UJ\ T.. 



(a) And again the blessed Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch, who was the 
second after Peter the Apostle, he also spake thus in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius : 

But there deceived the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary and 
her child-birth, and in the same manner also the death of our Lord 
(Ephes. 19). 

(b} Of the holy Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch, who was the second 

after the Apostles, from the Epistle to the Romans. 
Permit ye me to be an imitator of the sufferings of my God (Rom. 6). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 189 

And again he said, 

My spirit boweth down to thy cross, which is an offence to those 
who do not believe, but to us for salvation and for eternal life 
(Ephes. 1 8). 

(c) For the holy Ignatius, the disciple of the holy Apostles, said; 
He who honoureth the priest honour eth Christ. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 14535. This volume begins with a treatise against the 
Nestorians by some Monophysite writer ; see Wright s Catalogue p. 796 sq., Cureton 
C. I. p. 359. Wright assigns this MS to the earlier part of the ninth century. 
For the Ignatian quotations see Cureton C. I. pp. 219, 250, Wright p. 797. 
They seem to be derived from various sources. Ephes. 19 has points of resemblance 
with Timotheus, but these may be accidental. On the other hand it is not taken from 
the Syriac Version (represented by 2 A) . Rom. 6 is too short to admit of any inference. 
Ephes. 1 8 is closely connected with the Syriac Version, for it renders irepi\(/ij/j.a rou 
ffravpov by adorat crucem; but on the other hand it has one or two striking divergences, 
e.g. ijfup with the Greek for vjuv with the Syriac. The last passage which the 
compiler quotes, as from Ignatius, is not found verbatim in any extant Ignatian 
Epistle, but it may be a loose reminiscence of Smyrn. 9 6 TI/J.WV lirlaKoirov virb 6eoO 
Tijj.ara.1. 

(iii) Plerophoria [Anon. Syr.J. 
rdi-SkO i \y ip^.i rel3&gt;Q n fti i^K* 
.A cv-flaJ^rc rf * *gaft i cVo.A.1 



The holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the Epistle 

to the Romans. 
Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God (Rom. 6). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12154 a volume of miscellaneous contents, which Wright 
(Catal. p. 976) ascribes to the end of the 8th or beginning of the gth century. 
The first treatise, which contains the Ignatian quotation (fol. 13 a), is a 
Plerophoria in defence of Monophysite doctrine. The quotation does not agree 
exactly with the passage as quoted anywhere else. See Cureton C. I. pp. 220, 
*5o, 359- 



(iv) Catena Patrum [Anon. Syr.J. 
fffiif&lt; &gt; .l r 
.l ^Acn cVcA.i 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 




Of the holy Ignatius, archbishop and martyr, from the Epistle to 

those at Tarsus. 

/ have learned that some, ministers of Satan, have desired to trouble 
you ; there being some of them who say that Jesus was born in imagina 
tion, and was crucified in imagination ; but others, that He is not the Son 
of the Creator ; and others, that He is God the father who is over all ; 
and others, that He is a mere man ; and others, that this flesh will not 
rise again (Tars. 2). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 17191, fol. 58 a; see Cureton C. I. p. 363 sq,. Wright s 
Catalogue p. 1012. This MS is a palimpsest; and the later hand, which contains 
a collection from the fathers, is ascribed by Wright (p. 1008) to the pth or 
loth century (see also Cureton p. 363). The same fragment is contained also in Brit, 
Mus. Add. 17214, fol. 74 a (see Wright p. 917), where the opening words of the 
epistle, I ATrd Zvplas /t&lt;?x/ PWAO?* 6ripiofj.ax^, also are quoted. This MS is ascribed 
by Wright to the 7th century, and must be the same which Cureton (p. 364 sq.) 
mentions, without however giving the number, and assigns to the 6th century; see also 
my notes on Clem. Rom. ii. i. This same fragment from the Epistle to the 
Tarsians is given also in Brit. Mus. Add. 14538, fol. 148 a (see Wright p. 1007), but 
in a different form and somewhat mutilated owing to the condition of the MS. 

The above is printed from AM. 17191. The only variations of Add. 17214 are 
that it reads ox2uur^ for the first word and inserts JSfl before r&lt;LmS*lT_273. 
This quotation has no very decisive coincidence with the Syriac version (as represented 
by the Armenian), but may have been derived thence. 

(v) Excerpta Patrum [Anon. Syr.J. 



tcnl .r^U T-93 ^.OZ-A rtLlrC? 



&u=&gt; sn ^uK i.aVZ. .fju^r^.l .K cnAK .l K -A t-aJO 

a a *i \ o 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 




ocn 



,TI-I\ 



Ignatius Nurono, the disciple of John the Evangelist. / glorify 
Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of the house of David according to the 
flesh, but the Son of God according to nature and the power of God ; 
who was truly born of the Virgin Mary, and was baptized by John, 
and truly suffered, and was nailed to the cross for our sake that He 
might give us life ; and He arose from the dead, and came to those who 
were with Peter and John, and said to them, Feel and see that it is I ; 
and He ate and drank with them as being in the flesh and .... and 
mingling with them (Smyrn. i, 2, 3). The holy Ignatius . . . . 2 They say 
of the holy one that he was the disciple of John. And he was the child 

1 Neither VVOT9O nor \^O^3O gives any sense. Probably we should read 

^ "A, * f .*&gt;OV3O, and in the spirit mingled with the Father. 
The meaning of the letters ^r&lt;4J in this heading is not apparent. 



192 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

whom our Lord took up in his arms and said, Except ye turn yourselves 
and become as this child, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God. 
Peter was the first bishop in Antioch, and after him was Euodius, and 
after this one, third, behold Ignatius was upon the throne about eighty 
years, until the ninth year of the reign of Trajan. Straightway Trajan 
commanded, and they brought him to Rome, and he was devoured by 
beasts on the tenth of the Latter Teshrin in the year 419 of the Greeks, 
in the year in after the advent of our Lord. Ignatius is interpreted 
to mean God-clad. May his prayer be with us, Amen. 

Bodl. Marsh 101 fol. 16 : see the Catal. Cod. MSS Bodl. Syr. p. 461, no. 142. 
The extract from Smyrn. i 3 is much abridged. It is overlooked by Cureton 
and has never (to my knowledge) been printed before. The collection of extracts 
in which it occurs follows immediately after a letter of Jacob of Edessa, but 
it does not appear from the Catalogue who made the collection. Nothing is said of 
the date of the MS. Dr Neubauer has kindly recollated the transcript which I made 
from it some years ago, and Prof. Wright has added a translation. 

On the confusion between the Former and the Latter Teshri (October and Novem 
ber), as regards the date of Ignatius martyrdom, see below, n. p. 418. Here also a 
further error is committed. A letter has fallen out, and thus the roth is substituted 
for the 1 7th, the correct day. Again the year 419 of the Greeks does not correspond 
with i n of our Lord according to the common reckoning. 

As regards the Syriac fragments, the conclusions at which Merx arrives are 
peculiarly unfortunate : see Meletem. Ignat. pp. 64 sq., 79 sq., Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. 
TkcoL 1867, X. p. 91 sq. He supposes that there were three Syriac versions of these 
epistles. (i) The Curetonian Syriac, which contained the seven epistles of the 
Middle Form, and from which the three epistles of the Short Form first published by 
Cureton are merely extracts or abridgements. This was the oldest translation of all. 
The translator followed the usage of the Peshito Version of the N. T. in his rendering 
of words. From this Syriac text the Armenian Version of the epistles was made. 
(2) The Severian Syriac, so designated because the quotations in Severus were 
taken from it. It was made before the times of the Arians, apparently in the 3rd 
century. This translation again contained the seven epistles of the Middle Recension, 
but was more literal than the other. (3) A third Syriac Version, containing the 
additional epistles (to Mary, Hero, the Antiochenes, Tarsians, and Philippians ; Merx 
does not say anything of the Epistle from Mary to Ignatius). To this belonged the 
fragments, Hero r (see n. p. 686), and Tars, 2 (see above, p. 189 sq.). And from it the 
Armenian translator got the additional epistles. In his Meletemata Merx did not say 
whether this version was confined to these five additional epistles or contained the 
seven also. But on the appearance of Land s Anecdota Syriaca, containing some 
hitherto unpublished fragments (see above p. 182 sq.), he was convinced that these 
also belonged to his third version (Zeitschr. fur Wiss. Theol. 1. c.). Thus he sup 
poses three distinct translations of the seven epistles into Syriac. 

We are constrained to ask whether the demand for the Ignat ian letters 
among native Syrians was likely to have been so great as this hypothesis requires". 
But, independently of the a priori improbability, this theory of a second and third 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 193 

translation involves strange difficulties of which Merx takes no account, (i) The 
hypothesis of a Severian Syriac is based on the fact that the quotations in Severus do 
not agree with the Curetonian. Yet as Severus wrote in Greek, and not in Syriac, 
it would be most improbable that they should agree. The translator or translators of 
the works of Severus would be much more likely to have translated the Ignatian 
quotations bodily with the text of Severus than to have hunted them out in an existing 
Syriac Version. At all events, if they do not agree with the only Syriac Version of 
which we have any knowledge, it is a safe inference that they did so translate them. 
Merx again lays some stress on the fact ( gravissimum est ) that the quotations of 
Severus agree with those of Timotheus (p. 55). If they had agreed to any remarkable 
extent, this would be a solid argument in favour of their having been taken from a com 
mon source, i.e. from a Syriac Version accessible to the translators of both. But even 
then we should have to remember : (a) That the agreement might arise from the fact that 
both followed the Greek closely ; (fl) That, as these translations were apparently made 
in the Monophysite interests and probably under the same influences and about the 
same time, the very expressions in the more striking quotations might be transmitted 
from the one translation to the other. But in fact the only quotations which the 
two have in common are Rom. 6 and Magn. 8. (i) The first of these extends only to 
nine words, iiriTptyaTt /JLOI. fu^r-qv elvai rov iradovs rov Gcou fwv. It is twice quoted 
in Timotheus and three times in Severus : see pp. 165 sq., 169 sq. The two quotations 
of Timotheus do not exactly agree between themselves, nor do those of Severus 
among themselves. But one of Timotheus which is a strictly literal rendering of the 
Greek agrees exactly with one of Severus. Why should they not so agree ? This is 
essentially one of those stock quotations of which I spoke, where agreement was 
probable. Indeed the only words in which there was room for any real difference are 
tirtTptirfii&gt; and /j.i/j.r)Trjs, of which the former is translated by its common equivalent in 
the Peshito, and the latter by the substantive derived from the verb which represents 
fju/j.elffOa.1, fjLi/j.irri]i&gt; ylvfcr6a.&lt;., in that version, (ii) The second quotation, Magn. 8, is some 
what longer, though it does not extend beyond a few lines. Here however Timotheus 
and Severus by no means agree. Being literally translated, the passages could not but 
coincide in many respects ; yet in pointsof Syriac idiom there are several differences, and 
in one part there is a wide divergence, attributable to various readings in the Greek text 
of the Ignatian Epistles. Timotheus read X67oj dWtos OVK dirb ai-y^ irpoe\0uv, whereas 
the text of Severus omitted diSios OVK. This difference is reproduced in the Syriac. 
Merx indeed would insert a negative in Severus by reading jy& T&lt;ll for 2fll, 
but there are evidences of a much wider diffusion of the reading adopted by Severus 
(see the notes on Magn. 8), and even after this violent change the word atSios remains 
unrepresented, (i) The third version according to Merx supplied the text of the 
additional epistles to the Armenian translator. But, if this was so, and if (as Merx 
maintains) it comprised the seven epistles as well, why should the Armenian 
translator have deserted it in part of his work and have had recourse (as Merx 
supposes) to another Syriac Version the Curetonian for these seven epistles? 
Moreover it is now ascertained (see above p. 183 sq.) that the very quotations, Trail. 
5, Magn. 8, 9 (in Land s Anted. Syr. p. 32 sq.), which Merx assigned to this third 
version, because they did not agree -with the quotations of Severus, and which convinced 
him that this version must have comprised the seven epistles also (Zeitsch. f. 
Wissensch. Theol. 1. c.), are taken from a work of this very Severus himself. 

Thus of the three translations, which Merx supposes, the first alone remains. 

IG. I. 13 



194 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Whether it originally included the spurious epistles (in addition to the seven Vossian 
letters) or whether these were a later addition, may be a matter of question. 

I have dealt with this theory at some length, because I wished to dispose of it once 
for all and to prevent the necessity of referring to it again. The question of the Igna- 
tian writings is so intricate in itself that unless pains are taken to disengage it from 
artificial entanglements which critics have created, it will become hopelessly involved. 
Moreover it seemed necessary to protest against the vicious principle which underlies 
so much recent criticism of multiplying documents to account for accidental differences 
of language in quotations. [This note was written some time before the appearance 
of Zahn s Ignatius v. Antiochien^ in which he has discussed (p. I74sq.) the theory 
of Merx to the same effect.] 

35- 

EPHRAEM OF ANTIOCH [f c. A.D. 545]. 
(i) Epist, ad Zenobium, Photii Bibliotheca 228 (p. 246). 

"OTrep ovv eiprjTCLL, Kara TO TpiTov /ce&lt;aXatov e/c re TO&gt;V 
euayyeXt/coJi &lt;^(j)v&lt;t&gt;v /cat e/c TOJV oVocrToXi/C(5i&gt;, /cat or) /cat e/c 
TWV ia.Kapio&gt;v TfCLTepwv rj^ajv, lyvariov TOV Seo&lt;f)6pov /cat 
lovXtou /cat AQavacrLOV /cat Tprjyopiaiv /cat BacrtXetov, 
SteXe y^et rou? Sv&lt;rcre/3et9, o5s 77 TO&gt;V apOpoiv ^/jrjo-t? (Tra^re? 
yap CVTOI rovrots expTJcravTo) ovSe/xtW TO^V 77 Statpecru&gt; 
eVtvoet 7175 evcucrefu?. 

(ii) De Sacris Antiochiae Legibiis, Ib. 229 (p. 258). 

Kat o 0eo(j&gt;6pos Se lyvarto?, S/xvpvatot9 e 
d/xotcu? /ce^pTyrat rw apOpco /cat o Poj/zr;? TouXto? eV rrj 
Ao/ctoi^ eTTtcrroX^ (f&gt;r)&lt;Tiv "ncrre aVa$ejaa eo"ra&gt; Tra? o TOV 
e/c Mapta? avOpwov ov% o/xoXoya)^ eti^at ewapKov eoz^. 

Ephraem is here represented as quoting Ignatius in illustration of the use of the 
definite article in the expressions 6 6eos and o dvOpujros, when applied to our Lord. 
The reference therefore is probably to Smyrn. i Iijaow Xpiarw TOV Qfov TOV oirrwt 
ffofacravTo. K.T.X. (see the note, II. p. 289). Another possible, but less probable, 
reference would be Smyrn. 4 TOV reXei ou dv 



36. 

Jovius THE MONK [c. A.D. 530]. 
Occonomica Tractatio vii. 31, Photii Bibliotheca 222 (p. 195). 

3&gt;rjo-l yap o Oeofyopos ly^arto?, rpta Kadelv TOV 
TOV alcuvos TOVTOV, TTJV TTctpdevLav Mapia?, Trjv cruXX^i//ii/ TOV 
Kvpiov, /cat TYJV crTavptocriv (Ep/ies. 19). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 195 

37- 

JOHN MALALAS [c. A.D. 570?]. 
(i) Chronogr. x. p. 252 (ed. Bonn.). 

Ef TU&gt; Be dvievai CLVTOV [TOV Herpov] Iv Trj PcJ^, Step- 
avrov Si AvTLO^eia^ TTJS /xcyaX^s a-wefty reXeirnJcrai 
EvoSoi&gt; roV ento-KOTTov Kal TTaTpioip^v AzTioxeias /cat eXa/3e 
TO crxrjfjLa Trj&lt;s eVto-/co7r^9 A^rto^etas TT}? 
TOV aytou ITer/Dou rou aTrocrroXov 

(ii) /^. xi. p. 276. Quoted above, p. 63. 

For the probable date of this writer, and for his untrustworthiness, see below, n. 
P- 435 sq. 

38. 

GREGORY OF TOURS [c. A.D. 577]. 
Historia, Francorum i. 25. 

Tertius post Neronem persecutionem in Christianos Trajanus movet 
sub quo... Ignatius Antiochensis episcopus Romam ductus bestiis depu- 
tatur. 

39- 

EVAGRIUS [c. A.D. 594]. 

Historia Ecdcsiastica i. 16. 

The passage is quoted at length below, n. p. 386, where also it is 
discussed. 

40. 

STEPHANUS GOBARUS [c. A.D. 575 600?]. 
Photii Bibliothcca 232 (p. 291). 

5 Iyi&gt;arios pevroL 6 @eo&lt;^o/)os Kal KXiy^s d 
/cat Evcre)8tos o Ila/x^tXou Kal OeoSojp^ros d Kvpov TTJV 
NtKoXatrcGt KaTayiva)&lt;TKOva LV cupea iv, TOV Se Nt/cdXaoi/ ^7} 
TOV TOLOVTOV elvcLi aTTO(f)a{vovTa.i. 

The reference is to Ps- Trail, n ; comp. Ps-Philad. 6. This is the earliest distinct 
reference to the spurious or interpolated epistles. 

On this writer, who seems to have lived in the latter part of the 6th century, see 
Walch Hist. d. Ketzer VIII. p. 883. The latest writer whom he quotes is Severus of 
Autioch. 

132 



196 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

41. 

ANASTASIUS i OF ANTIOCH [f A.D. 598 or 599]. 
De Rectis Veritatis Dogmatibus. 

(i) Mop(f&gt;rjv SovXov rjfJifaeo fJievov, Iva \d0r) 609 wv TOV 
ap)(oi&gt;Ta TOV aiaivos TOVTOV (Ephes. 19). 

This extract was taken by Pearson from a MS in the Library of Trinity College, 
Cambridge { Vind. Ign. p. 81, ed. Churton). I have made enquiries of the Librarian, 
who has searched for this MS in vain. 

(ii) lyyartou TOV 0o&lt;j&gt;6pov KOI /xaprupos IK rrjs ein- 

0*70X175 7T/305 TOVS CV Ta/3O~6J. 

Ei TA P HAeic OTI Oeoy Yioc HN, eriNoocKec OTI, TeccApA- 

KONTA HMCpAC ANCNAeeC HOIHCAC TO (^GApTON CO3MA, KA^I 6IC 
TO AlHNKC HAyNATO TOYTO nOIHCAl AlA Tl O^N HGINA) "NA 

Aei lH OTI AAH6aJc ANeAABe COOMA OMOionAGec ANGptonoic AIA 
M6N fAp TOY npoiTOY eAei2N OTI Oedc, AIA Ae TOY AeYTepOY 
OTI KAI ANGpconoc (Phttipp. 9). 

This extract is given in Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vn. i. p. IT. (comp. Ussher p. 
cxxix). Anastasius has wrongly named the epistle quoted. There is some doubt to 
which of the many persons bearing the name Anastasius these extracts should be 
assigned ; but on the whole the first Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch seems the most 
probable author : see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. X. p. 595 sq., ed. Harles ; Lequien Orient 
Christ. II. p. 736. For a further reference in this Anastasius to the Ignatian letters 
see the next extract 

42. 

GREGORY THE GREAT [A.D. 594 or 595]. 
Eptst. v. 39, ad Anastasium Antiochenum, Op. vn. p. 520 (Venet. 1770). 

Amen Gratia. Quae videlicet verba de scriptis vestris accepta, 
idcirco in meis episto lis pono, ut de sancto Ignatio vestra beatitude 
cognoscat quia non solum vester est, sed etiam noster. Sicut enim 
magistrum ejus apostolorum principem habemus communem, ita quoque 
ejusdem principis discipulum nullus nostrum habeat privatum. 



The words, A./j.r]V ^ x&lt;V *&gt; appear now only in Ps-Polyc. 8 and Ps-Ephes. i\ ; but 
there are reasons for thinking that they may at one time have been found in the text 
of the genuine Ignatius (see II. p. 850). If however this Anastasius was the writer of 
the work quoted just above, he must have been acquainted with the spurious epistles. 
On Gregory s quotation see above, I. p. 117 sq. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 197 

43- 

LEONTIUS OF BYZANTIUM [after A.D. 610]. 
De Sectis Actio iii. i (Galland. Bill. Vet. Patr. xn. p. 633). 

EyeVoz To Se eV rot? ^povois rots dVd TV}&lt;; yewijcrecws TOV 
X/HO-TOV fJ&lt;tXP L T1 7 ? /SacrtXeta? KajvcrravrtVov StSdcr/caXot /cat 
otSe lyvctTtos o eo&lt;d/30?, Etprpato?, lovcrru os 
/cat /xd/Drvs, KX^/r^? /cat iTTTroXvros ITTLCTKOTTOL 
, Atovvcrto? d ApeoTraytTTyg, Me^oStos eTTtcr/coTros 

, Tp-rjyopios 6 ^au/xaroupyos, Ilerpo? d 
Speta? eVtcr/coTro? /cat /aaprv?. rourovg aTra^ras at 
avrous ye^d/xej at atpecrcts Se ^o^rat. 

On this writer see Fabricius ^ ^/. Grate, vill. p. 309 sq. (ed. Harles). 



44- 

ANTIOCHUS THE MONK [c. A.D. 620]. 
Homiliae (Patrol. Grace. LXXXIX. p. 1421 sq., ed. Migne). 
(i) Zfo;. i, p. 1432. 

*O re Xetos Trtoros Xt^o? vaou 0eou virdpx 
et? OLKoSofJLYiv Oeou Trarpd?, aVa&lt;ey3o/x&gt;os et? ra vt//^ ota 7779 
fjL-r)Xavrjs Irycrou Xptcrrou, o eVrt crrav/ad?, cr^otvw ^a&gt;/Avos 
r&&amp;gt; TTj/ev/xart ?} Se Trto-rt? dvOpanrov dya&gt;yev? ICTTLV, tj oe 
ayaTTry dSos &gt;; dva^epovcra els TOV )edt . Kai o rotouros 
yti/erat 0eo&lt;f&gt;6pos, rjyovv ^ptcrro^d/oo?, /cat vaos eou /cat 
, /cal rd irdvra. Ke/cocr/A^/xeVo? eV rat? eVroXat? 
X/)tcrrou /cat dpx 7 } ^w^s ^ 8td Trtcrrew? Kat 
ts [1. ^s] ovSet TT/Do/ce/c/otrat (Ephes. 9, 14, ^f^7/. i). 



(2) /., p. 1436. 

AaySd^re? ouv eou yvatcriv Sta. rrjs TTICTTCWS, JU,T} dyvoijcra)- 
rr^v So#etcrai&gt; /J/xtv ydpiv, virep ^? TretrovOev dXiy^w? o 
Std TOVTO yct/3 /cat pvpov IXaySev eVt rij? /ce^aX^s d 
tt a 77^617 r^ e/c/cX^crta d^&gt;0apcri&.v. /a^Sets ou^ aXet- 
SucrwStat aViort as row dDo^ros TOV atw^os (Ephts. 17). 



198 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

(3) Horn. 21, p. 1500. 

Meya ovv icrrw v dyvtia pevtiv ts ryv Ttju,i}i&gt; 
crap /cos TQV Kvptov ev a/cavx^crta e az&gt; yap 
. 5). 

(4) .flfrw. 22, p. 1501. 

* Afjieivov ovv O~TLV o~L&lt;i)7rdv /cat elvat, rj XaXowTas prf 
. /caXo&gt; TO StSao~/ceu&gt;, edv 6 \&y&lt;av Trouy. els ovv 6 SiSao~- 
/caXos W9 etnev, /cat eyeVero /cat a o-tya)i&gt; Se 
a^ta TOU Trar/Dos ecrrti^. o Xoyoi *Ir^o~ou Xpto~rou 

? Swarat /cat 7179 ycruxias avrov a/couetv, tt^a 19 reXetos 
St &lt;w XaXet, 7rpdo~o~rj, /cat St &lt;o^ crtya 
^ yap \av0dvei rov Kvpiov, aXXa /cat ra /cpuTrra 
s avrov eto-tz/ (Ephcs. 15). 

(5) -ff&w. 29, p. 1532. 

KaXoi ov^ O~TLV aVo$O~$at 
Tra\aLa)0cio-av /cat eVo^vo~ao*av /c.T.X. (Magn* 10). 

(6) ZT^. 57, p. 1605. 

Ovoets yap TTLO~TLV eTrayyeXXo yaet os a/AapraVet, oiJSe dr/d 
e^o)v /Ltto-et. &lt;j&gt;avepov yap TO o evo pov diro TOV /capTrov ytVeTat. 
o ovv eVayyeXXo/xevos XptcrToi5 elvat, St wv Trpacrcret, 0^)^17- 
o-eTat (Ephes. 14). 

(7) J7&lt;?w. 80, p. 1673. 

EvaTrdoe/cTov ew TT^S epwo-ecus TI^? e/c/cX^o-ta? c^po^Tt^et^, 
175 ovoev afjieivov iv dvOptoirois* /cat TO TrdvTas /3ao~Taetz&gt;, w? 
/cat i^jaas o Kvptos, /cat irdvTMV dve\ecrOaL eV dydwr). /cat ov 
? eu Xoy&&amp;gt; orj0cv Trpo^acret, tva yot&gt;} etira) /cat Xtav aXoyw, 
eavTov? TOV crcJ/xaTog T^S e/c/cX^o-tas /cat tStaeiv, 
e?rt TO avTO /xta Trpoo-ev^, /u,ta SeTycrts, et9 vov?, /&gt;tta 
ayaTTTy, eV T^ X 01 / 3 ? T ^ djJLca^a), o eo~Ttv iTyo-ov? 
XptcrTO?, ov ovSei/ OvfjLTySeo-Tepov. Trdvres ovv d^etXo/aev 
o-vvrpextiv ws e?rt ev ^vcrtao-TTyptov, /xta i//v^ /cav eV TroXXots 
rots peXeo-LV, pia yvut^ hi OeXijfian, cus ev craJ/xa vndp^ov- 
TCS (Polyc. i, Magn. 7). 



aXX 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 199 

(8) Horn. 85, p. 1693. 

Su ovv evSvcran. TTJV TTLCTTLV r^v icrxypdv. crrw/xev ovv 
eSpatot, ok d/c/xeof, TUTrro/xevot. /u,eydXou d0Xr)TOv CCTTLV 8e- 
pecrOai /cat VLKO.V. ttdXtcrTa Se cow eveKev Trdvra virofjieva)- 
/x&gt;, u&gt;a /cat auTO? ^/xd? uTTOjaaV^. cjTrouSatot ye^aj^ae^a, rov? 
/cara/xa#a&gt;/tej&gt;, ro^ VTTC/) ^povov Trpoa-BoKovvres, TOV 
^ rov doparov, St T^ua? Se oparov, rov ail/i^Xa^ror, 
St* T^/aa? 8e t/iTyXac^ry^eWa, TOZ^ aTraOrj, St* i^/xa? Se iradovroL, 
rov eV noLKpoOvpiq. rravra St Tj/na? uTro/xetW^ra (Polyc. 3). 

(9) Zfow. 92, p. 1713. 

To (TV^Trda")(eiv aXX^Xots /cat (ru^aXyetf crvvrpe^iv re 
/cat (TvyKOTTiav evapecrrov i&Tiv TOJ @ew. /cat yap XP a) ~ 
crrov/xev TOVTO TTpaTTtLV, cu? SovXot /cat TrdpeSpot, /cat VTT- 
T^peVat TOV 0eoi) Xoyou ti a euapeVrai/xev w &lt;TTpaTev0r)fJLv t 
dfi ov /cat ra oi//wz/ta /co/xt(ro/xe^a...aywvtcrcJ/Ae^a ow t^a 
17 TTto-rt? T^/xaJi/ /cat 17 dyd-rrr) /cat 17 VTTO/XO^ o5s Trept/cc^aXata 
/cat ws Sopu /cat TravoTrXta Ty/xtv ecrrwcrav, /xa/cpo^v/xo 

XXT^Xajz/ /cat eV Trpaor^rt Stotyo^re?, eJ? /cat o @eo? 

(Polyc. 6). 

(10) /T^;. 1 06, p. 1756. 

To cr^oXa^etv T^ aotaXetTrrw 7rpo(rev^fj dvayKcuov /cat 
^eXes 7y/xt^ v-rrdp^ei (Polyc. i). 

(n) ^?;//. in, p. 1780. 

fl^eXetas Stop#coo-ts ytveo~^a&gt; Trap* aurou, e/cSt/ceti avrou 
TOTTOV ev ndcrr) eTrtjaeXeta Trvev/xart/cTy, &lt;f)povTi,iv rrj&lt;; i 
crea&gt;? TO&gt;V /xeXw^, 175 ovSei^ dfJLeivov, TrdvTuv dve^ecrdaL eV 
TraWas ^cLcrrdt^iv, 6&gt;? /cat avrot o* Kvpto?. irpoa ev^ea doj virep 
StaXetTTTw?, atretv (rvvecriv TTvevfJiaTiKr)v ets TO Sta/cpt- 
avro^ ra a-v^epovra, ypyyopelv, pepipvcLv Trepl Trdvrtov, 
ra eXarrw/xara irdvrtov Kat rd? voVou? ^acrrd^etv, cu? reXeto? 
d0\.r)Tijs OTTOV yap TrXetajv /COTTOS, TroXv /cat TO /cepSo?. TOV? 
Tct? edi/ ^&gt;tX^, X^P 1 ^ a ^ T ^ ^ K &FTO , dXXct /xaXXo^ 
a7rei0eo~Tepov5 e^ TrpaoTrjTi VTroTacrcreiv. ov irav rpavp,a 



200 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

rfi avrf) jjLTT\acrrpa&gt; 6epaTTf.iif.rai. rov&lt;s Tra/ao^uoyxous eV 

fipoyais Set naveiv. ecrrot &lt;fcpov t/xos eV rracriv cos ot o&lt;et? Kal 

d/ce pato? W5 at rrepLcrrepaL iva ra jueV ^&gt;atvo/xei&gt;a avru&gt;v ei? 

irpocrfDTrqv /coXa/ceur;, ra Se dopara atr^ (f)avepa)6rjvaL aurar 

iVa /x^Se^o? XetV^rat aXA. eV Tra^rt ^aptcr/xart 

d /catyoo? yap aTratret avroi^, oj? KvpepvTjT-rjv Trpo? TOT)? 

/cat ret? TpLKVfjLias /cat ^dXas TO&gt;I&gt; TTvev^aTo^v 

arrival yevvaicas, /cat oS^yett rou? ^et/xa^o/xeov? et rov 

Xt/u,eW TOU ^eX^aro? rov eou (PoJyc. i, 2). 

(12) Zfow. 112, p. 1784. 

O /xo^a^o? ou/c e^et eavrou ^ov(riav...ol yap cra/o/ct/cot 
ra rrvevpariKa Trpdcrcrew ov Suz/a^rat, ouSe ot Tn etyxaTt/cot 
ra o~ayo/ct/cd. ^37} 01;^ TOI&gt; /3ov\6fJLtvov rrjv dyyeXt/c^ rav- 
TOU fjLOVTJpovs (Biov do~/c^o~at TroXtretaz , KrricracrBai 
&lt;j)pomr)O u&gt; rov o^ew? /cat TO aKepaiOV rrj&lt;; rrepi- 
^ 7&gt; ^^". 8, jP&lt;?/x&lt;T. 2). 

(13) ^?. 1 1 6, p. 1793. 

O ovrws i^aOrjrrj^ #eXet dSt/ceio-^at /cat /XT} dSt/cet^, /cat 
Sid TaTretvcJcrecu? viKrjcraL TOVS dSi/cowTa9 avTo^, /cat Trpos 
Ta? opyas avrcov rrpavs elvai, rrpos TO /xeyaXopp^/aov avroiv 
raireivofyptov, Trpos TO aypiov ^ /xepo?, Kal /XT^ ottotoi&gt;o~$at 
avTot? eV /x^Sevt, dXXd T^ eVtet/ceta, ws /XI/X^TT}? TOU Kvptov, 
/xdXXov d8t/o7^i/at ^Trep aSt/c^fxat Twa (Ephes. 10). 

(14) Zftw/. 124, p. 1820. 

*O 6eo&lt;f)6po&lt;s lyi/ctTto? eVto-TeXXet \eya)V Tto enicKonco 
, TNA KAI o Oeoc YM^N. ANTiVYX ON ^rw TCO YTTOTAC- 
enicKonco npecBYiepoic re &lt;\i AIAKONOIC Mer AYTCJON 
MOI reNoiro TO Mepoc exeiN IN Oear /cat av0i&lt;s M^pTYC MOI, 

6N O) AeACMAI, OTI And CApKOC ANSpOOTT/N HC OYK efNOON, TO 

Ae nNeYMA eKHpYcceN, AeroN T&lt;\Ae - Xcopic TOY enicKonoY 
MHAeN noie?T. XP 7 ) ^ di^eu TOU eVtcr/coTrou /x^Se^ rrpdcrcreiv 
ijfjias OTTOV yap av (fravfj eVto-KOTro?, e/cet TO TrXrjOos TJTW, 
cJo~7Tp, oirovrrep av 6vojJLacr0f) Xpto~Tos I^crou?, e/cet 17 KaOo- 
r) e /c/cXr^crta eVtcruvdyeTat. . . . ou/c e^oi out e crru&gt; ^ft)/3ts TOU 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 2OI 

^TTLCTKOTTOV OVT (3a7TTL^eLV OVT ayoVrp TTOLf.lv, ttXX O O.V 

e/cetvo? So/ctjuao~77, TOVTO /cat r&&amp;gt; ea&gt; evapecrrov. o TOI&gt; 

CTTLCTKOTTOV TLJJLO)l&gt; VTTO TOV OU Tt/XaYai O \ddpa eTTtCTKOTTOU Tt 

7rpda-(T(oi&gt; TOJ Sta/3oXaj Xarpevet. aVay/catoi&gt; Se ea"riv VTroracr- 
crecrdaiL /cat ra&gt; TryoecrySfrepta), ws aTrocrroXot? Irycrou Xptcrrou, 
r^5 eXvrtSo? T^an , Kara Trct^ra rpoirov ira(Tiv apeV/cetv. ou 
yap /3/3OJ/xarcoz/ /cat iro^dra^v etcrt^ Sta/covot aXXa e/c/cX^crta? 
Oeou vTrvjptTCLL. Seov ovv ICTTIV avrov? &lt;f&gt;v\a.a-(rea-0ai ra 
. d/xota&gt;5 Travres evTpeTrecrOoicra.v TOU? 
Xptcrro^, Kat rov eVtcr/coTro^ w? ro^ 
pa, TOVS Se Trpecr/^urepov? cu? crvveBpiov @eou /cat o5s 
aTrocrroXojv. X^P^ TOVTtav e/c/cXr^crta ov /caXet- 
rat (Polyc. 6, Philad. 7, Smyrn. 8, 9, 7&gt; dr//. 2, 3). 

Some of the passages which are here given have been overlooked by previous 
editors. As the references to Ignatius in this writer (with the exception of two in the 
last extract) are all indirect, they are not printed here as quotations. 

45- 

CHRONICON PASCHALE [c. A.D. 630]. 
(i) p. 416 (ed. Bonn.). 

"Ort Se rpets eVtaurou? KTjpv^as TO evayye Xtoi o Kvpto? 
eVt TW e/couo-tov /cat a&gt;o7roioV 7)X^e aravpov, StSacr/cet /cat 

o 0eo&lt;j)6po&lt;; Kat /uapru?, o iwa^^ou TOV 
p.a6r)Tr)&lt;; yeyovcJ?, TT^S Se &gt; *AvTto^eta a 

eVtV/coTTo? VTTO TWI ciTrocrToXajt /caTacrTa^et?. 
&gt;7 ?rpos TpaXXtavou? roivvv eTTtaToX^ yeypafav eVt Xe 



TOI NYN tpeNNHce M^pU TO CWMA OGON 

6NOIKON, KA I AAH900C efeNNHGH 6 AOfOC 6K THC TT&lt;\p6NOY 

MAplAC, COJMA OMOIOnAGeC HM?N H M (|) I ECMCN OC AAHGCOC re 

6N MHTpA 6 TTANTAC ANGpCOnOyC 6N MHTpA 

KA l InOIHCCN CAYTtp CCX)MA 6K TOON THC HApOeNOY CnepMATCON, 

nAHN OCON OMIAI AC ANApoc ANCY AAHGooc eKYo4&gt;opH6H, ooc 
KA I HMeTc, xpo NooN nepioAoic, KAI AAH6a&gt;c eTex^H, J)C KAI 

HM?C AAH9a)C erAAAKTOTpO^HSH KAI TpO(|)HC KOINHC KA^I 



202 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



TTOTOY MerecxeN, o&gt;c KAI HMGC KAI rpec ACKAAAC 
noAireycAMeNOc eBATTTicGH Y TTO ((OANNOY AAHGOJC KAI OY 
AoKHcei* KAI rpeic eNiAYTOyc KHPY SAC TO eY^rreAiON, KA I 
TTOIHCAC cHMe?A KAI TepATA, Y TTO TOON yeYAoVoYAAiooN KA I 

TTlAATOY HrGMONOC 6 KplTHC eKpiGH, MACTir&lt;i)6H, 

ern KoppHc eppAni cGH, GNcnTYcGH, AKANGINON 
KA I nopc})YpOYN IMATION e0dpecN, KATeKpi 0H, 

AAHGCOC, of AOKHC6I, OY (J)ANTACl A, OYK AHATH. 
AAHGoic, KAI TA({)H KAI HfepGH 6K TO)N NGKpOON (Ps-Trdll. lo). 

avepajs 6 TOIOVTO? /cat r^XiKovro? 7175 e/cicX^crta? 
Xos rpet? eviaurovs Kr)pva.L TO euayyeXtoi TOV craiTrjpa 
Xeyet. 

(ii) p. 471. The passage is quoted, above, p. 65 sq. 

46. 

THEODORUS THE PRESBYTER [c. A.D. 650?]. 
De Aiithentidtate Libri Dionysii, Photii Bibliothcca i. 

fjLfJii&gt;7)Tai rrj? TOV 0eo&lt;j)6pov lyvaTiov eTTtcrroX^? y 
o p.v yap Atovvcrto? rot? TOJV aTrocrroXajv er/y/c/xacre 
, ly^arto? 8e eVt Tpatavov TOV Sta papTvpiov ^0\r)(rei&gt; 
dycova, os /cat TT^O ftpa^v r^s reXeur^? TavTrjv eVtcrroX-^v, 175 



47- 

MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR [t A.D. 662]. 
(i) SchoL in Dionys. de Div. Norn, iv. 12 (Op. i. p. 613, Corder.). 

*O GEIOS irNATios- /cat e/c TOVTOV rtve? otovrat Sta/3aXXetv 
TO irapov crvvTayfjia, cJ? /XT) 6V TOU Oetov Atovvcrtov, 
ri lyvaTLOV \eyovo~t, jj,Tayeveo~Tpov avTOV 
oe owaTat Tt9 TUV fieTayevo~Tp(ov /xe/xvT^cr^at , 
Se Kat TOVTO So/covv auTots o yay3 dyto? IlaCXos o 
Atowcrtov fjLTayeveo~Tpo&lt;; yv TW ^pova) TOV aytov Heryoov, 
/xe^ 6V d lyvctTto? cTrtcr/coTros ytveTat A^Tto^eta?, /xeTaTe^eWo? 
HeTpov iv PaifJir) eTre^cre Se o dytos ITauXo? ^povov TTO\VV, 
[6] ^&gt;a&gt;Ttcra5 Atovv&lt;rtov, /cat Atovwcrtos /XCT avTov eEflvev. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 203 

o Se euayyeXtcm}? icodV^? eirl Ao/xeTtavou e^b/ot^erat 19 
ITar/xo^ w aVTtypa&lt;/&gt;et Ato*&gt;vcrto9 lyvdYtos Se 77/30 Ao/xe- 
TLCLVOV fjiaprvpel- cJcrre TrpoyeveorTepos Atovucrtov. e/uoc 
epooc frfrqreov 7ra&gt;? evrl Oz^crt/xou rov /xeTa Tt/xo #eoz&gt; 
Ttov StaXeyo/xeVov /cat ypa^ovro? TO EMOC epcac e 
Atoi ucrto? vu*&gt; Tt/xo^ew ypdfav TOVTOV jLte/xv^Tat, eu? 



/cat TO 9eo4)6poc TroXXa/ct? avTa&gt; Xeyo/xei&gt;6V Te /cat ypa(f)6fjie- 

VQV. TK(J,T]pLOV 8e TO /Xl) 7T/3OCT/CtCr^at, Tpd(j)L TtCTt, 

Tt Pw/xatots- dXX ctTrXaj?, Fpct^et Se /cat d #eios lyi/ctTto?. 

(ii) Z&lt;? Communes, Op. n. pp. 534, 638, ed. Combefis. 

Sermo 2. lyvan ou. 

TeAeioi oNrec, TeAeiA &lt;J&gt;pONe?Te eeAoyci r^p YM!N ey 
reiN Oedc ETOIMOC eic TO nApe)(iN (Smyrn. n). 

Scrmo 43. Tov ayi ov lyvariov. 

KAN eppooMGNOC d&gt; TA KATA OGON, rrAeoN ME Ae? (J)oBeTc0Ai 
KA I npocexeiN TO?C eiKH (^YCIOYCI Me* enAiNOYNTec 
(Ps-Trall. 4). 



48. 

ANASTASIUS OF SINAI [c. A.D. 680]. 
Hodegus 2 (Patrol. Grace. LXXXIX. p. 196, ed. Migne). 

Tov aytov ly^aTtou eVto-/coVov A^Tto^eta?. EACATC 
MIMHTHN reNecGAi TOY TTA GoYC TOY OeoY way (Rom. 6). 
On this writer see Fabric. Bibl. Craec. x. p. 571, ed Harles. 

49. 

ANDREAS OF CRETE [c. A.D. 680]. 

Horn, ii in Nativitatem B. Virginis (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 87). 
fl? ^crt TTOU ayto? oivtjp, lymTtos ovopa. avra&gt; KA I 

EAA0e TON ApXONTA TOY AioONOC TOYTOY H nAp9Nl A MAp/AC, KA | 

6 TOKOC AY THC, OMOI COC KA I o GANATOC TOY XpicTOY, Tpi 

0piKTA, ATINA EN HCYX |A OeoY enpAxGH (Ephes. 19). 



C4 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS 

:- 

JOBX OF DAMASCUS [before AOX 754]. 
Sftrm PermlLd* (Of. n. p. 274 sq., ed Lequien). 

(A) ParaOdA Vatican 
. h. p. 314, 

OC AOYCIN TMIN ef npATTctN Ococ CTOIMOC etc TO TtApe- 
n). 



. xviiL p. 354. 

ACN CCTIN AUCINON eipHNHC, CN H nic noAeuoc KATAJ- 
(F/trr 13). 

ED. PL 358. 

To* KAIC^PI fnoTAfHTC, CN olc AKI NAYNOC H f 



t xrn. p. 5149(1. 
TTANTCC TU&gt; enicKonto AKoAorBeiTe, CI&gt;C*|HCOYC Xpicroc T&lt;J&gt; 

HATpl* KAI T&lt;f npecBfTCpitO &lt;i&gt;C TOIC AHOCTOAOIC* TOYC AC 

AIAKONOYC CNTpenecOc. o&gt;c 6cof CNTOAHN AIAKOMOYNTAC. 
MHACIC X M P* IC cniCKonoY TI npACCc rco TWM ANHKONTO&gt;N cic THN 

6KKAHCIAN. CKCINH BeBAIA cfx^plCTIA HrIC8u&gt;, H YHO TUN 

cniCKoncoN OYCA, OTTOY AM &lt;J&gt;AKH 6 cnicxonoc, exet TO nAAOoc 

HTO&gt;, COCTTCp, OnOY AN 6 XplCTOC, 6KCI H KAOOAlKtf [H] CKKAHCIA. 

OYK el^ii CCTI X 01 ? 10 T T cnicicdnoY OYTC SAHTIZCIN OYTC AfAnHN 

nOICIN* AAA O AN CKCINOC AOKIUACH, TOYTO TO) 6eo&gt; CYApCCTON. 

6 TIMO&gt;N cnicKonoN fno Oeof TCTIUHTAI* 6 AAOpA enicicdnoY TI 

npACCCON Tu&gt; AlA36Ao&gt; AATpCYCI (5JMjnL 8, 9). 

HANTAC BACTAZC. u&gt;c KAI ce 6 Kfpioc* HANTCDN 

CN A-AnH npOCCYJA C CJOAAZC AAlAACIHTOIC* AITOY 

CIN IIACIONA HC CXCIG* rpHfOpCI, AKOIUHTON OUMA KCKTHMC- 

NOC (Pfljf. I&gt; 

TTANTCON TAC NOCOYC BACTAZC, U&gt;C TcACIOC 6 AOAHTHC. OTTOY 

nAcicoN Konoc, noAf xcpAoc. KAAofc MABHTAC CAN &lt;{&gt;IAHC, 

X^pIC COI OYK CCTAI* MAAAON TOTC AHClOCCTCpOYC CN npAOTHTI 
fnOTACCC, Of HAN TpAY**A TH AYTH CUHAACTpO) OCpAnCYCTAI* 
TOYC HApOlYCMOYC CuSpOXAIC TfAYC. AlA TOyTO CApKIKOC C? 
KAI HNCYUATIKOC, fNA TA ^AINOMCNA COI CIC npOCtOHOW KOAA- 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 205 



K6THC, TA A AOpATA Al TCI IMA COI &lt;J&gt;ANp&lt;i&gt;6H, *NA MHACNOC 

AGI TTH (/Wjrc. i, 2). 



e. xxviii. p. 522. 

KAN eppcoucNOC o&gt; KATA TON OCO N, nAcToN MC Ac? &lt;t&gt;o3eTc0Ai, 
KA I Trpoce xciN TO?C CIKH (J)yca&gt;ciN ue CTTAINOT NTCC pip uc MAC- 
TirofciN (Ps-TralL 4). 

x. x. p. 642. 

TTApGcNiAC ZYFON MHACN I eniri ecr enic&lt;J)AAC fAprd KTHMA 
KA I AYC^T AAKTON, OTAN KAT ANAPKHN PINHTAL 

ToTc NCOIC eni rpcne rAM?N, npiN AiA&lt;t&gt;6ApcociN cic erepAC. 

v. xiii p. 650. 

XpHZCO npAOTHTOC, N (O KATAAyTAI O Ap](&lt;ON TOT AIWNOC 

TOTTOY AiABoAoc (Ps-TralL 4). 
&lt;r. xL p. 687. 

01 CAPKIKOI TA HNCYUATIKA HpACCIN OY AfMAN TAI, OYT Ol 
nNCYUATIKoi TA CA3KIKA (Ej&gt;/US, 8). 

VL ix. p. 702. 

MHAeic Y**WN KATA TOY TTAHCl ON %tTU&gt; Tl* UH A&lt;t&gt;OpMAC 
AIAOT6 ToTc 66NCCIN, TNA MH Al OAlfOYC A&lt;t&gt;pONAC TO 6N66ON 

nAfieoc 3AAC0HMHTAI (TraU. 8). 
X- iv. p. 724. 

XplCTIANOC 6AYTOY ClOYCIAtl OYK l%^ AAAA TO 6e&lt; 

zci (Pofyc. 7). 

(B) Para&la Rup^ucaUima, 
a. ii. p. 747. Tov oyuw *Iyrartbr. 

TeAeioi ONTC. TeAeiA+pON?T GCAOYCI fAp MM?N 
TIN 6c6c ITOIMOC ic TO nApe xeiN (Smym. II)L 

a. xviii. p. 750. Tov ay^ ^y&gt;^r^ T^ Tpos *E&lt;^&gt;rious c 

HANTA, ON AN TTCMTTH 6 oiKOAecnoTHC elc JAIAN OIKONOMIAN. 
OYT&lt;OC HMAC Ac? YHOAeiAcOAi, a&gt;c AY TON TON neuyANTA (Epkes. 6). 

a. Ixxvl p. 772. *Ex DTS rpos *^ru&gt;vs linXffc TOO crytbv lyraruw 



TOYC MeprcMofc &lt;t&gt;YTTe, a)C APXHN KAKOON. eicoOACi TINCC 
AoAco nosHpo) TO ONOMA X ptcTOY nepi&lt;)&gt;epciN. AAAA TIN A 



206 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



CONTGC ANAllA OeOY* ofc &? YM&C tOC GHp/A eKKAlNGIN 

fAp KYNGC AYCCCONTGC AAGpoAHKTAr OY C Ae? Y MAC (f&gt;YA&lt;\ccec6A 
ONTAC AYcGepArreYTOYc (Stnyrn. 8, Ephes. 7). 

MnAeiC TTAANACGtO. CAN MH TIC H6NTOC TOY 6 YC I ACTH pl o Y, 

YCTepe?TAi TOY APTOY TOY OeoY- ei r^p CNOC KA I AeYTepoY 
npoceYX" TOCAY THN !CXYN exei, nocw MAAAON H TG TOY eni- 
cKonoY KAI HACHC THC KKAHCI AC 6 OYN MH epxoMGNOC en i TO 
AYTO, OYTOC HAH Y TiepH^ANe? KAI IAYTON AiAKpiNer rerpAtr- 
TAI Ae c YnepH0ANOic d Oedc ANTITACCGTAI (Ephes. 5). 

MH nAANAc9e, AAeA(})oi MOY oiKO^edpoi BAciAe/AN OeoY OY 

KAHpONOMHCOYCIN. 1 O^N 01 KATA CApKA TAYTA HACXONT6C 
ATieONHCKON, nOCOi MAAAON CAN niCTIN N KAKO Al AAC K AA I A 

4)6ep?, YTtep HC IHCOYC XpicToc ecTAYpwQH. OTI OYTOC PYTTA- 
poc reNOMCNOC eic TO nfp TO AcBecTON x^RHC 61 * OMOIOOC KA I 
6 AKOY^N AYTOY (Ephes. 16). 

E/c T^S Trpos TpaXXaets cTrtoroAiys. 

TTApAKAAai YMAC, OYK er&lt;i&gt; AAA H X^P IC T Y Kypioy HMCON 

MHCOY XplCTOY, MONH TH XR CTIANIKH TpO(})H XpHCQAI* AAAO- 

Tpi AC Ae BOTANHC AnexecGAi, HTIC ecTiN Afpecic KAI nApeiwnAe- 
KOYCIN |HCOYN XpicTON KATAlioniCTeYOMeNOi, wcnep GANACI- 

MON (})ApMAKON AlAONTGC MT OINOMeAlTOC, 6nep 6 AfNOCON 

HAecoc AAMBANCI N H AONH KAKH TO Ano6ANe?N* 
TOYC TOIOY TOYC (Trail. 6, 7). 



rrys 

e TAG KAKAC HApACJ&gt;YAAAC TAC feNNCOCAC KApTTON 
9ANATH(t)dpON, OY GAN feYCHTAl TIC, TTApAYT/KA 

OYTOI r*p OYK eici (^YTGI A TOY HNGYMATOC (Trail, n). 
Ex Tijs irpos $tXa8eX^)tous cTTioroX^s. 
AnexecOe TOON KAKWN BOTANCON, CON XpicToc IncoYC 

AlA TO MH 6INAI AYTOYC (})YTei AN TOY TTATpOC. MH nAANACGe, 

AAeA(J)Oi MOY* eT TIC CXI ZONTI AKoAoY6eI, BACiAeiAN 0eof OY 
KAnpONOMeT (Philad. 3). 

/3. i. p. 775. Tou dyiou lyvartou IK T^S Trpos E^ca-iovs eTTioroX^?. 

OYAeN 6CTIN AM6INON eipHNHC, 6N H HAC noAGMOC KATAp- 

re?TAi (Ephes. 13). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 207 

y. xvii. p. 777- Tou dyi ov "lyvariov rov eo&lt;opov. 

ANApAC TOYC OMOZYfOYC e?NAI NOMICT60N TA?C 



l lM, olc KAI HNOiOHCAN KATA fNCOMHN GO? (Atltioch. 9). 
8. xii. p. 778. Tov ayiou lyvariou TOV Qeo&lt;f&gt;opov IK rrjs Trpos E&lt; 



KAIpOl, AAeA({&gt;Ol AOITTON AICXYNQ^WGN. (|)OBH0CO- 
MN THN MAKpOSYMl AN TOY 0OY, MH GIC Kpi MA HM?N TeNHTAI 
H fAp TH % N MtAAOYCAN 6pfHN 4)OBH6Cx)M6N, H THN eNECTOOCAN 
)(AplN AfAnHCCOMeN 6N TO) NYN B Up MONON 6N Xp I CTO) I H CO Y 

eirpeedJMeN (Ephes. n). 

8. xxxi. p. 778. lyvartou TOU Qeo&lt;f&gt;6pov Trpos E^ccrtovs. 
"OTAN TTYKNOJC en i TO AYTO riNecOe, KA0AipoYNTAi AYNAMGIC 
TOY ^ATANA, AYSTAI oAeGpoc AYTOY N TH OMONOIA YMOON THC 
nicTeoac (Ephcs. 13). 

8. XXXIV. p. 778. Tou aytou lyvartou ex T^S vrpos IIoAvKapTrov 7rioroA^5. 
Oi AOYAOI MH epATCOCAN Ano 1 KOINOY eAeY6epOYc9Ai, AAA eic 
AO SAN TOY OeoY TO nAeToN AoYAeYeTcocAN, FNA KpeiTTONOC 
eAeYQepiAC fno Oeof TYX^CIN (Polyc. 4). 

e. xlviii. p. 779. ToiJ ayi ou lyvartou TOU eo^o pou K 717? Trpos 2/Aup- 

VCttOVS CTTlCTToA^S. 

TTANTEC TO) eniCKonco AKoAoY9e?Te, we MHCOYC XpicToc Tto 
nATpi , KA I TU&gt; npecBYTepi co aic TO?C AnocTo Aoic TOYC Ae AIAKO- 
NOYC eNTpenecGe, &lt;x&gt;c Oeof GNTOAHN. MHAeic X^P c eniCKonoY 
TI npACceToo TOON ANHKONTOON CN eKKAnciA. BeBAiA eYX A P ICT|A 
HreicGco H YTTO TOY enicKdnoY OYCA, H &lt;L CAN AYTOC eniTpeyH. 
OTTOY AN &lt;{)ANH 6 eniCKonoc, eKe? TO nAfiGoc, cocnep onoY CAN 

H InCOYC XplCTOC, 6K6? H KA6oAlKH 6KKAHCIA. OYK e20N ^CTI 

Xooplc InicKonoY OYTG BAHTIZCIN OY"T AfAnAC noie?N, AAA to 

CAN Ke?NOC AOKIMACH, TOYTO KA*! TO) IHCOY XplCTO) SY^peCTON, 

TNA Ac4&gt;AAc H KA I BeBAiON HAN 6 npAcceTAi. efAoroN ICTI 

AOinON ANANHYAI HMAC, O3C KAIpON fcXOMCN GIC 0ON MCTANOe?N. 

KAAcoc exei OeoN KA I eni cKonoN eiAeNAi. 6 TIMWN eni cKonoN 
fno OeoY TeTiMHTAi, 6 AA9pA InicKonoY TI npACcaiN Tto AiABd- 
Acp AATpefei (Smyrn. 8, 9). 



K rrys Trpos 
Taj eniCKonqj npocexeTe, TNA KA I YM?N &lt;&gt; Oedc. epw ANTI - 



208 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

YYX ON TO&gt;N YTTOTAccoMeNOON e TT i CKOTTW, npec B YTep t o), AIAKO NOIC 
Mef AYTOON MOI TO Mepoc reNOiro EN 0eo&gt; (Polyc. 6). 

TIpos E&lt;ecriovs. 

ZTTOYAACOOM6N MH AN TITACC eC 9 AI TO) 6 TT I C KOIKC, "NA COM6N 

Oeto YTTOTACCOM6NOI. KAI ocoN BAenei TIC cirwNTA eni cKonoN, 
nAeoN AYTON (})oBeic9co* TTANTA r&lt;*p ON neMnei 6 oiKo^ecnoTHC 
eic IAI AN OIKONOMIAN, oftcoc Ae? YMAC Ae)(ec6Ai ; we AYTON TON 
newnoNTA. TON TOYN enicKonoN u&gt;c AYTON TON KVpiON Ae? 
npocBAenem (Ephes. 5, 6). 

ToC avrou Trpos Mayr&gt;7&lt;nous. 

Eic TIMHN OeoY TOY 6eAHCANTOc HMAC npenoN ecr iN YTT^- 

KOY6IN TO) eTTICKOnOi KATA MHA6MIAN YHOKplCIN 6nl OYX TON 

enicKonoN TOYTON TON BAenoMeNON nAANA TIC, &lt;\AAA TON 

AOpATON nApAAOflZeTAI 0ON. TO) Ae TOIOYTCp OY npOC CApKA 

6 Aoroc AAAA npoc OCON TON TA KpV^iA eiAoTA. npenoN OYN 

CTI, MH MONON KAAe?C0AI )(p ICTI A N OYC ; AAAA KAI 6?NAI COCHep 

KAI TiNec eni cKonoN MCN KAAOYCI, X^P 10 ^ AYTOY HANTA np&lt;\c- 

COYCIN. 01 TOIOYTOI OYK efcYNeiAHTOl MOI 0Al NONTAI, AlA TO 

MH BeBAi coc KAT eNTOAHN c YN A9poi zec6 Ai (Magtt. 3, 4). 



MHAEN tcTO) CN Y M?N 6 AYNH CCTAI Y^AC Mepi cAi, AAA 
Nca9HTe TO) enicKonw KA % I TO?C npoKAfiHMeNOic eic TOTTON KAI 
AIAAXHN A4&gt;9ApciAc. cocnep OYN 6 KVpioc HMOON ANCY TOY 
nATpdc OYACN enoi nceN, OYTC Ai IAYTOY OYT AIA TO&gt;N AnocTO- 
ACON, OYTOOC MHAe YMelc ANCY TOY enicKonoY MHAeN npACceTe, 
MHAe neipACHTe efAoroN TI 0Ai Nec9Ai IAI A YM?N (Magn. 6, 7). 

Tov aurov. 

"OTAN TO&gt; e nicKonco YTTOTACcnc9e, (})Ai Nec9e MOI of KATA 

AN9pCOTTON ZCaNTCC AAAA KATA JHCOYN XplCTON TON Al HMAC 

ATT09ANONTA (Trail 2). 

Tov aurov. 

TeKNA (J)O)T6c AAH9ei Ac, 4&gt;eYreTe TON MepicMON KAI TAG 
KAKoAiAACKAAiAC. onoY Ae 6 noiMHN ecTi, eKe? ooc npdBATA 
AKoAoY9e?Te (Philad. 2). 

ToC aurov. 

MOY N tp AeACMAI, OTI AHO CApKOC ANGpCOniNHC OyK 

TO Ae nN6YMA eKnpYcce TAAe Xcopic erricKonoY MHAeN 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 209 



noieTre THN CA PKA Y MWN o&gt;c NAON 0eoYTHpe?re THN GNWCIN 
AfATTATe royc MepicMofc &lt;J&gt;eYreTe MIMHTAI n NecGe Incof 

XplCTOf, OOC AYTOC TOf TTATpOC AYTOf (Phildd. 7). 

TT. xxv. p. 7^5 T" ayiou icpo/xaprupos lyvariov eoc^opov CK r&gt;/9 

Trpos Exteriors avTou eTrtcrroX^s. 
OYAEN AANGANPI YMAC, CAN eic XpiciON MHCOYN IXHTG THN 

niCTIN KAI THN AfAnHN, HTIC 6CTIN Ap)(H ZCOHC KA) TeAOC ApXH 
M6N H TTl cTIC, TeAOC Ae H AfAnH TA Ae AYO N GNOTHTI TINOMGNA 

Oedc ecTi TA Ae AAAA HANTA eic KAAOKATAGI AN AKoAoYQ^ eiciN. 
ni cTiN enArreAAoMGNOc lyeiN AMAPTANGI* OYAG IC ATA- 

KeKTHM6NOC Mice?. (J&gt;ANepON TO AeNApON And TOY KAp- 

AYTOY oficoc oi enArreAAoMeNOi XpicTOY ?NAI, Ai O&gt;N 
o^encoNTAi. OY T^p NYN enAfreA/AC TO eproN, 
AAAA AYNAMEI niCTecoc IAN TIC GYpeOH eic TeAoc (Ephes. 14). 

Tou avrov. 
H niCTIC HMOON ANAfOOreYC HMO)N, H A AfAHH OAOC H ANCO 

({)epOYCA npdc OeoN (Ephes. 9). 

EK rys Trpos Mayvrycri ovs rov avrov eTTtCTToA^s. 
MAecOMGN KATA XP CTI AN I CMO N ZHN OCTIC fAp AAACp ONO- 

MATI KAAe?TAi nAe?ON TOY TOY, OYK GCTI TOY OeoY (Magn. 10). 
v. xvii. p. 788. Toi; aytou lyvartou e/c -7-775 irpos IIoAu/capTrov tTri- 



ZTHKG (Lc AKMCON TYHTOMeNOc MepAAoY AGAHTOY 
AepecGAi KAI NIKAN MAAICTA At CNEKGN Oeof HANTA HMAC 
YnoMeNeiN Ae?, FNA KAI AYTOC HMAC YTTOMC/NH (Polyc. 3). 

*E/&lt; Trjs aur^s. 

MAKpOQYMe?T M6T AAAhiAcON N npAYTHTI, d)C 6 0OC MeG* 

HMOON AIA nANTdc (Polyc. 6). 

^. xxi. p. 789. Tou aytou lyvariou CK T^S Trpo? E^ecrtovs eTTiCTToA^s. 

HpenoN CCT I MH MONON AKOY^IN xP ICTIAN Vc, AAAA KAI e?- 
NAI (Magn. 4). 

&lt;}&gt;. xix (given by Cotelier Pair. Apost. n. p. 18, ed. Leclerc, 1724). 

TTANTec OMoMeeiAN OeoY AABoNTec AAAnAOYC eNTpenecGe, 
KA I MHAeic KATA CA PKA BAeneTco TON TTAHCI ON AAA en XpicTco 
AAAH AOYC AIA HANTOC ATAHATC (Magn. 6). 

IGN. I. 14 



210 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

The chronology of the life of S. John Damascene is very uncertain. The two 
definite facts are that he was living A.D. 730 and that he died before A.D. 754 (see 
Langen Johannes v. Damaskus p. 21). 

The Parallela Sacra, which bear his name, appear in forms more or less different 
in different MSS. Two very distinct forms are published by Lequien, the one from 
a Vatican, the other from a Rochefoucauld MS. The former might well have 
been compiled by John of Damascus, though some critics assign it to a later date. The 
latter appears to have been the work of a person who lived a century earlier than S. 
John Damascene. This Rochefoucauld collection seems to have been made after the 
capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes (A.D. 614) but during the reign of Heraclius (+A.D. 
641) : see Lequien Joann. Damasc. Op. II. p. 274 sq. (comp. I. p. xi), Langen 1. c. 
p. 204 sq. An investigation of the work of Leontius and John (Sacr. Rer. Lit&gt;r.) t from 
which Mai (Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vn) has published extracts, might perhaps throw 
some light on these collections ascribed to John of Damascus. 

The above extracts are taken from Lequien, with the exception of the last, which 
is given by Cotelier from Claromontanus, a MS which seems closely to resemble the 
Rupefucaldinus. One or two extracts given by Lequien have been overlooked by 
previous editors of Ignatius. 

In the Vatican extracts use is made of the Long Recension (e.g. Ps-Trall. 4), as 
well as of the Middle Form (the genuine Ignatius). In the Kochefoucaulde-x.irz.cis on 
the other hand, though the collector quotes the spurious Epistle to the Antiochenes, 
there is no distinct example of the use of the interpolated epistles. In some cases 
indeed his quotations coincide with the text of the Long Recension (e.g. Ephcs. 1 1 
iv T$ vvv )3/v, see II. p. 61 ; Polyc. 6 irpefffivTepiqi) ; but these are questions of reading, 
not of recension. The collector of these Rochefoucauld extracts therefore would 
appear to have used a MS, in "which the spurious epistles are attached to the seven 
genuine letters of Ignatius in their uninterpolated form. The extracts, TT. x. p. 642, 
do not belong to any Ignatian epistle, and the ascription therefore is an error. 
They are however so quoted again by Antonius Melissa. 



Si- 
THEODORE OF STUDIUM [A.D. 759 826]. 

(1) Catechesis 3. 

C fcMoc epooc ecTAYpooTAi Xpioros (Rom. 7). 

Quoted by Cotelier on Rom. 6, and by Grabe in Spicil. n. p. 229 : by the latter 
from the Oxford MS, Barocc. 130. 

(2) Catechesis 127. 

e KGU o 0O(f&gt;6pos lyvartos, raSe Xeyaw TTpo- 
YMAC And TOON 6HpiooN TOON ANepoonoMdpthooN atyae- 
ofc of MONON oy AeT YMAC TTApAAexecGAi, AAA ei 
TON, MHAe CYNANTAN (Smyrn. 4). 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 211 

Quoted in the Greek by Cotelier Pair. Apost. II. p. 4. The corresponding pas 
sage in the Latin translation will be found in Migne s edition, Patrol. Grace, xcix. 
p. 677. 

(3) Epist. ii. 155, ad Theophilum (p. 1485, ed. Migne). 

Aeyet roivvv /cat d 0eo&lt;f&gt;6po&lt;; lyvdYtos Toyc MICOYNTAC 
OYN TON QeoN MIC?N XP", KAI ^ ni T0 ^ c exQpoTc AYTOY eKierH- 

K6NAI, OY MHN A AIO3K6IN HMAC &lt;\YTOYC H TYTTT6IN, KAGATiep 
TA 8NH TA MH 6IAOTA TON 060N (Ps-Phildd. 3). 

(4) Iambi Ixx (p. 1797, ed. Migne). Ets TOV ayiov lyvanov TOV 



epura Xpt(rrov tv cry 

crvcrKr)i&gt;o&lt;; 
Se OepfJLols t 

crov IlavXos aXXo? Tig 



(5) Menaea Decemb. 20, pp. 138, 146. 

*H 717? o-reppas KOL dSa^avrLVOv crou */ /u X 1 7 s &gt; a 
&lt;rv yap Trpog rov oi^rtu? o~ov e/Dacrr 
^ r^v afacriv eXeye? OYK ICTIN EN EMOI nYp 4&gt;iAoY AoN, 

Ae MAAAON ZCJON KAI AAAOYN CN CMOI, eNAOStN MOI AefON, 

npoc TON TTATepA (Rom. 7). 

e/ai//u^os Kat ejaTT^ou? et/ccoi^, &gt;) er^crto? crou eTre crn; 
ri, 6eo(j)6pe lyt arte, ra? /utvcrrayajytas o"ou /cat ras 
aptcrmas crov KrjpvTTOvcra, ryv virep rrjs Trtcrre&J? f^^XP L&lt;: 
at/Ltaro? a^rt/caracrra(rtv, ri}^ /xa/captav e/ceti^^ /cat aotSt/Aoi^ 
&lt;j)a)vrjv Trjv ort C?TOC eiMi OeoY Xeyoucrat , KAI Ai OAONTOJN 
OHpicoN AAH90MAI (^w. 4). Sto MIMHTHC TOY nA90YC TOV Xpt- 
crrov (^w. 6) cru yeyo^ais 7rpe cr/3eue cra)6rjvai TO.? IJJV^CL&lt;S 



These are headed roC ZrouSiToy. I presume that Theodoras Studites is meant. 



(6) ^c/. 5^r. ^/7. &/^w. i. p. 571 sq., ed. Pitra(i876). 
Two anonymous hymns to Ignatius, which the editor (p. 445) assigns to Theodore. 
In the first are the following expressions ; 

XpicrTov Se TI&gt;X&lt;W, TOU crou C/K.OTOS, ;)(at/3ets...o-e 7^y/ca- 
XtcraTo Kupto? TratStoi^ 6Wa...jaeyas d^eVetXas 17X109 Tats 

14 2 



212 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

e/c/cXi7crtat5, axrrrep a.KT(,vas [ ] eTTicrroXas crov 



This writer uses both forms of the Ignatian letters. The quotation in (3) is from 
the interpolated epistles ; that in (2) from the genuine text. 



52- 

JOSEPH THE HYMNOGRAPHER [c. A.D. 820?]. 
Hymn. 5 (de S. Ignatio) Anal. Sacr. Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 388. 

The following are the passages in this hymn which recal the language of Ignatius 
himself : 



Tpai az/o5 yap ravra cJ? rjcrOeTO, o 6rjp 6 dvtffjiepos, #17/31015 

8dX&lt;u #eo-7rtet ere ecrtcrOai, cnrovSfj TT}I&gt; Pcof 
&lt;f&gt;0dcravTa, KOL Xeo7rapSot5 7TtKpot5 crwS^cra? e/c 
? rpe^etv Tr/oorpeVerat (Rom. 2, 4, 5). 
ei? e/^ e/^oi, &lt;^&gt;tXot, ^178 oXws yivtcrOe, irpo row 
tSetv, fjiaKap, Pw/xatot? ey/3a^&gt;e?. rjpaiv /xe yevecrOai 
eacrare /Spcujaa. rt /aot cruja^epet /caXw? eTTtcrra^at, crapico? 
) faicracrOai crtro? et/xt yap eov, Kat /3ovXojaat oXw? 
ls XeoVrcov crTOjAacnv yeveaOai apros 1781)5 rw Xoyw 
W (rravpwOevTL 8t e/xe Kat Xoy^ev^eWt TT^V TrXevpaV TOVTO* 
epw ei/ crTepvois, TOVTOV (^Xeyo/xat TO&gt; TTO^W (see esp. ./fow. 4, 5). 



This Joseph also was a Studite and apparently a contemporary of Theodore. 
There is however some confusion about the verse-writers bearing this name ; see 
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. p. 79, ed. Harles. 

53- 
MICHAEL SYNCELLUS [c. A.D. 820]. 

Encom. in Dionys. Areopag., Dionys. Op. u. p. 233 (ed. Corder.). 

Fpa^et Se /cat d 0etO5 IymTtO5 C EMOC epcoc e 
TOUTO yap TO p^ToV d 0eo(f)6po&lt;; lyvdVtog, fteXX&jv i 
jaapTupt/caj5 dOXijcreiv /cat Tot5 Xeouo~t ySopa Kara rrfv TOV 
Tvpdvvov Tpdiavov irpocrTa&v Trapa/BXrjdTjcrecrOai, Trept TO 
avTOv Tvpavveia&lt;s evvarov eros Kara 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 213 

ov eyeipavTos, Pwjacuois eTricrre XXaji ye- 



ypafav. 

Michael Syncellus also was a contemporary of Theodorus Studites. 

54- 

NICEPHORUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [f A.D. 828]. 
(i) Chronographia Brevis p. 1001 sq. (Patrol. Graec. c, ed. Migne). 
p. 1012. Tpa Cavos enj L& , jji,r)va&lt;s 5" . 
ETTI TOVTOV lyz/dVios o eo(f&gt;6po&lt;; ev P^/AT? e^apTvprjcre, 
Orjpiois fiopa, TrapaSo^ets. 

p. 1053. Kal ocrot ev Avrto^eta enecrKOTrevcrav OLTTO 
X/HOTOU Kal TMV aTToo-roXo)^. 

a . Herpes o cxTrocrroXos er^ ta . 

/3 . EvoStos er-jy /cS . 

y . lyz/arios d eo^opos o CTTI 

Tpa iavov naprupTJcras Trj 8 . 

8 VTT * / 

Hpcui&gt; er^ /c . 

p. 1060. Kal 6 cra r^s veas anoKpy^a. 

a. IleptoSos Herpou crrt^ot ,f3\jjv. 

/B . IleptoSo? iwawov errt^ot / j8^ / . 

y . HeptoSos ajjaa crrt^ot ^r// . 

8 . Evayye Xtoi&gt; Kara a)/xav &lt;rrt^ot / ar / . 

e . AtSa^i} aTTOcrrc Xcoi/ crrt^ot a . 

$ . KX^/Aevro? a , y8 crrt^ot / /8}( / . 

^ . lyvartov, IIoXuKcx/JTrou, Ilot/xeVos Kal 



The numbers of verses differ in the different authorities for the text ; but we are 
not concerned here with these differences. 

(ii) Antirrhetica (Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 356, ed. Pitra). 
Tov 



ETc 6 eNANepoonHCAc, oyTe 6 nATHp ...... l4)&lt;\re KAI. eni- 

6N (Philipp. 3). 



214 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Pitra does not write out the extract in full ; neither does Cotelier, who in his 
note on the Ignatian passage mentions its being quoted by Nicephorus, as also 
by Theodorus Graptus in an unedited work Adv. Iconomachos. 

55- 

GEORGIUS HAMARTOLUS [c. A.D. 850]. 
Chronicon iii. 135 (Patrol. Grace, ex. p. 525, ed. Migne). 

avrov [rov fpdiavov] ^vpeuv d TOV KXeoVa d eV 
s eVuTKOTros /cat lyi/artos d Seo^opos cpapTV- 
prjo-av. /cat BcuriXcufys /cat MeVavSpos /cat KqptP&K /cat 
Ntfco Xaos cts v Sta/coW, ot atpecrtapxai, e x#pot rg 
d\rj Betas lyva)pi,ovTO. 

The mention of these heretics suggests that this writer derived his information 
directly or indirectly from the Long Recension of the Ignatian epistles ; Ps-Trall. n. 

56. 
ADO OF VlENNE [f A.D. 874} 

Libdl. de Festiv. SS. Apost. (Patrol. Lat. cxxin. p. 181 sq., ed. Migne). 

(i) p. 189. 

xiv Kal. Martii. Natalis sancti Onesimi, de quo beatus apo- 

stolus Philemoni familiares litteras mittit quern beatus idem 

apostolus episcopum ordinans praedicationisque verbum ei committens, 
apud Ephesiorum civitatem reliquit, cui episcopus post beatum Timo- 
theum et ipse resedit; de quo et beatus Ignatius, Ephesiis mittens 
epistulam, ita dicit ; Quoniam ergo suscepi multitudimm vestram in 
nomine Domini in Onesimo, diledo praeceptore nostro, vestro autem episcopo, 
obsecro eum secundum lesum Christum diligere vos, et vos omnes in con- 
cordia eius in ipso esse. Benedictus enim Dominus, qui vobis talibus talent 
episcopum donavit habere in Christo. Hie, Romam perductus atque ibi 
pro fide Christi lapidatus, sepultus est Christi martyr primum ibi ; inde 
ad loca, ubi fuerat ordinatus episcopus, corpus eius est delatum. 

(ii) p. 191 sq. 

Pridie Nonas Maii. Natalis sancti Euodii, qui ab apostolis Antiochiae 
episcopus ordinatus est, de quo beatus Ignatius ad Antiochenam eccle- 
siam; Pavli et Petri facti estis disdpuli; nolite perdere depositum quod 
vobis cow.mendaverunt. Mementote digne beatissimi Euodii, pastoris vestri, 
qui primus vobis ab apostolis antistes ordinatus est. Non confundamus 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 215 

patrem, sed effitiamur certi filii et non adulterini. Hie martyr apud 
Antiochiam urbem, cui praefuit, sepultus est. 

For the account of Ignatius himself in this writer see below, p. 721. 

57- 

ANTONIUS MELISSA [c. A.D. 900 ?]. 
Loci Communes (Patrol. Grace, cxxxvi. p. 765 sq., ed. Migne). 

(1) i. 14, p. 809. 

ET TIC AYNATAI eN ATNeiA MENCIN, eic TIMHN THC CApKOC TOY 
Kypi oY, CN AKAYX HCIA MeNeTor KAI CAN rNCOC0H TiAeoN TOY eni- 

CKOTTOY, &lt;J)6ApTAI. TTpe TT I A TO?C fAMOYCI KAI TA?C ["AMOYMeNAIC 

weTA TNOOMHC TOY enicKonoYTHN eNcaciN noieTcGAi, "MAO TAMOC 

H KATA 060N KAI MH KATA AICXPAN IniOYMIAN (PolyC. 5). 

TTApGeNiAc ZYTON MHAGNI enmOer enic0AAec r&lt;ip TO KTHMA 
KAI AYCC^YAAKTON, OTAN KAT ANATKHN reNHTAi. 

To?c NecoTepoic eniVpene fAMe?N, npiN AiA^eApcociN eic 

TAl pAC. 

(2) i. 26, p. 857. 

OfAe N eCTIN AM6INON eip^NHC N H TTAC 6 noAfiMOC KATA- 

(Ephes. 13). 



(3) " 3. P- i l6 - 

SnoY^ACATe MH ANTITACCGCOAI Tto enicKono), "NA HTG Geco 
YTTOTACCOMeNor KA I OCON BAe neTe CITWNTA TON eni cKonoN, 

TTAeON AYTON (t)OBe?C06 TTANTA f^p ON neMHCI 6 OIKOAeCTTOTHC 

eic IAI AN OIKONOMI AN, OYTWC Ae? H MAC AYTON Ae xecGAi, we AYTON 

TON TTeMTTONTA. TON OYN eTTl cKOTTON O)C AYTON TON KVplON A6? 

npocBAeneiN (Ephes. 5, 6). 

(4) 4, P- 1020. 

HANTAC BACTAZG, coc ce d KYPIOC nANTWN ANGXOY fcN 
ApAnH AITOY CYNGCIN nAeiONA HC exeic. TTANTCON TAC NOCOYC 
BACTAze onoY r&lt;*p nAeicoN KOHOC, noAf TO KepAoc (Polyc. i). 

(5) ii. 19, p. 1060. 

ZAMOYHA nAiAApiON CON 6 BAencoN GKAHGH, KAI TO&gt; 
TO&gt;N npoOHTWN tfKATeAexGn. AANIHA Neoc CON IKPINGN O 



2l6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

PONTAC TINAC, Aei lAC eJcoAeic AyToyc KAI oy npecByTepoyc 
e?NAi. lepewiAc AIA TO NEON nApAiToyMeNOC THN erX e P lzo ~ 

M6NHN AYTUJ TTApA 0OY TTpO(J&gt; HTCl AN AKOyef MH AefG NCOOTepOC 

eiMr AIOTI npoc HANTAC of c CAN e2AnocTeAa&gt; ce nopeycH. 
Ae 6 cocj)6c AYOKAI AGKA TYrX^ NOiN CTOON cyNHKe TO 

THC AfNCOd AC TCC)N fYNAIKCON en l TO?C C0eTpOIC TGKNOIC 
ZHTHMA. AAYIA 6 npO({)HTHC OMOY KAI BAClAeYC MEIpAKION 

YTTO ZAMOYHA eic BACiAeA (Mar. Ign. 2, 3). 



(6) ii. 23, p. 1066. 

Oi AoyAoi MH epATCOCAN AHO TOY KOINOY eAeY6epOYC0Ar AAA 
eic Ao2AN OeoY nAeoN AoYAeYCToacAN, TNA Kpei TTONOc eAeYSe- 
piAc &lt;\no OeoY TYX^CIN (Polyc. 4). 

(7) 43&gt; P- II12 - 

KAAOYC MA0HTAC CAN &lt;J)lAHC, X^P IC C01 Y K ECTI MAAAON 

TOYC Anei0ecTe poYc N TTPAY THTI YTTOTACCG. OY HA-N 
TH AYTHe/wnAACTpcp 6epAneYT Ar TOYC nApo^YCMOYC ei 
nAYe (Polyc. 2). 

(8) ii. 67, p. 1162. 

OfAeN 6CTIN AMGINON eipHNHC, EN 4 TTAC 6 noAe/WOC KATA- 

AY GTAI (Ephes. 13). 

(9) ii. 84, p. 1204. 

XpHZCO npAYTHTOC, N H KATAAyeTAI 6 A^pXCxiN TOY AIOJNOC 

TOYTOY AiABoAoc (Ps-Trall. 4). 

(10) ii. 89, p. 1216. 

2lTHKe OiC AKMCON TYHTOMeNOC MefAAoy A6AHTOY eCTI 

Aepec0Ai KA I NIKAN* MAAICTA Ae eN6K6N Oeoy HANTA HMAC 
ynoMeNeiN Ae?, FNA KA I AYTOC HMAC ynoMeiNH (Polyc. 3). 

MAKpo0yMe?Te MCT AAAH ACON eN npAy THTi, obc 6 Oeoc Me0 

HMCON AlA TTANTOC (PolyC. 6). 

The date of this writer is variously given from the 8th to the i2th century. Cave 
(Hist. Lit. II. p. 219) adopts the later epoch on the ground that he quotes Theo- 
phylact ; but Fabricius (Bibl. Grace. IX. p. 744 sq., ed. Harles) asserts the writer 
quoted to be not, as Cave assumes, Theophylact of Bulgaria (t c. A.D. 1112), but 
Theophylact of Simocatta (t c. A.D. 628). They refer, I suppose, to the passage, 
p. 1170, Migne. Photius the patriarch is several times quoted. Antonius therefore 
cannot well be placed much before the close of the 9th century. 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 217 

It is evident from the quotations, KapBevtas vyoi&gt; K.T.\. and Tots vewrtpois K.T.\. 
(i. 14), that this collection is not independent of the extracts in the ParaHeta Vaticana 
of John of Damascus. This is not the only instance in which the close connexion 
between these two works appears ; see Philippians p. 252. The two passages here 
are not directly ascribed to Ignatius, but follow on the one correctly so ascribed, 
without any fresh ascription. 

58- 

SEVERUS OF ASHMUNIN [c. A.D. 975]. 
De Conciliis etc. iv. 



JlS 






UL&gt;1 



1 B om. .J&uctJ! . B B om. Jj*^! . 3 A 

4 B has only j^j . * B L&lt;J J\ . 6 B om. & 

7 B sj\. * B adds 



The fourth chapter of the book. The teachings of the ancient 
Fathers regarding the Headship before the breaking up of the faith, 
and a little of what happened after the (said) breaking up. Ignatius, 
patriarch of Antioch, the third after Peter (the Apostle), has said in his 
Epistle to the people of Smyrna : And ye too, be ye perfect in our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who is of the seed of David (the prophet) according to the 
body, (and) the Son of God (in reality); He was born of the Virgin Mary, 



218 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

and was baptized by John, and was crucified for our sake in the time of 
Pontius Pilate (Smyrn. i). And he has said in his Epistle to Antioch : 
Whosoever acknowledges now the Christ, and does not confess that He is 
the Son of God, the Creator of the world, and says that here there is 
another son (besides Hint), and turns away from what the prophets have 
prophesied and the disciples have announced, he is a temple unto Satan 
(Ant. 5). 

The words omitted in B are placed within brackets ( ). 

The MS Arabe Suppl. 79, fol. 45 sq., has substantially the same text, but with the 
addition of these words after " Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch" : 



\AJb ^ -J [read 



And this Ignatius it was on whose head the Lord placed His hand, 
and said to His disciples : Whosoever wishes to become great, he must 
become like this child. And he was at this time a child, and he became 
patriarch of Antioch, the third etc. 

Severus ibn al-Mukaffa was bishop of Ashmunin, or Hermopolis Magna, in 
the Thebaid. His best known work is a history of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, 
to which Renaudot was chiefly indebted in his Hist. Patriarch. Alexandr. Jacobit. 
(Paris 1713). The following facts fixing the date of Severus have been supplied to 
me by Dr Rieu from a British Museum MS of his history, Add. 26101. (i) Speak 
ing of a chapel of S. Mark built by the patriarch Sanutius I, who was ordained A.D. 
859, he says that it had now been standing 115 years (fol. 32 b; comp. Renaudot 
p. 323). This therefore could not have been written before A.D. 974. (2) It is stated 
(fol. 43 b; comp. Renaudot p. 367) that Severus was bishop of Ashmunin undei 
Ephrem Syrus, who was patriarch for three years about A.D. 975, and that he took 
a prominent part in a disputation against the Jews before the Khalif al Moezz, who 
died A.D. 975. (3) Severus is mentioned (fol. 52 b; comp. Renaudot p. 377) as the 
intimate friend of Wadih ibn Raja, a convert from Islamism who died under the 
Khalif al Hakim (A.D. 9961020). For references to this Severus see Assem. Bibl. 
Orient. II. pp. 70 sq., 143, ill. p. 543, Fabric. Bibl. Grace. X. p. 623, Lequien Orient 
Christ. II. p. 596, Cave Hist. Lit. II. p. 106, as also in the several Catalogues of the 
Arabic and Ethiopic MSS in the British Museum, Bodleian, and Paris Libraries. 

The work from which the above extract is taken is a treatise On the First Four 
Councils and the Causes of Schisms in refutation of Eutychius ibn al-Batrik (see 
Zotenberg Catal. des MSS Syriaqices de la Bibl. Nation, p. 190 ; comp. Assem. Bibl. 
Orient, in. p. 543). It is preserved in four Paris MSS, three Arabic (Aneien Fonds 90, 
Supplement 55, 79) and one Carshunic (Aneien Fonds 154; see Zotenberg 1. c.). 
The extract here given belongs to the beginning of the fourth book, and is taken from 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 219 

the MSS, Ancien Fonds 90 fol. 19 sq., and Suppl. 55 fol. 94, designated A, B, 
respectively in the collation. 

Pearson ( Vind. Ign. p. 90, ed. Churton), after speaking of Ignatian quotations in 
Greek and Latin authors, continues; Est et aliud [testimonium] ex Arabico 
depromptum ; cujus cum nee auctor satis certo nee aetas mihi hactenus innotuit, illud 
postremo loco adjungendum putavi, quemadmodum a viro docto Bernardo Oxoniensi 
e codice MS D. Thevenoti, qui numero octavus est in Catalogo Verlanii, exscriptum 
mihique communicatum est. Ita igitur Ibn Zorha Jacobita (si bene meminit amicus 
noster) libri sui adversus Eutychen cap. quarto ; Dicit Ignatius etc. : after which 
Pearson gives in Latin the Ignatian extracts which I have printed above in the Arabic. 
Through the kindness of M. Zotenberg, who has investigated the matter for me, I 
have been able to trace the quotation to its proper source. The Paris MS Ancien 
Fonds 90 (mentioned above), which wants some leaves at the beginning, contains a 
number of miscellaneous theological treatises by Ibn Zorha, Johannes Saba, Abul- 
Farag, and others. Among these is the above-mentioned work On the Councils, 
which contains the extract. This Isa ibn Zorha was a famous Jacobite writer (Ann. 
Heg. 331 398), but he is not the author of the work in question. In a title 
however added by a later hand the treatises in the volume generally are ascribed 
to him ; and in this way Pearson s informant was misled. 

This extract has been edited for me from M. Zotenberg s transcript and colla 
tions by Dr Wright, to whom also I am indebted for the translation. 



59- 
SOLOMON OF BASSORA [c. A.D. 1220]. 

Liber Apis. 

(i) John the son of Zebedee, he also was from Bethsaida of the 
tribe of Zabulon. He preached in Asia at first, and afterwards he 
was sent into banishment to the island of Patmos by Tiberius Caesar, 
and then he went up to Ephesus and built a church there. Now there 
went up with him three disciples ; Ignatius who was afterwards bishop 
of Antioch and was thrown to beasts at Rome, and Polycarp who was 
bishop in Syria [Smyrna] and received the crown [of martyrdom] by 
fire, and that John on whom he conferred the priesthood and the seat 
of the bishopric after him. 

(ii) The child whom our Lord called and set up and said, Unless 
ye be converted, and become like a child, ye shall not enter the kingdom of 
heaven, was Ignatius, the same that was patriarch of Antioch. And he 
saw the angels ministering in two bands, and instituted that they should 
minister in the church in the same manner: and after a time this insti 
tution was abolished : and when Diodorus went with his father in the 
embassy to the country of Persia, and saw them ministering in two 
bands, he came to his own country Antioch, and renewed the practice 
of ministering in two bands. 



220 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

For this Syrian writer see Assemani Bibl. Orient, in. p. 309. This book called 
the Bee is preserved in a Vatican MS (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 576) and in 
Brit. Mus. Add. 25875 (see Wright s Catalogue p. 1067). From this latter Cureton 
published and translated the extracts which are here given (C. I. p. 220 sq., 251 sq.). 
The latter of the two passages is also quoted by Assemani (Bibl. Orient, m. p. 321). 
The whole work has been translated into Latin by Schb nfelder (Bamberg, 1866). 

For the introduction of antiphonal singing, and for the reference to Diodorus, see 
above, p. 31. 

60. 

GREGORY BARHEBRAEUS [c. A.D. 1285], 

Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (ed. Abbeloos et Lamy). 

(i) i. p. 42. After Euodius Ignatius Nurono. He was bound at 
Antioch and sent to Rome. And on the journey he confirmed all the 
faithful that came in his way; and he said / am the wheat of God who 
am ready to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be pure bread 
on the heavenly table. And he saw angels singing in two bands and he 
taught the Church to do so. And when he arrived in Rome, Trajan 
commanded that he should be cast to wild-beasts; and he was de 
voured as he had before prophesied. 

After Ignatius Nurono Eron in the time of Plinius Secundus. He 
condemned many Christians to death and deposed them from their 
rank, etc. (comp. Euseb. H. E. iii. 33). 

(ii) ii. p. 34. 

And he [Simeon Barsaboe] ordered that they should sing in two 
bands in the Churches of the East, just as in the west it had been 
ordered from the time of Ignatius Nurono the disciple of John the 
Evangelist the son of Zebedee. 

In the preceding pages those quotations and references are omitted 
which fall under the following heads; 

(1) All testimonies later than the close of the ninth century. To 
this rule exceptions are made in the case of the three last, which are given 
for their intrinsic interest as showing the tradition of Oriental Churches. 
References to later testimonies will be found scattered up and down 
these volumes; e.g. for the English writers who quote the Anglo-Latin 
Version see above, i. p. 77. 

(2) All the Acts of Martyrdom of S. Ignatius. These will be 
found in their proper place, ii. p. 363 sq. 

(3) All Martyrologies and Calendars, with the exception of the 
very early Syriac Martyrology (see above, p. 141), whose great anti- 



QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 221 

quity claimed for it a special mention. Notices will be found in n. 
p. 4i6sq. of several of the Martyrologies and Calendars thus omitted. 

(4) All Service Books. Thus the Greek Menaea (Dec. 20) give a 
considerable space to Ignatius. Some notices relating to the Menaea 
will be found in different parts of these volumes, e.g. i. p. 211, n. pp. 202, 
207, 223, 420). For the rest, it may be said generally that the prayers, 
invocations, etc., in the Menaea are founded on the Acts of Martyrdom 
(including the incorporated Epistle to the Romans) and the panegyric 
of S. Chrysostom. 

(5) All secondary Latin authorities. The notices in such writers 
are made up of (i) the notice in the Viri Illustres of Jerome (see above, 
p. 147); (2) the version of Eusebius H. E. iii. 36 by Rufinus (see 
above, p. 160); and sometimes also (3) the Bollandist Latin Acts of 
Ignatius (see n. p. 370). Thus the passage in Gildas (de Excid. Brilann. 
iii. 7, p. 373, ed. Migne) is taken from Rufinus; the account in Freculph 
of Lexovium (Chron. ii. 2. n, Magn. Bibl. Vet. Pair. ix. i. p. 509) is 
copied almost word for word from Jerome; while the narrative in Ado 
(Libell. de Festiv. Apost. p. 191, Migne) and in the Martyrology of the 
so-called Bede (Op. v. p. 1112, Migne) is derived chiefly from the 
Bollandist Acts, with a slight intermingling of Jerome. 

A most important testimony to the Ignatian letters is found in the 
different versions, recensions, and spurious imitations. These however 
have been considered in the previous chapter, and therefore all mention 
of them is omitted here. 



- B 

,~ 






M N ro Tj- u-jvo t^CO ON O w 



a 

rt 
Cj (D 

^ C 

h cv S 



Si! 



p4 
: 
h 

w 

_ 

Q 

- 












J-OVO t^-00 ON O M M 



- 

" S 



N tOrj-irjvo r^CO CsO 



oH.g 



s 

H 
O 
C/3 



^ 
^_, iu 

c ,a 



D 

W 






8 ^-3 

co crH -" 

o) bo 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED 
EPISTLES. 

HTHE history of the Igriatian Epistles in Western Europe, before and 
after the revival of letters, is full of interest. In the middle ages 
the spurious and interpolated letters alone have any wide circulation. 
Gradually, as the light advances, the forgeries recede into the back 
ground. Each successive stage diminishes the bulk of the Ignatian 
literature which the educated mind accepts as genuine; till at length 
the true Ignatius alone remains, divested of the accretions which per 
verted ingenuity has gathered about him. 

Mention has been made more than once already of the CORRESPOND 
ENCE WITH S. JOHN AND THE VIRGIN, bearing the name of Ignatius. 
This consists of four brief letters : (i) A letter from Ignatius to S. John, 
describing the interest aroused in himself and others by the accounts 
which they have received concerning the marvellous devotion and love 
of the Virgin; (2) Another from the same to the same, expressing 
his earnest desire to visit Jerusalem for the sake of seeing the Virgin 
together with James the Lord s brother and other saints; (3) A 
letter from Ignatius to the Virgin, asking her to send him a word of 
assurance and exhortation ; (4) A reply from the Virgin to Ignatius, 
confirming the truth of all that John has taught him, and urging him 
to be stedfast in the faith 1 . 

It can hardly be doubted that the forger took the existing Ignatian 

1 This seems to be the correct order (i), (2), the correspondence with the 

of the letters, as it preserves a proper Virgin preceding the letters to S. John, 

climax. It is found in Magdal. 76, Caiens. For the letters themselves see n. p. 

395. On the other hand in Lincoln. 101, 653 sq. 
Laud. Misc. 141, the order is (3), (4), 



224 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Epistles as his starting-point. Among these there is a letter to one 
Mary of Cassobola, who is addressed as xpio-To&lt;o pos 6vya.Tr)p Mapux, 
Christifera filia Maria. A careless reader might assume that the 
Virgin was meant thereby , for the epithet would seem to be singularly 
applicable to her; and thus he would be tempted to enlarge the 
correspondence. In the letter to the Virgin at all events the forger 
uses this very same epithet, Christiferae Mariae suus Ignatius, and 
speaks of having written to her before, Scripsi tibi et alias. 

These letters are found only in Latin, and internal evidence seems 
to show that this was their original language*. As the motive is 
obviously the desire to do honour to the Virgin, we are naturally led 
to connect this forgery with the outburst of Mariolatry, which marked 
the eleventh and following centuries. The workmanship is coarse and 
clumsy, and could only have escaped detection in an uncritical age. 

Certainly the writer succeeded in his aim. The manuscripts of 
this correspondence far exceed even those of the Long Recension in 
number, and the quotations are decidedly more frequent. In some 
quarters indeed S. Ignatius was only known through them, the other 
letters not possessing sufficient interest for the age, and therefore gradu 
ally passing out of mind. 

It is even alleged that the great S. Bernard himself vouches for 
their genuineness, and his supposed authority swayed the judgment 
of critics for some time after the revival of letters; but this view, 
though commonly held, seems to rest on a misreading or a misinter- 

1 The instance given above (p. 119, epistles in Greek (A.D. 1560), the dim- 

note a), where this same mistake has culty is met in another way. The words 

actually been made in the second half xpiffTotpopt? Bvyarpl Maplq. are^ rendered 

of this igth century, will show that a Christi filiae ac matri Mariae. 
misapprehension was far from improbable 2 Cotelier (on Philipp. 14) states that 

in the nth. he read in a catalogue of MSS belonging 

The persistence of this error is illus- to the Church of S. Peter atBeauvais the 

trated by some curious facts. In the entry Epistolae duae aut tres B. Ignatii 

opening salutation of the epistle, X pr- rnartyris ad B - Mariam Virginem et ad 

TO&PV Bvyarpl Moptg, Christiferae S. Johannem Evangelistam, quae in- 

filiae Mariae, the word filiae is left ventae sunt Lugduni, tempore concilii 

out in several MSS of the old Latin Innocentii Papae iv, et de Graeco in 

Version. The omission is evidently due Latinum conversae. What foundation 

to the feeling that this mode of address in fact this statement may have, I am 

was not suited to the Lord s mother, unable to say. This Council of Lyons 

to whom the epistle was supposed to was held in A.D. 1245. Some special 

have been written. Again, in a modern honours were conferred on the Virgin by 

Latin translation by J. Brunner, which it ; see Labb. Cone. xiv. 42. 
is attached to Gesner s edition of these 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 225 



pretation of his meaning. In one of his sermons this father writes as 
follows 1 : 

Therefore, dearly beloved, give ye glory, and bear Christ meanwhile 
in your body, a delightful load, a pleasant weight, a wholesome 
burden... That great Ignatius, the scholar of the disciple whom Jesus 
loved, our martyr with whose precious reliques our poverty hath been 
enriched, saluteth a certain 2 Mary in several epistles 3 which he wrote to 
her, as Christ-bearer. Truly an exceptional title of dignity and a 
commendation of exceeding honour. For the carrying of Him, to be 
whose slave is to be a king, is not onerous, but honorable... Happy 
the man who shall have so borne Christ as to deserve to be introduced 
into the holy city, by the Holy One of all . 



1 /// Psalm xc Serm. vii. 3, 4 (ll. 
p. 124, Venet. 1726) Glorificate itaqiie, 
clilectissimi, et portate interim Christum 
in corpora vestro, onus delectabile, suave 
ponc!us,sarcinam salutarem.... Magnus ille 
Ignatius, discipuli quern cliligebat Jesus 
auditor, martyr nosier, cujus pretiosis 
reliquiis nostra ditata est paupertas, 
Mariam quandam in plurihus quas ad 
earn scripsit epistolis, Christiferam con- 
salutat. Egregius plane titulus digni- 
tatis et commendatio honoris immensi. 
Neinpe cui servire regnare est, gcstare 
luinc, non onerari est, sed honorari.... 
Felix qui sic tulerit Christum, ut a sancto 
sanctorum in sanctam civitatem mereatur 
induci. 

2 The word quandam was doubtless 
omitted by transcribers acquainted with 
the letter to the Virgin, but ignorant of 
the letter to Mary of Cassobola. To 
such the expression would appear out of 
place. In some instances qiddem is sub 
stituted for quandam with the same view, 
as in Laur. xxiii. 20. Internal proba 
bility and external evidence alike show 
that quandam is correct. The passage of 
S. Bernard sometimes accompanies the 
Correspondence in the Mss, for the pur 
pose of recommending it to the reader ; 
e.g. Magd. 76, Laur. xxiii. 20. 

3 The expression pluribus literis must 
be set down to an error on S. Bernard s 

IG. I. 



part. He may have got the idea of 
several letters in either of two ways 
from a lapse of memory which substituted 
a second letter from Ignatius to Mary of 
Cassobola for the letter from Mary of 
Cassobola to Ignatius, or from a confusion 
which combined the two letters to the 
two Maries, each designated Christifera, 
and supposed them both addressed to 
Mary of Cassybola. This latter hypo 
thesis however supposes him to have had 
a superficial acquaintance with the letter 
to the Virgin, which seems improbable ; 
and the former therefore is to be pre 
ferred. The extant Clairvaux MS (see 
above p. 119), though early, does not 
contain the correspondence with the 
Virgin and S. John. Can it be that the 
pretiosae reliquiae, to which S. Bernard 
refers, were the literary remains of 
Ignatius with which the library had 
recently been enriched ? 

If any one doubts whether such a 
mistake as I attribute to S. Bernard be 
possible, he may be convinced by finding 
that it is actually made by the editor of 
a standard edition of S. Bernard s works 
(Venet. 1726), who maintains that his 
author is not speaking of the Virgin, 
sed de alia quadam, nempe Cassabolita 
seu Castabo lita, ad quam duae extant 
epistolac sancto Ignatio martyri adscrip- 
tae, in quibus Christifera salutatur. 

15 



226 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Here it is clear from quandam that some comparatively unknown 
person bearing the name Mary is intended. But the omission of the 
word in some texts has given occasion to the belief that S. Bernard 
is speaking of the Virgin. Of its genuineness however there can be no 
reasonable doubt. The whole context shows that S. Bernard regards 
Ignatius as using the epithet Christ-bearing in the same sense in 
which it might be applied to his own hearers. The allusion therefore 
is to Mary of Cassobola. 

At the first streak of intellectual dawn this Ignatian spectre 
vanished into its kindred darkness. In vain feeble attempts were 
made to arrest its departure. The mention in the Chronicle of the 
so-called Dexter was alleged, but this was found to be a coarse forgery. 
The authority of the great Bernard was pleaded, but this proves to 
be a case of mistaken identity. So it was held a sufficient condemna 
tion of this correspondence in an age when internal characteristics 
were not over narrowly scrutinized, that it is never quoted by the 
ancients, and accordingly it was consigned at once and for ever to the 
limbo of foolish and forgotten things . 

After this stupid pretender s claims had been set aside, S. Ignatius 
was represented, less unworthily indeed, but still very inadequately, 
in Western Europe by the epistles of the LONG RECENSION. The 
Latin MSS of this recension are, as we have seen, by no means 
uncommon. The Latin text was printed early (A.D. 1498) and re 
printed several times. The publication of the Greek text suc 
ceeded after an interval of nearly sixty years (A.D. 1557). At first 
no doubt seems to have been entertained respecting its genuineness. 
Ignatius was certainly cited by the ancients, and this was the only 
Ignatius known. Moreover the epistles quoted in early times bore 
the same names; and the quotations themselves, though they did not 
coincide, had a rough resemblance to passages in these extant letters. 
There seemed therefore to be no alternative left, but to accept them as 
genuine. 

Yet the very suspicious character of the epistles caused uneasiness 
to the critical spirit. The divergence of the text from the quotations 
in early Christian writers, such as Eusebius and Theodoret, were in some 
instances so great that in Ussher s language (p. xvii) it was difficult 
for one to imagine eundem legere se Ignatium qui veterum aetate 
legebatur. It appeared clear moreover that Eusebius was only ac- 

1 Yet Halloix (Ilhistr. Script, Vitae I. can still say of its genuineness, non est 
p. 300), writing as late as A.D. 1633, improbabile. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 227 

quainted with seven epistles, and that none besides the seven men 
tioned by him were quoted for many generations after his time. Lastly, 
when early Christian history came to be more carefully studied, these 
epistles were found to contain gross anachronisms and other blunders. 
The writer for instance condemns the heresies of Basilides and 
Theodotus among others (Trail, u), though the opinions of the 
former were not promulgated during the lifetime of Ignatius, and the 
latter cannot have flourished till considerably more than half a century 
after his death. He also supposes a heresiarch Ebion (Philad. 6), as 
Tertullian and later writers have done, but it is now acknowledged that 
no such individual existed and that the name was a designation adopted 
by the members of a sect or community generally. These are among 
the more prominent historic absurdities in which the epistles of the 
Long Recension abound. 

Besides these difficulties and misgivings which the critical faculty 
suggested, there were others due to a less honourable motive. Theo 
logical and ecclesiastical prejudice entered largely into the views of 
the combatants. These epistles contained certain passages which 
favoured, or seemed to favour, the Roman supremacy (Rom. inscr., 
comp. Ign. Mar. 4). Protestant controversialists were offended at these. 
Again the writer appears throughout as a staunch advocate of epis 
copacy. To Reformers, like Calvin, who had adopted presbyterianism 
on principle, this was an unpardonable crime. It is a noteworthy 
circumstance that Romanist writers for the most part maintained the 
authenticity and integrity of the twelve epistles of the Long Recen 
sion. One noble exception is the Jesuit Petavius who, remarking 
on the quotations in early writers, recognized distinctly the fact 
that these epistles were interpolated. On the other hand Protestant 
writers, as a rule, did not deny a genuine nucleus, though they 
ruthlessly excised everything which conflicted with their theological and 
ecclesiastical prepossessions. Thus the Magdeburg Centuriators 1 did 
not go beyond expressing their doubts concerning these epistles, and 
even Calvin is defended by later Protestant writers against the impu 
tation of condemning the letters altogether, though he had declared 
in his Institutes that nothing was more foul than those nursery stories 
(nihil naeniis illis...putidius), which were published under the name of 
Ignatius , and had denounced the insufferable impudence of those who 

1 The references to writers quoted in sq., Vind. Ign. Appx. i sq., Jacobson 
this paragraph will be found in Pearson Pair. Apost. I. p. 27 sq., and other col- 
Vind. Ign. procem., Cureton C. I. p. xvii lections of authorities. 

152 



228 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

equip themselves with ghosts like these (talibus larvis...se instruunt) 
for the purpose of deceiving. A type of the more moderate opponent 
is Abr. Scultetus (A. D. 1598), who, pointing out some real and other 
imaginary blots in these letters, acquiesced in the verdict esse quidem 
epistolas hasce Ignatii, sed adulteratas, sed interpolatas. Even later 
{A. D. 1641), on the very eve of Ussher s great discovery, Saumaise did 
not go beyond the assertion Omnes illas Ignatii epistolas supposi- 
ticias esse vel certe multis locis interpolatas , while he expressed his 
own view of their origin in the words Epistolae illae natae et 
suppositae videntur circa initium aut medium secundi saeatli, quo 
tempore primus singularis episcopatus supra presbyteratum introductus 
fuit. Little or nothing was gained, even from the writer s own point of 
view, by a theory which shifted the authorship but hardly touched the 

date. 

One serious and sober attempt, which was made during this pre- 
Usserian epoch, to separate the spurious from the genuine Ignatian 
literature, deserves special notice. An edition of the Ignatian letters 
was published A.D. 1623 by Vedelius, a Genevan Professor. He 
divided the epistles into two classes, printing the seven named by 
Eusebius by themselves as genuine, and throwing the remaining five 
into a second volume or appendix as spurious (ra i/^vSeTrtypa^a KO.L 
ra vd0a). As regards the Seven Epistles, he maintained that they 
were corrupted, and he pointed especially to the interpolations from 
the Apostolic Constitutions. For the rest, he proceeded with great 
moderation. Though an ardent controversialist against Bellarmin and 
other Romanists, he betrays no excessive eagerness to get rid of 
passages which seem to make against him. Thus he allows the open 
ing words of the Epistle to the Romans to stand. If he is frequently 
wrong in his attempts to discriminate between the genuine and the 
spurious, his failure in this respect was inevitable. The problem was 
insoluble without the aid of external testimony. 

While continental opinion was thus vague and divided, Anglican 
writers seem generally, though not universally, to have accepted the 
twelve Epistles without hesitation. This was the case for instance 
with Whitgift and Hooker and Andrewes 1 . The opponents of their 
genuineness were for the most part men of inferior note, and (so far 
as they argued the case) derived their arguments from foreign scholars. 

1 \Vhitgift s Works n. pp. 17 . 304. Keble) ; Andrewes Works I. pp. 392, 
428 (Parker Society s ed.) ; Hooker s 394 (Oxon. 1841). 
Works III. pp. 4, 173 sq., 185, etc. (ed. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 229 

In England, as on the Continent, the question can hardly be said to 
have been considered on its own merits. Episcopacy was the burning 
questioa of the day ; and the sides of the combatants in the Ignatian 
controversy were already predetermined for them by their attitude 
towards this question. Every allowance should be made for their 
following their prepossessions, where the evidence seemed so evenly 
balanced. On the one hand external testimony was strongly in favour 
of the genuineness of certain Ignatian letters ; on the other hand the 
only Ignatian letters known were burdened with difficulties. At the 
very eve of Ussher s revelation a fierce literary war broke out on this 
very subject of episcopacy evoked by the religious and political 
troubles of the times. In the year 1639, Hall then Bishop of Exeter, 
instigated by the primate Laud, wrote a work entitled Episcopacy by 
Divine Right Asserted (Works ix. p. 505 sq , ed. Pratt, 1808). He 
confines his quotations to those confessedly genuine epistles... seven 
in number (p. 571), which Eusebius knew and which Vedelius acknow 
ledged; but in these seven he quotes and defends passages (e.g. 
Philad. 4) which Vedelius had justly condemned as interpolations. 
Two years later (A. D. 1641) he published An Humble Remonstrance 
(ix. p. 628 sq.) on behalf of Liturgy and Episcopacy. This was 
attacked in An Answer to the Book entituled an Humble Remonstrance 
(London, 1641), by five Presbyterian ministers, under the name 
Smectymnuus, a word composed of the initial letters of their names. 
To this Hall replied in A Defence of the Humble Remonstrance (ix. p. 
643). In this work also he quotes Ignatius (p. 672) ; but here the 
passage quoted (Smyrn. 8) is the same in the interpolated recension 
as in the original. We may conjecture that he had received a hint 
meanwhile from Ussher, and so abstained from quoting the interpolated 
text. A collection of tracts also was published at Oxford this same 
year in defence of episcopacy; and in this collection was included 
one written by Ussher himself at the earnest importunity of Bishop 
Hall (see Ussher s Life and Works I. p. 225) and entitled The Original 
of Bishops and Metropolitans (ib. vn. p. 41 sq.). In this tract Ussher 
significantly confines his quotations from Ignatius to two or three 
passages in which the interpolated recension agrees with the original 
text, but he does not breathe a word about his discovery, though the 
sheets of his great work on Ignatius were passing through his hands 
at the time 1 . A storm of writings followed on both sides of the ques- 

1 The leading facts relating to Ussher s remains, areas follows, (i) In his An- 
labours on Ignatius, as collected from his swer to a Jesuit, published in 1625, he 






EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



tion. Among the champions of episcopacy in this melee the most 
notable was Jeremy Taylor, then a young man, whose elaborate work 
Of the Saved Order and Offcfs of Ep u&paty ( H trts vn. p. 3 sq., ed. 
Heber, 1822) appeared in 164?, and who quotes the Ignatian letters 
freely (vn. pp. 37, 47, 5^, 72, So, 102, 103, etc.) as authoritative, 



quotes the Long Recension without any 
expression of misgiving {Ufe athi ll srts 
in. pp. 418,354). (2) On Aug. 27, 1658, 
Dr Prideaux refers to Ussher s intention 
of printing Ignatius at Oxford (xv. p. 
419^, and on March 15, 1619, Ussher 
himself writes to Dr Ward, I have writ 
ten a large censure of the Epistles of 
Ignatius, which I forward to publish be 
fore I have received the transcript of the 
Latin Ignatius which you have in Caias 
College (xv. p. 481). This * censure 
was never published. Probably it set 
forth Ussher s theory, founded on the quo 
tations in English writers but not yet con 
firmed by the authority of any MS. He 
seems to have been desirous of giving it 
to the world at once, because it would 
be the more telling if confirmed after 
wards (as he anticipated) by manuscript 
authority. Doubtless its substance was 
incorporated afterwards in his published 
work. (3) From the letter List quoted 
it appears that he had already taken 
steps to procure a transcript of the Caius 
MS (see above, p. 81). On May 25, 1630 
Dr Ward writes to Ussher that he was 
in good hope that this had been the same 
with an old printed translation which he 
had; but comparing them together he 
found them differ much (xv. p. 504^. 
He had applied first to Dr Whalley and 
then to Mr Forster (see above p. 8l) to 
make a transcript, but had not succeeded. 
He promises however to see to it at the 
return of our students , i.e. after the end of 
the Long Vacation. On July 28, 1631, 
the transcript is actually in the hands of 
Ussher s agent (xv.p. 542), and on Aug. 9, 
1632, Ussher speaks of it with approbation 
(xv. p. 559); see above, p. 81 note. 



(4) On March 10, 1637, Ussher, after 
mentioning some characteristics of the 
Caius MS as contrasted with the common 
texts, adds I intend before long to pub 
lish Ignatius myself (xvi. p. 34). (5) 
In the years 1639, 1640, he is making 
enquiries about Oriental translations (xvi. 
pp. 58, 64). (6) On Sept. 30, 1640, he 
writes that 4 the printer is following him 
hard with the sheets of Polycarp and 
Ignatius (xv. p. 64). (7) On May 31, 
1644, he sends a presentation copy to 
Saumaise (xvi. p. 72). There does not 
appear to be in the extant correspondence 
any notice of the other Latin MS, Mont- 
asutijtttts (see above p. 81); from which 
it may be inferred that this latter did not 
come into his hands till a comparatively 
late date. Possibly he first learnt of its 
existence from Mountague s notice of it 
in his Origints Eccltsijsticat published 
A.D. 1640 (see above, I.e.), which would 
naturally attract his attention as in the 
passage quoted it differs from the vulgar 
Latin Version. The long delay in Ussher s 
publication of his Ignatian work is pro 
bably due partly to the political and 
ecclesiastical troubles of the times, partly 
to his being engaged on other important 
literary work, notably his Britannitantm 
Ecclaiantm Antiqvtiates which appeared 
Aug. 10, 1639. He seems to have set to 
work on his Ignatius in earnest as soon 
as this last-mentioned book was off his 
hands. I do not know the date of the 
letter to Dr Twiss Of the Sabbath , in 
which he mentions the Caius MS, as being 
free from the interpolations of the vulgar 
text in Magn. 9 and as agreeing else 
where with the quotations in the ancient 
fathers (Xll. p. 584 sq.). 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES- 231 

though in one passage (vii. p. 155 sq.) he confines himself to Ac seven 
letters mentioned by Eusebius that he may give his adversaries every 
advantage. In the ranks of the opponents a still more famous name 
appeals. Milton s short treatise Of Prdatical Episcopacy ( Works in. 
p. 72 sq., Pickering, 1851) was published in 1641 and is chiefly directed 
against Ussher. Like all his theological tracts at this time, it is brim- 
full of fiery eloquence and reckless invective. He fiercely attacks the 
Ignatian Epistles, deceived by Ussher s reticence and little suspecting 
the strength of his adversary s position. It is however creditable to 
his critical discernment that he lays his finger on real Mots in these 
letters as then read, passing over the passages which had been quoted 
by Ussher 1 . Those places, which he himself quotes, c must he says 
4 either be adulterate, or else Ignatius was not Ignatius, not a martyr, 
but most adulterate and corrupt himself. To what end then,* he 
adds pertinently, should they cite him as authentic for episcopacy, 

when , they cannot know what is authentic of him? Had God ever 

intended that we should have sought any part of useful instruction 
from Ignatius, doubtless He would not have so ill provided for our 
knowledge as to send him to our hands in this broken and disjointed 
plight ; and if He intended no such thing, we do injuriously in think 
ing to taste better the pure evangelic manna by seasoning oar mouths 
with the tainted scraps and fragments from an unknown table, and 
searching among the verminous and polluted rags dropt overworn from 
the toiling shoulders of Time, with these deformedly to quilt and inter 
lace the entire, the spotless, and undecaying robe of Truth (pp. So, 81). 
So he denounces as impiety the * confronting and paralleling the sacred 
verity of Saint Paul with the offals and sweepings of antiquity that met 
as accidentally and absurdly as Epicurus his atoms to patch up a 

Leucippean Ignatius (p. 92). 

Out of his own mouth he was convicted. The better provision for 
our knowledge came full soon. To the critical genius of Ussher 
belongs the honour of restoring the true Ignatius. As I have already 

1 The one exception is Smyn. 8, Here again he showed his critical sa- 

wherein is written that they should fol- gacity. The mention of the bishop sacri- 

low their bishop as Christ did His Father, ncing, and the I"**"* of the uipeiimily 

and the presbytoy as the AputV* (p. of the bishop to the king, which justly 

80). This had been quoted by Ussher. offend him in the context, disappear in 

Milton remarks that, not to speak of the the Vossian lettets. The charge of in- 

insulse and ill-laid comparison, it lies on remains, bat why should Ig- 

the very brim of a noted corruption and natius not have been insulse ? 
thus is discredited by its environments. 



232 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

stated (see above, p. 76 sq.), he observed that the quotations of this 
father in certain English writers from the thirteenth century onward 
agreed with those of the ancients, and he divined that in England, 
if anywhere, copies of the original form of these epistles would be 
found. He made search accordingly, and his search was successful. 
He discovered two Latin MSS, containing a text of which the Long 
Recension was obviously an expansion, and agreeing exactly with the 
quotations in Eusebius, Theodoret, and others. There could be no 
doubt then, that this Latin translation represented the Ignatius known 
to the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. But the Greek text 
was still unknown ; and Ussher could only restore it from the Long 
Recension with the aid of his newly discovered Latin version, by 
lopping off the excrescences and otherwise altering to bring it into 
conformity thereto. 

Ussher s book appeared in the year 1644. Altogether it showed 
not only marvellous erudition, but also the highest critical genius. It 
was however marred by one blot. Though Eusebius mentions seven 
epistles of S. Ignatius, Ussher would only receive six. The exception 
was the Epistle to Polycarp, which he condemned as spurious (Polyc. 
et Jgn. Ep. pp. viii sq., cxxviii, App. Ign. p. 85 sq.). He was led into 
this error chiefly by the authority of S. Jerome, who, as I have already 
pointed out (p. 148), misunderstood the language of his predecessor 
Eusebius and confounded the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans with the Epistle 
to Polycarp 1 . He failed to perceive that Jerome, having no direct 

1 Pearson, in refuting Ussher s objec- lion of the Epistle to Polycarp. To this 

tions ( Vind. Ign. p. 50 sq.), justly re- Pearson replies that Honorius is no incle- 

marks, Neque enim Hieronymum hie pendent or trustworthy authority, as he 

imprimis spectandum esse puto, neque derives all his information from Jerome 

Eusebium ex Hieronymo interpretor, and very frequently perverts or misunder- 

sed, uti par est, Hieronymum ex Eusebio stands him (p. 54). On the other hand 

ex quo sua transtulit. He shows con- he quotes Nicephorus (ff. E. iii. 19), 

clusively that Eusebius speaks of seven who rightly interprets Eusebius, /ca2 

epistles; but he is less happy in his Zfivpyalois a\\r]i&gt; 6ta%a/)arrei, Kal avr$ 

attempt to impose the same meaning on 5 Idlq. T$ irpotvpy ravr^ lIoXvKapTrt^ 

Jerome. This he does by means of a ertpav &lt;?7r&lt;?&lt;rre\Ae . The fact that the 

parenthesis a solution which Casaubon Latin version of this epistle in the Long 

had suggested Scripsit... ad Smyrnaeos Recension ends abruptly ( 3 propter 

(et proprie ad Polycarpum commendans nos ut hominem ; see above, p. 124) 

illi Antiochensem ecclesiam) in qua et was also drawn into this controversy : 

de evangelic etc. Ussher had laid some and Ussher and Pearson each endea- 

stress on the fact that Honorius of Au- voured in accordance with his own theory 

gustodunum (de Script. EccL 1 7, Migne s to find some reason in the intrinsic con- 

PatroL CLXXII. p. 199) omits all men- tents of the epistle why the end should 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 233 

knowledge of the Ignatian P pistles, went wrong from sheer ignorance. 
The objections from the internal character of the epistle, which Ussher 
quotes from Vedelius (App, Ign. 1. c.), have no force; and indeed the 
Epistle to Polycarp, being substantially the same in all the three recen 
sions, is the best standard and the safest test of the style of S. Ignatius. 
This part of Ussher s theory was almost universally rejected, as it de 
served to be; but his main argument was irrefragable, and those who 
have since attempted to reinstate the Long Recension have beaten 
their heads against a stone wall. 

As yet however the original Greek of the Middle Recension was not 
forthcoming. Ussher had heard of a MS in the Medicean Library at 
Florence, which promised to supply the deficiency (Polyc. et Ign. Ep. p. 
xxvi, App. Ign. praef.), but had not succeeded in getting a transcript. 
The discovery however was not long delayed. Two years after the 
appearance of Ussher s work, Isaac Voss (Amstel. 1646) published six 
out of the seven epistles of the Middle Recension from this Florentine 
MS; while the absence of the seventh the Epistle to the Romans 
was easily accounted for by the fact that the MS was imperfect 
at the end, so that this epistle (as in the corresponding Latin) must 
have been incorporated in the Acts of Martyrdom of the saint, with 
which the volume would close, and both together must have disap 
peared with the missing sheets. About half a century later the missing 
Greek Acts of Ignatius with the incorporated Epistle to the Romans 
were discovered in a MS belonging to the Colbert collection (see above, 
}&gt;. 75), and published by Ruinart (Paris A.D. 1689) in his Ada Mar- 
tyrum Sincera. Thus the Greek text of the. seven epistles of the 
Middle Recension was completed. 

By Ussher s labours the question between the Long and the Middle 
Recension was or ought to have been set at rest for ever 1 . Yet 

be omitted (Ussher p. cxxviii, Pearson were generally accepted. Thus Jeremy 

p. 59). The simple solution seems to Taylor in his Doctrine and Practice of 

be that the Greek MS which the trans- Repentance ( Works IX. p. 94), published 

lator used was defective here, probably ten years after the appearance of Ussher s 

by the loss of a leaf. The Latin Vtr- edition, still quotes the Epistle to the Mag- 

sion elsewhere (e.g. in the superscription nesians from the Long Recension. As he 

of this Epistle to Polycarp) exhibits was not a professional critic however, 

traces of indistinctness or mutilation in there is no reason to suppose that he did 

the copy from which it was made. Thus so from deliberate preference. About the 

the fact has no bearing on this con- same time Morinus (Comment, de Sacr. 

troversy. Eccl. Ordin. Par. iii. p. 45 sq., Paris 1655, 

1 It took some little time however quoted by Cureton C. I. p. xiv) defends 

before the results of Ussher s labours the Lonjr Recension. In Suicer s The- 



234 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

notwithstanding the cogency of the evidence critics have boldly stepped 
forward from time to time and endeavoured to reinstate the shattered 
idol. Whiston early in the last century (A.D. 1711), Meier 1 towards the 
middle of the present (A.D. 1836), have led this more than forlorn hope, 
and probably the succession will be kept up at long intervals till the end 
of time. Such critical eccentricities form a curious study in literary 
history, but do not need any serious refutation. 

But before we finally dismiss the Long Recension two points deserve 
consideration. First. The question has been treated hitherto almost 
entirely in reference to the Seven Epistles which occur in both the Long 
and the Middle Recension. Little has been said, except incidentally, of 
the five or (including the letter of Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius) the six 
Ignatian Epistles which occur only in one form and which I have tacitly 
assumed to belong to the Long Recension. Is this assumption justifiable 
or not? Secondly. Having thus ascertained how many epistles belong 
to the Long Recension, we shall be in a position to answer another and a 
more important question, to which the previous one forms a preliminary 
step. At what date and with what object was this Recension compiled? 

i. In considering the relation of the Additional Epistles to the 
Seven of the Long Recension, I shall reserve for the moment the 
Epistle to the Philippians, because the external evidence is slightly 
deficient, and for this and other reasons a separate authorship has been 
claimed for it by some able critics. With this reservation the Additional 
Epistles are five in number; the letter of Mary with the reply of 
Ignatius, the letter to Hero, and the letters to the Tarsians and Antio- 
chenes. The points of investigation then are twofold : First, Is the 
resemblance of these letters to the Seven of the Long Recension suffi 
ciently close to justify us in assigning them to the same author: and 
Secondly, Does the external evidence the phenomena of MSS and the 
catena of quotations lead to the same or to an opposite conclusion? 

(i) If we had only internal testimony to guide us, the evidence 
would even then be overwhelming. In the investigation which follows 
I shall content myself with indicating the lines of search without follow 
ing them out in detail. Any one who will read carefully through in 
succession the interpolated portions of the Seven Epistles in the Long 
Recension and then the Additional Epistles, may easily satisfy himself as 
to the strength of the position. We find in the Additional Epistles (a) 

saurus (ed. i, 1682; ed. 2, 1728) it is J Theolog. Studien . Kritiken 1836, 

still quoted as if authentic. p. 340. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 235 

the same employment of scriptural texts and scriptural examples, (b) 
the same doctrinal complexion and nomenclature, (c) the same literary 
plagiarisms, and (d) the same general style and phraseology, which 
characterize the Long Recension these being just the points which 
differentiate the Long Recension from the Middle. 

(a) While the Middle Recension is very sparing of Biblical quota 
tions, so that the whole number throughout the Seven Epistles may be 
counted on the fingers, and even these (except in one or two instances) 
are not formally cited, the Long Recension abounds in them. Even in 
the passages otherwise copied bodily from the Middle Recension they 
are interpolated at every possible opportunity; and the portions which 
are peculiar to the Long Recension more especially the doctrinal 
portions frequently consist of a string of Scriptural passages threaded 
together by explanatory remarks from the author himself (see esp. Ephes. 
9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 1 8, Rom. 3, 8, Magn. i, 8, 9, 10, 12, Trail. 7, 8, 10, 
Philad. 3, 4, 9, Smyrn. 2, 3, 6, 9). This feature is reproduced in the 
additional letters, more especially in the Epistles to the Tarsians and 
Antiochenes, which not being letters to private individuals contain 
more direct doctrinal teaching (see esp. Tars. 2 7, Ant. 2 5, 10, 
Hero i, 5). 

Allied to this feature is the frequent reference to Scriptural charac 
ters, which distinguishes the epistles of the Long Recension. When 
the writer breaks loose from the restraints of the Middle Recension, on 
which his work is founded, he very frequently exercises his freedom in 
this way (Ephes. 6, 10, n, 12, 14, 15, Magn. 3, 12, Trail. 7, Philad. i, 
4, 9, Smyrn. 7). This feature again is faithfully reproduced in the 
Additional Epistles (Mar. Ign. 2 4, Tars. 2, 3, Ant. 10, Nero 3, 5). 
Of the New Testament worthies who are mentioned both in the Long 
Recension and in the Additional Epistles, a prominence is given to 
Stephen as the model deacon (Trail. 7, Tars. 3, Hero 3). There is 
also a special fondness for coordinating the Apostles S. Peter and S. 
Paul, for which the genuine Ignatius had furnished the precedent (Rom. 
4), and which this later interpolator uses on every possible occasion 
(Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 5, 7, Magn. 10, Tars. 3, Philad. 4, Ant. 7), 
connecting the joint names not only with Rome (Ign. Alar. 4, Trail. 
7) as the genuine Ignatius had done, but also with Antioch (Magn. 10, 
Ant. 7). Even beyond the limits of the New Testament examples are 
sought; the early bishops of Rome and Antioch Linus, Anacletus, 
Clemens, Euodius are brought forward in the Additional Epistles not 
less than in the Seven, as occasion serves (Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 7, 
Philad. 4, Ant. 7). If the three private letters do not afford such 



-vT 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



numerous instances of Scriptural quotations as the other two, they do 
not fall at all behind them in the production of Scriptural characters. 
The letter from Mary to Ignatius a singularly clumsy and inartistic 
work is from beginning to end a mere expansion of a section in the 
Epistle to the Magnesians ( 3), where the supposed Ignatius defends 
the youth of a certain bishop and ransacks the Bible for instances of 
youthful piety and wisdom such as Samuel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Solomon, 
Josiah in defence of his position. The self-consciousness of the 
writer, as he thus reproduces his own work, betrays itself curiously, 
when he makes this Mary apologize to Ignatius for reminding him of 
what he must well know and for thus appearing to make a superfluous 
display of learning ( 5 Trepirros emu 8d|w KCU &lt;ai/77Tiu&gt;o-a). 

(b) Of the doctrinal features nothing need be said here. When the 
proper time comes for the discussion of this subject, it will appear that 
throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same 
heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this 
respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles. 

(c) The same is true likewise of these literary obligations. This is 
the case with the plagiarisms from the genuine Ignatius (e. g. the use of 
the characteristic Ignatian ovai^v; Jgn. Mar. 2, Tars. 8, 10, Ant. 12, 
14, Hero 6, 8, Trail. 13, Philad. 4, besides Magn. 2, 12, Ephes. 2, 
Polyc. i, 6, Rom. 5, in which latter passages it is taken from the pre 
existing text), though naturally these plagiarisms are more frequent and 
more obvious in the Additional Epistles, where the forger was left 
to himself and an Ignatian colouring was wanted, than in the in 
terpolations of the Seven, where the Ignatian substratum was ready to 
hand. Still more decisive are the passages taken from the Apostolic 
Constitutions. If the reader will follow out the references given below 
(p. 250), he will find that they extend throughout these Ignatian 
Epistles, and that the use made of this work differs in no wise in the 
two sets of letters. The same also may be said of the obligations to 
Eusebius (Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 9, Magn. 6, 8, 9, Philad. i, 6, Ant. 1,7), 
though these are much scantier. 

(d) In style and expression also the Additional Letters are closely 
linked with the interpolated portions of the Seven. Thus we find in 
both sets of epistles the same terms applied to false teachers. They are 
dumb dogs (Ant. 6, Ephes. 7 ; see the note on the former passage); 
they are foxes or fox-like (a/Xw^l, aXwTro s, Philad. 3, Ant. 6); they 
are serpents (Philad. 6, Ant. 6) ; they are wolves in sheep s skins 
(\UKOS lv irpofiaTov Sopa, Hero 2, Ephes. 5, comp. Philad. 2). Again 
the same words are met with in the two sets of letters : such as 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 237 



(Trail, 6, Smyrn. 6, Ant. 5) ; a Aoyeu/ (Afar. Ign. 2, Smyrn. 
6) ; aWAauo-i?, aVoAauo-TiKo s (Smyrn. 6, Tars. 2); auo/xa (of office, 
^#/. 8, Hero i, Smyrn. 6) ; eXa^to-ros (applied to himself, ./&r&lt;? 6, 
Ephes. 12, ^;//. 4); eVo-co/xartocrts (Philad. 6, /^fl/. 4); eVe;(eu&gt; (/#. 
. 4, Philad. 4); /cuptoKroYos (Trail, n, Ttfrc. 3; comp. xpicr- 
Magn. n, .//cvtf 2, ;(pi(rTo&lt;oVos Philad. 6); AaoTr/Wos (Mar. 
Ign. 4, Philad. 5, Ephes. 9); Trcptrro s ( superfluous/ officious, J/tfr. 
/i&gt;vz. 5, Zhz//. 10, ,4///. 11); Trio-ToraTos (Ephes. 6, n, /&lt;,&gt;;?. J/^r. inscr.); 
TroAia (J/tfr. /iy/. 2, J/&lt;77/. 3); peso s (Philad. 4, ^4///. n); xp (0 -To- 

. J/izr. inscr., Magn. 3, Smyrn. 12, j%n? inscr., Ephes. 6; comp. 
^;/A 1 2). So again the word XctroupyiKo? occurs in both 
in the same connexion (Philad. 9 at AeiToupytKcu...Swa/is, //m? 7 ra 
XciToupytxa ray/Aara) ; and generally there is great fondness for adjectives 
in -IKO S (e.g. a yyeAiKo s 7r&lt;z//. 7, yevoTi/co s 7&gt; ^7//. 6, ypa^tKo s ^. J/^zr. 
3, SiSao-KctAtKo s Philad. 5, i/ye/xovtxos Philad. 5, ^etKos Magn. 8, Kooy/,&lt;Ko s 
Ephes. 19, ./?&lt;?///. 4, AOI/UKOS Trail. S, rA^rtKos ^4;//. 10, $I\IK.U$ Ign. Mar. 
i). Again ther.e is a recurrence of the same phrases, such as 
TOU 0eo{) of the prophetic utterances (Trail. 8, v4/. 3) ; 

TOV TTVev/XttTOS Or TO) TTVCU/XttTt (Philad. 4, y^tf/. 4) ; O XPO? T(3l/ 

(/l/rt r. X$7/. i, Philad. 9 ; comp. ^-//. J/ar. i) ; o-Tre p^a AavetS xat 
A/?paa /x (J/ar. ^. i, ^w. 7). Again there is a partiality for cer 
tain other words, familiar in themselves, such as fia/captos, TravroKpa rup, 
Tret^apxeu , Trot/xatVetv, (^^opevs, etc. 

(ii) With these results obtained from the examination of the letters 
themselves external evidence entirely accords. 

It is true that these Additional Epistles are found attached likewise 
to the seven letters of the Middle Form, both in the Greek MSS of this 
recension and in the Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic translations . 
It is true also that some of these spurious letters are quoted by fathers 
who certainly had before them the Middle Form of the Seven Epistles, 
Thus externally they are connected with the Middle Recension, as well 
as with the Long. These facts have been adduced by some, to show 
that they were the product of a different hand from the interpolations 
of the Seven Epistles in the Long Recension, on the ground that, being 
found jn connexion with both forms alike, they must in their origin 

1 The main facts will be seen from the ments, but it is not open to any reason- 

table on p. 222. The details are given in able doubt ; see above p. 89 sq., n. p. 686. 

the accounts of the respective authorities, The case with regard to the Coptic will be 

p. 73 sq. The statement with regard to seen on p. 101. How many epistles it 

the Syriac is an inference from its rela- contained, we are unable to say, as only a 

tion to the Armenian version, combined fragment remains. 
with extant Syriac quotations and frag- 



2 3 3 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



have been distinct from either 1 ; by others, to discredit the Seven of the 
Middle Form by suggesting that external evidence is decidedly more 
favourable to the genuineness of these six obviously spurious epistles 
than to that of the Seven in any form, because a double testimony, as it 
were, is thus borne to them 2 . 

The fallacy underlying such inferences is transparent. Though at a 
later date the six obviously spurious epistles were attached to the Seven 
of the Middle Form, there can be no reasonable doubt that in the first 
half of the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote, this was not the case. 
He gives a more than usually full account of the career of Ignatius 
(see above, p. 138), whom he describes as still widely renowned (-n-apd 
TrAeiorois eicre Ti vvv 8x/?oV)- His account of the letters is obviously 
meant to be exhaustive. He even quotes references to them in writers 
of the succeeding generations. Elsewhere (as for instance in the case of 
the Roman Clement), when he is acquainted with any spurious or doubt 
ful works ascribed to the same author, he is careful to mention the fact. 
Here there is nothing of the kind. He enumerates the Seven Epistles 
alone; and of these he speaks without a shadow of misgiving 3 . 



1 This seems to have been the view of 
Pearson (Vind. Ign. p. 58, ed. Churton); 
but I do not remember that he has any 
where explicitly stated his opinion. 

2 Thus Cureton Corp* Ign. p. 338 sq. 
So far therefore as the evidence of all the 
existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, 
of both the recensions is to be considered, 
it is certainly in favour of the rejected 
epistles rather than of those which have 
been retained , with the context; see also 
p. Ixxvii sq. These passages are highly 
instructive in their honest perversity. 

3 Cureton s views respecting the testi 
mony of Eusebius aye too extravagant to 
find general acceptance ; but as they 
seem to have confused some of his readers, 
it may be worth while once for all to ex 
amine them. 

(i) He maintains very positively that 
Eusebius hesitates as to the genuineness 
of the Seven Epistles (pp. Ixxi, 337). 
His two arguments are : (a) The historian 
throws doubt on their genuineness by 
using the guarded expression \6yos % 
But in the// */ place this expression (see 



above, p. 138) refers not to the letters of 
Ignatius, which he quotes categorically 
without any shadow of misgiving, nor to 
any facts related in those letters, but sole 
ly to the incident of his martyrdom, to 
which the letters, from the nature of the 
case, could not bear direct testimony; and 
secondly^ the examples of Xo7os ^x et e ^ se 
where in Eusebius show that the ex 
pression in itself does not throw any doubt 
on the facts recorded but signifies neither 
more nor less than it is related ; H. E. 
ii. 17, 21, iii. 37, iv. 28, v. 5 bis, vii. 32, 
viii. 17 appendix; see also the note to 
KaT&lt;?x Xcryos on p. 58, above. (/3) 
Cureton considers it to be quite evident 
from the following passages that he [Eu 
sebius] did not esteem the genuineness 
and authenticity of the Epistles of S. Ig 
natius and S. Polycarp to be equally 
established with that of the First Epistle 
of S. Clement to the Corinthians, which 
was usually acknowledged ; Kal 6 IIo- 
XikapTroj ot TOUTUV avruv /j.tfj.v7)Tat. iv rrj 
rjitpofjitvr) avrov irpbs $&gt;i\iinn)ffiovs tiri.ffTo- 
X]} (iii. 36), u&lt;nrfp ovv d/x^Xei rov lyvariov 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 239 



The testimony of Theodoret (see p. 161 sq.), who wrote about the 
middle of the fifth century, if not so decisive, tends in the same direction. 
Though quoting somewhat largely from the Ignatian letters, he does 



iv als KO.Tf\^a.fJ.fV ^TriOToXcus Kal TOV K\T?- 
/ievros ev rrj avii}fj.o\oyr]/j.^vr; irapa irS,&lt;nv, 
fjv etc irpotrutirov rrjs Pufj.aiuv enK\Ti&lt;rias 
TT) K.opiv6iti)v 8ieTVirt*&gt;o~a.To (c. 37), ?) ft-ev 
ovv TOV KX^uetros 6u.o\oyovfj.^vrj ypa(pr) 
TrpoSyXos etptjTai 5 Kal TO. Tycar/ou Kal 
lIo\vK&lt;ipirov (c. 38). By this juxtaposi 
tion of separate passages Cureton would 
make it appear as though the antithesis 
in Eusebius were between the (p(po/j.h ij 
on the one side, and the at&gt;ufj.o\oyr]u.{vi], 
6fj.o\oyovfj.frrj, on the other. But (i) 
Taken in connexion with their several 
contexts, the expressions do not suggest 
anything of the kind. The genuine E- 
pistle of Clement to the Corinthians is 
called acknowledged to distinguish it 
from another Epistle to the Corinthians 
also bearing his name, but not universally 
received. It has no reference whatever to 
the writings of Ignatius or Polycarp. 
(2) The expression &lt;j&gt;epofj.fvi) is only used 
of Polycarp s letter, and there is no ground 
for extending it to those of Ignatius. (3) 
It is highly improbable that Eusebius 
should have entertained a doubt of the 
genuineness of Polycarp s letter, which 
he knew to be quoted by Polycarp s dis 
ciple Irennsus and which he himself uses 
as bearing testimony to the Epistles of 
Ignatius. (4) The word (ptpeffOat does 
not suggest any such doubt. Eusebius 
uses it of the First Epistle of S. John (iii. 
25 TTJJ&gt; &lt;t&gt;epo[j.ti&gt;riv Iwavvov TrpoT^pav), 
which in this same passage he classes 
among the 6fjLO\oyov/j.tva, and of which 
he has said just before irapa, re TOJS vvv 
teal Tots tr dpxa[oi.s ava/j.&lt;j&gt;i\{KTos oJ/xoXd- 
yrfrai. (iii. 24) : he even applies it to this 
very Epistle of Clement, iii. 16 TOVTOV 5-rj 
out&gt; TOU KXij/uei Tos 6fj.o\oyov/j.tvi) fj.ia 
&lt;j&gt;tperai: and in short it is frequently 
employed by him to denote a writing in 
general circulation; e.g. of S. Mark s 
Gospel (ii. 16), of works of Philo and 



Josephus (ii. 18, iii. 10), of Gaius the 
Roman presbyter (iii. 28), of Papias (iii. 
39), of Quadratus (iv. 3), of Musanus (iv. 
28), and so commonly (e.g. iii. 25, iv. 15, 
18, 23, 29, v. 5, 13, 23, 24, vi. 31, 32, 
35, etc.), so that it implies not much more 
nor less than extant. As applied to the 
Epistle of Polycarp, its meaning will ap 
pear from another passage which Cureton 
has not quoted, iv. 146 7^ rot lloXvKapiros 
tv rrj SrjXudflffr] Trpos $i\nnn)alovs avrov 
ypa&lt;t&gt;r) &lt;j&gt;fpofj.ti&gt;T) es devpo Kexpyral rifft 
fj.apTupia.is K.T. X. , circulated to the present 
time. 

(ii) Cureton considers the silence of Eu 
sebius about other epistles besides the 
Seven to be far from conclusive that they 
either did not exist at the time when he 
wrote or were rejected by him as spurious 
(P- 337)- He says, One obvious reason 
why he should have omitted to mention 
them is the fact that they contain no in 
formation respecting the episcopal suc 
cession, which, as I have remarked, was 
one of the chief objects of his history (p. 
Ixxviii). But (a) There is not the faintest 
indication that he valued the Seven 
Epistles because they served this purpose. 
If he had done so, it is at least strange 
that he should lay the chief stress on the 
Epistle to the Romans, which is wholly 
silent about the episcopate. (/3) Setting 
aside the Epistle to Polycarp (which by 
the way Eusebius does not quote), the Ad 
ditional Epistles bear at least as directly 
on episcopal succession as the Seven, and 
the letters to the Antiochenes and to 
Hero would be especially valuable, for 
they contain a list of bishops (Anf. 13, 
Hero 8). Indeed this attempt to raise 
a prejudice against the Seven Epistles 
quoted by Eusebius through the mani 
festly spurious epistles is so perverse 
as to carry with it its own condemna 
tion. 



240 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

not quote beyond the limits of the Seven. The same is true of Timo- 
theus of Alexandria (p. 165 sq.), who wrote a few years later, and of 
Severus of Antioch (p. 169 sq.), whose literary activity belongs to the 
earlier decades of the sixth century. The silence of this last-mentioned 
writer is the more significant, as he quotes largely and widely from the 
letters of Ignatius. In fact the tenour of external evidence will be suffi 
ciently plain when it is stated that, whereas the Seven Epistles are 
quoted by a fairly continuous series of Greek, Latin, and Syriac writers, 
beginning with Irenoeus and Origen in the second and third centuries, 
not a single quotation from the Additional Letters has been discovered 
prior to the last decade of the sixth century at the very earliest (see 

above, p. 196). 

Moreover a comparison of the positions which the six Additional 
letters occupy with reference to the Seven in the collections of the 
Long and Middle Forms, as exhibited in the table on p. 222, reveals 
plainly the history of their connexion with the two recensions respec 
tively. Of the Seven Epistles four are dated from Smyrna and three 
from Troas. Of the six Additional Epistles two the letter from Mary 
and the answer of Ignatius are represented as belonging to the time 
when he is still peacefully ruling at Antioch; three Tarsians, Antio- 
chenes, Hero are dated from Philippi ; and the remaining one 

Philippians professes to have been written after he had already reached 

Italy (see n. p. 712). Now in the Long Recension these six epistles 
are artfully intermingled with the Seven, so that attention may not be 
attracted to their spuriousness by their isolation. Yet there is some sort 
of symmetry, as they are interposed two and two, thus showing that 
the order was not the result of pure accident. Again, though the proper 
sequence of time and place is not strictly observed in the arrangement 
(as indeed it was not in the seven original Ignatian Epistles which the 
forger had before him), yet the letter from Mary and the answer of 
Ignatius are placed first, as dating from a time anterior to the journey 
to Rome. With the Middle Form the case is different. Here we have 
two different arrangements with the Additional Epistles included, the 
one of the Greek and Latin copies, the other of the Armenian. The 
differences of order seem to show that the two collections were made 
independently; and, if so, it is the more remarkable that they agree in 
the one essential point of keeping the Additional Epistles distinct from 
the others and appending them as a sort of supplement to the rest 1 . In 
1 Cureton argues that no prejudice the circumstance of their being placed 
can result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, after the others in the collection |he is 
to the Antiochenes, and to Hero, from speaking of the Latin and Greek, for he 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 241 

the Greek and Latin copies the Additional Epistles stand in the same 
order in which they occur in the Long Recension, if picked out from 
the rest, the Epistle to the Philippians however being omitted by an 
accident of which an explanation will be offered presently (p. 242). In 
this collection the position of the Additional Letters, as an appendix, is 
slightly obscured by the fact that the Epistle to the Romans is removed 
from its proper place as one of the seven original letters. This was a 
natural consequence of the addition of the Acts of Martyrdom at the 
end of all the epistles; for, as the Epistle to the Romans was already 
incorporated in these Acts, its removal from an earlier place in the col 
lection followed as a matter of course. Whether the addition of these 
Acts and the consequent displacement of the Epistle to the Romans 
took place simultaneously with the attachment of the Additional Epistles 
or not, may be an open question. In the Armenian collection the 
Epistle to the Romans has not been displaced the Acts of Martyrdom 
not having been attached to this collection ; and the Additional Epistles 
therefore stand by themselves, as an appendix. On the other hand 
they do not, as in the Greek and Latin collection, occur in the same 
order as in the Long Recension. A principle however is discernible in 
the arrangement. The Epistle to the Antiochenes, as being addressed 
to Ignatius own church, stands first; and the five remaining letters are 
arranged in a chronological sequence. But the main inference from 
both collections is the same. In each case a person, possessing the 
Seven Epistles of the Middle Form, comes across a copy of the Long 
Recension which contains thirteen epistles, and he sets himself to supply 
the apparent defect in his own collection. This he does by picking out 
the missing epistles from the recension which had thus accidentally 
fallen into his hands and adding them to his own copy. 

Thus the evidence of the MSS confirms the result of the examina 
tion of the Additional Epistles themselves and assigns them to the same 
pen which interpolated the Seven Epistles, or in other words to the 
author of the Long Recension. Of five out of the six this seems to be 
absolutely certain. But respecting the remaining one the Epistle to the 
Philippians some doubt has been entertained. It is wanting in the 

was not acquainted with the Armenian] ; are mixed up with these dated from Troas ; 

for they are evidently arranged in chrono- (2) He has omitted all mention of the 

logical order and rank after the rest, as letter of Mary and the answer of Ignatius, 

having been written from Philippi etc. Professing to have been written while 

(P- 33 8 )- The answer is twofold ; (r)The Ignatius is still at Antioch, they come 

order is not chronological in the earlier after the seven letters dated from Smyrna 

part, where the epistles dated from Smyrna and Troas. 

IG. I. 1 6 



242 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Latin and Greek 1 copies of the Middle Recension, and it stands last in 
the Armenian collection of the same. Again it is thought to be 
deficient in external evidence as compared with the other Additional 
Letters. For these reasons there is at least a presumption that it 
was written later than the other five and by a different hand. This 
suspicion moreover has been thought to be confirmed by the style of 
the epistle, in which distinctive peculiarities have been discerned 2 . 

With this opinion I am unable to agree. The position in the Arme 
nian collection is the most natural position ; for though, as already 
explained, the chronological arrangement is not observed throughout, 
still it cannot be a surprise, if the epistle which professes to have been 
written some time after the others should be placed last. On the other 
hand the mere fact that it is included in the Armenian collection is a 
strong argument for the identity of authorship. For like the others this 
epistle was certainly translated into Armenian from the Syriac, and 
therefore must have formed part of the Syriac collection 3 . If therefore 
the opinion which competent judges pronounce respecting the com 
paratively early date of the Armenian Version be correct or nearly correct 
(see above, p. 85), we have hardly any alternative but to suppose this 
epistle to have been forged simultaneously with the others; for on the 
opposite supposition there will be no time to spare for all the vicissitudes 
through which it must have passed. Moreover its absence from the 
Latin and Greek copies may be easily explained. In its original position 
in the Long Recension Trpos 4&gt;iXt7T7n;o-tovs stands immediately before 
Trpos 3&gt;iAaSeX&lt;er?, and a collector, cursorily turning over the pages and 
supplying the lacking epistles in his copy of the Middle Form in the 
manner which I have supposed, might easily be deceived by the similar 
beginning, and notice only one epistle the Epistle to the Philadel- 

1 Though the existing Greek MS (the 3 It may be regarded as quite certain 

Medicean) of this collection is imper- that this epistle passed through the me- 
fect at the end, so that the part which dium of a Syriac Version ; e. g. 4 KCL\UI&gt; 

ought to contain the Epistle to Philip- . ,- &gt;r ,\ 

is translated corruption [KlAajj when 
pians is wanting, yet the close resemblance 
of this MS to the MSS of the Latin Version differently vocalized, signifying either cor- 

in all the main features enables us with rU P tion r a r pC ]; 5 T " ^" aT " 
fair confidence to say that they agreed in form [t*^WO2?3xA likeness for 

omitting this epistle. _*\ _ _ \ , , , , 

fe . ,, . KWCXS1_A death] ; 

- The Epistle to the Phihppians was 

assigned to a different author from the good [v^L. K a.\6vfor i 

other forged epistles by Ussher (pp. Ixxix, with several other instances scattered 

cxxviii) ; and this view is apparently through Petennann s notes, 
Cureton s, C, I. pp. 338, 341. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 243 

phians, which was already in his copy 1 . On the other hand the collec 
tion from which the Armenian Version is descended was made in a 
less perfunctory way. Nor again, as regards quotations, can it justly be 
said that the external evidence for this epistle, as compared with the 
other Additional Letters, is defective. It so happens that the passage 
in Anastasius given above (p. 196) is the earliest quotation from any 
of these six letters, if the Anastasius in question was the first patriarch 
of Antioch bearing the name, as seems most probable; and the fact 
that he inadvertently misquotes it as from the Epistle to the Tarsians 
is not unimportant, as showing that the two formed part of the same 
collection. 

Thus the external evidence, taken as a whole, favours the identity 
of authorship. And the same conclusion follows from the style and 
character of the epistle itself. It is true that the strange expedient 
of addressing Satan in a long monologue gives to this epistle a unique 
ness, which distinguishes it from the other five; and altogether the 
writer has aimed at producing a more complete and systematic expo 
sition of his theological views here than in the other letters. But these 
special features do not affect either the complexion of the theology or 
the characteristics of style. In these respects I can only see such a 
strong resemblance as points to the same mind and the same pen. 
There is a recurrence of the same favourite theological terms as in the 
other epistles ; d cos ruv oXwv ( i ; comp. Trail. 3, Philad. 9, Smyrn. 9, 
Ant. 3, Hero 7, Ephes. 7) and d /xo vos aXrjflivo s ( 2 ; see below, p. 256) 
applied to the Father^ Adyos cos or d cos Adyos ( 2, 3 ; comp. 
Mar. Ign. i, Trail. 10, Magn. 6, Tars. 4, 6, Philad. 6, Smyrn. i) 
and /AovoycvTjs ( 2; comp. Magn. 6, Tars. 6. Philad. 4, 6, Smyrn. i, 
Zfcr0 inscr. 7, 9, Ephcs. 7, 16, 20, Rom. inscr.) to the Son; 7rapdK\r)Tos 
( 2, 3, several times; comp. Philad. 4, 5, 9, Ephes. 20) to the Holy 
Spirit; IvavOpwiriiv, cVavtfpwTn/o-ts ( 2, 3, 5; comp. Mar. Ign. i, Ant. 3, 
4) to the Incarnation. There is the same jealous maintenance of the 
V7rcpox^ of the Father ( 12 ; comp. Smyrn. 7), and the same anxiety to 
vindicate the epithet ayeVv^ros to Him while denying it to the Son ( 7), 
which are leading characteristics of the other epistles (Trail. 6, y,Magn. 6, 
7, 8, 1 1, Philad. 4, Ant. 14, Hero 6, Ephes. 7, 18). The same heretics are 
denounced, and in the same terms; e.g. those who say that Christ suffered 
only in appearance, So/o/o-ci or &lt;ai/Tcuna not aXi?0aip ( 3, 4; comp. 
Trail. 9, 10, Tars. 2, 3, Smyrn. 2, 3), and who therefore are ashamed 
of the passion, TO TTU ^OS eVcuo-xuVco-tfcu ($ 4; comp. Trail. 6, Philad. 6, 

1 This very obvious explanation is like- whose book had not appeared when the 
wise offered by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 114) above was written. 

1 6 2 



244 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

Smyrn. 7, Ant. 4, 5, Hero 2); those who maintain that the Son is a 
mere man, ^1X05 av0po&gt;7ros ( 5, 6; comp. Trail. 6, Tars. 2, 5, 6, Philad. 6, 
y4 2, Zfm? 2, Ephes. 19); those who identify Christ with o CTTI TTO.VTWV 
o s ( 7; comp. Tfrrj. 2, 5). The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed 
stated much more fully in this epistle ( 2) than in the others ; but it is 
definitely declared elsewhere (Trail 6, Philad. 4, 5, 6), and the anxiety 
which is evinced to bring together the names of the Three Persons, 
frequently by inserting the mention of the Holy Spirit where the Middle 
Recension speaks only of the Father and the Son, shows how prominent 
a place it held in the writer s convictions (Philad. 9, n, Trail, i, 5, 
Smyrn. 13, Ant. 14, Hero 7, Ephes. 9, 15, 20, 21, Rom. i, 8). Above 
all, he puts forward the same strange Christology which appears in the 
other epistles, denying that Christ has a human soul as well as body 
and maintaining that the Divine Logos takes the place of the former 
( 5 ; comp. Philad. 7, and see below, p. 258). This one coincidence 
would have been conclusive in itself, if the other resemblances had left 
the matter at all doubtful. Again the Christian observance of certain 
festivals is directed (13; comp. Trail. 9, Magn. 9), and the Jewish 
observance of fasts and sabbaths denounced (ib. ; comp. Magn. 9), in 
similar terms. Those who offend in these respects are Christ-murderers, 
like the Jews, xpurroKTovot (14; see also 3 ov x yjrrov TUV TO&gt; Kvpiov 
&lt;TTa.vp&lt;jxrdvT&lt;j)V, COmp. Trail. IO; 15 KOIVCWOS CCTTI TWV aTroKTCtvavrwi/ TOV 
Kvpiov), a very favourite mode of expression in the other epistles 
(/cupioKTo vos Trail, n, Tars. 3; xP iaTOKT vo i Hero 2, Magn. n; xpuno- 
&lt;o vos Philad. 6; comp. xP la " ro f J - L X 0&lt;i Smyrn. 2). Again the injunctions 
respecting marriage and virginity are conceived in the same spirit and 
expressed in similar language (13; comp. Hero 2). The similarity 
extends even to the use of individual words and expressions which 
have no direct theological bearing. The employment of such very 
common Ignatian expressions as avrfyvxas ( 14) or OVOU/A^V ( 15) 
would be an obvious expedient, and no stress can be laid on these. 
But the case is different with yaAa/cTOTpo&lt;ta (8, 9; comp. yaXaKrorpo- 
&lt;eu/ Trail. 10), erw/xa ofj-oioiraOfs ( 9; comp. Trail. 10), owa&lt;a (12 
applied to marriage, as in Philad. 4; comp. Ephes. 4), TrapaTrA^ia 
( II ; comp. Mar. Ign. 2 TrapaTrX^), tru cmj/xa ( 15 TO crvvr^a. T&lt;3v 
TrapOevtDv; comp. Trail. 7 rt Se Trpco-^Sureptov aXX r] crt or^/m Upw), vorjTa. 
Kal ala-drjTa. ( n, and see 5 ; comp. Philad. 5), o 7rapaSoos TOKO-OS ( 8, 
of the incarnation ; comp. Hero 4), TO &lt;j/cpy^o-av ev MCOOTJ xai Trpo^rJTais 
KOL aTTooroAois ( i ; exactly the same expression which is used of the 
Spirit in Philad. 5), WXcta &lt;f&gt;povtlv (15; comp. Smyrn. n), TrurToVaTos 
( 15; see above, p. 237), TrporroVAao-Tos ( n of Adam and Eve; comp. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 245 

Hero 4). Other parallels again are the expressions applied to Satan, 
d opaKwv 6 aTrocTTttTT;?, d TOU Xpt&lt;7Toi5 ywpKT &(.!.&lt;;, o TOV aytov Trveu^aros 
aAAoTpiw$a s ( 1 1 ; COmp. Philad. 6 TOV SpaKovra TOV dTroord n/i , and ib. 
TOU dyiou Tryeu/xaros Kevos KCU TOU Xpioroi) a AAdrptos) ; or the form of saluta 
tion do-Tru^ecr&u TOV Aadv Kvpiou CITTO /HKpoJ) ews p.eyd\ov (1$; repeated 
word for word Hero 8, Ant. 12); or the parting benediction eppwcrfle 
$ V XQ TTvevfj-aTi (15; comp. Tars. IO Ippaxrfle au&gt;p.o.Ti /cat i/^ 
m). Again the unusual desiderative form eViSeiKTiav ( 10) has a parallel 
in &lt;f&gt;a.vf)TLav (Afar. Ign. 5). And doubtless this list of coincidences of 
language is very far from exhaustive. Lastly to complete the case we 
find in this epistle the same stock quotations from and allusions to the 
Scriptures, as in the others: e.g. i Tim. iv. 10 (inscr. ; comp. Ephes. 9, 
Magn. i); i Cor. i. 10, Phil. ii. 2 ( i; comp. Ephes. 2, 6, Trail. 6, 
Philad. 6); Ephes. iv. 4, 5, 6 ( i, 2; comp. Ephes. 6, Philad. 4); Deut. 
vi. 4 ( 2; comp. Ant. 2); i Cor. viii. 6 ( i, 2; comp. Tars. 4); John 
i. 14 ( 3, 5; comp. Ephes. 7, Trail. 9, Smyrn. 2, Ant. 4); Prov. ix. i 
( 3; comp. Smyrn. 2); Is. vii. 14 ( 3; comp. Ephes. 18, Ant. 3); Eph. 
ii. 2 ( 4; comp. Smyrn. 7, Philad. 6); i Cor. ii. 8 ( 5, 9; comp. Trail. 
n); Eph. v. 28 ( 13; comp. Philad. 4, Tars. 9, Ant. 9); Matt. iv. 23, 
etc. ( 5; comp. Magn. ii); Matt, xxviii. 19 ( 2; Philad. 9). So also, 
when describing the attacks of Satan on the saints of old, he employs 
the same instances from the Old Testament, describing them in very 
similar language (12; comp. Smyrn. 7). 

2. Having thus shown that all the six Additional Letters including 
the Epistle to the Philippians proceeded from the same hand which 
interpolated the Seven, we are in a position to enquire next, at what 
time and with what purpose this collection of thirteen letters was pro 
duced. And here again the subject naturally divides itself into an in 
vestigation of the external and internal evidence respectively. 

(i) The direct external evidence is not very early. The first Greek 
writers who distinctly refer to the Long Recension are Anastasius 
of Antioch (see p. 196) and Stephanus Gobarus (p. 195), towards the 
close of the sixth century. But a long interval might elapse before this 
recension superseded the other, more especially as the frequent quota 
tions from the earlier letters in Monophysite writers secured to them a 
vitality and a prominence which barred the way to this later pretender. 

On the other hand the indirect evidence afforded by the presence of 
the six Additional Epistles in the Armenian Version indicates a higher 
antiquity than these Greek quotations might suggest. I have already 
pointed out that the history of this version obliges us to assume a very 



246 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

considerable lapse of time after the first appearance of the Greek text, 
before the translation was made (p. 85 sq.). And, if Armenian scholars 
are only approximately right in assigning this version to the fifth 
century, we can hardly place the date of the six Additional Letters, and 
therefore of the Long Recension generally, much later than the end of 
the fourth. 

(ii) But, if the external testimony is somewhat vague and indecisive, 
the epistles themselves contain indications which narrow the limits 
more closely. 

(a) The ecclesiastical status, as it appears in these letters, points to a 
time not earlier than the middle of the fourth century, while on the other 
hand there is nothing in the notices which suggests a date later than 
the end of the same century. 

A passage in the Epistle to the Philadelphians (4) would hardly 
have been written before the conversion of Constantine, for it supposes 
that the State had become Christian. The governors are enjoined to 
render obedience to the emperor ; the soldiers to the rulers ; the 
deacons to the presbyters ; the presbyters and the deacons and the 
whole clergy together with the laity and the soldiers and the governors 
and the emperor to the bishop 1 . 

Again the multiplication of the lower ranks of the clergy points to a 
mature state of organization. Besides the three higher orders, there are 
already subdeacons, readers, singers, door-keepers, labourers, exorcists, 
(eYop/aoTai), confessors (Ant. 12 ; comp. Philipp. 15). The fact that the 
writer can put such language into the mouth of S. Ignatius without any 
consciousness of a flagrant anachronism would seem to show that these 
offices were not very new when he wrote. Now of these lower orders, 
the subdeacons, readers, doorkeepers, and exorcists, are mentioned in 
the celebrated letter of Cornelius bishop of Rome (A.D. 251) preserved 
by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 43), and the readers existed at least half a century 
earlier (Tertull. de Praescr. 41). In the Eastern Church however, if we 
except the Apostolic Constitutions, of which the date and country are 
uncertain, the first reference to such offices is found in a canon of the 
Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, where readers, subdeacons, and exorcists, 
are mentioned this being apparently intended as an exhaustive enume 
ration of the ecclesiastical orders below the diaconate; and for the first 
mention of doorkeepers in the East we must go to the still later 
Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 363* (see n. p. 824 for the references, 

1 The application of Prov. xxii. 29 and active bishop (Ephes. 6) perhaps sug- 
opaTiKov avSpa xa.1 o$vv tv roit tpyois gests the same inference. 
O.VTOV f3a&lt;ri\fv&lt;riv Set TrapfffTavat. to a wise 2 On the date of this Council see 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 247 

where also fuller information is given). But while most of these lower 
orders certainly existed in the West, and probably in the East, as early 
as the middle of the third century, the case is different with the singers 
(i/^aXrai) and the labourers (KOTriarai). Setting aside the Apostolic 
Constitutions, the first notice of the singers occurs in the canons of 
the above mentioned Council of Laodicea . This however may be 
accidental. The history of the word copiatac affords a more precise and 
conclusive indication of date. The term first occurs in a rescript of 
Constantius (A.D. 357) clerici qui copiatae appellantur, and a little 
later (A.D. 361) the same emperor speaks of them as hi quos copiatas 
recens usus instituit nuncupari. Moreover it is worthy of notice that 
our Ignatian writer in describing this office avoids the substantive 
KOTTiara? and employs instead the corresponding verb TOVS K07r3vTas, 
betraying, as I suppose, the consciousness of treading on dangerous 
ground and desiring to disguise an anachronism under the veil of a 
less distinctive expression 2 (see n. p. 825, for the references and for 
additional information on this subject) 3 . 

Again the notices of fasts and festivals (see especially Philipp. 13, 
14) tend in the same direction. From the observance of Wednesdays 
and Fridays indeed no definite result is obtained; for these days are 
known to have been kept as fasts at least as early as the age of Clement 
of Alexandria (Strom, vii. 12, p. 877) and Tertullian (de Jejun. 14). Of 
the quadragesimal Lenten fast again, which is also mentioned in these 
epistles, Augustine (Epist. Iv. 32, Op. n. p. 141) says that the custom 
of the Church has confirmed its observance, and the forty days are 
mentioned as early as a canon of the Council of Nicrea (Labb. Cone. n. 
36 ; comp. Athan. Ep. Encyd. ad Episc. 4, Op. \. p. 91), though in the 
middle of the third century, when Dionysius of Alexandria wrote (Labb. 
Cone. i. 857), the fast seems not to have extended beyond the Paschal 

Westcott History of tJic Canon p. 428, n Perhaps the absence of any mention 

ed. 4. of \\izparabolani in these Ignatian Epistles 

1 In the 1 5th canon they are styled is also significant. They are first men- 
oi KavoviKol ^aXrai : in the 24th canon all tioned in a law of the younger Theodosius 
the orders below the diaconate are enu- (A.D. 416), Cod. Theod. Lib. xvi. Tit. ii. 
merated thus ; virrjp^rat [i. e. inroSiaKorot] Leg. xlii. It would appear from the lan- 
T) avayvuffTai. f, ^aXrat -fj tiropKiaral TI guage there used, that the office, though 
Ovpwpd rj TO ray/jia ri2v CWTCTJTWJ . already firmly established and powerful, 

2 The sentence in the text (together was comparatively recent ; eorum qui 
with the greater part of the present chap- parabolani nuncupantur, eos qui para- 
ter) was written before Zahn s work Igna- bolani vocantur. If the office existed 
tius von Antiochim appeared. Zahn ex- when our Ignatian author wrote, it must 
presses himself in precisely the same way, have been so recent that the anachronism 
I. v.A. p. 129. would have betrayed itself. 



248 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

week. Moreover it is thought that our Ignatian writer, when condemn 
ing in strong terms those who celebrate the passover with the Jews, 
refers to the Quartodecimans (see Ussher p. xcv sq.). If so, he ventures 
on a bold anachronism which would hardly be possible before the 
middle of the fourth century ; for the Church of Antioch, which Ignatius 
himself represented, and the Churches of Asia Minor, with which he 
was on terms of the closest intimacy, observed the Quartodeciman 
practice from the earliest times, until the Council of Nicaea decided 
against this practice and established uniformity throughout Christendom 
(A than, de Synod. Ar. et Set. 5, Op. i. p. 574; Ep. ad Afr. Episc. 2, Op. 
i. p. 713 ; Chrysost. cum Jud. Jejun. iii. 3, Op. I. p. 608 sq.). He has 
however been careful to disguise his meaning under an ambiguous 
expression, that the anachronism might not be too apparent. But, 
whether this be the true reference of the words or not, the language of 
the warning against Jewish practices (Philipp. 14) has its closest 
parallels in the decrees of councils and synods about the middle of the 
fourth century. 

((3) The rough date which is thus suggested for this forgery 
accords likewise with the names of persons and places which are introduced 
to give colour to the fiction. The name Maris or Marinus (Mar. Ign. 
i, Hero 9) becomes prominent in conciliar lists and elsewhere in the 
fourth century (see below, n. p. 721). It is worthy of notice also that 
the Maris of the Ignatian letters is represented as bishop of Neapolis on 
the Zarbus, meaning thereby apparently the city of Anazarbus (see n. p. 
722). But among the victims of the persecution under Diocletian, one 
Marinus of Anazarbus is commemorated in the Martyrologies on Aug. 
8. Indeed the mention of Anazarbus itself suggests as late a date as 
the fourth century, for it is only then that this place takes any position 
in ecclesiastical history. The name Eulogius again (Mar. Ign. i), like 
Marinus, appears in conciliar lists at this epoch (see below, n. p. 724). 
One Eulogius became bishop of Edessa A.D. 379 (Lequien Oriens Christ. 
ii. 958). So likewise the name Vitalis 2 (Philipp. 14) points in the same 
direction. One Vitalis was bishop of Antioch early in the fourth 
century, A.D. 318 or 319; another, a friend of Apollinaris, was bishop of 

1 Martyrol. Roman, vi Id. Aug. Ana- without any indication of the place, 
zarbi in Cilicia S. Marini senis qui sub 2 The Vitalis (BtraXios) of Philipp. 14 

Diocletiano etc. In the Martyrol. Hie- is called Vitus (Biros) in Hero 8. A Vitus, 

ran. xi Kal. Sept. is the notice In Anti- bishop of Carrhae, was present at the 

ochia natalis S. Marini ; and in the early Council of Constantinople (Labb. Cone. 

Syriac Martyrology published by Wright, II. 1 1 34), where he stands next in the list 

under Aug. 24, a Marinus is mentioned to a Eulogius and not far from a Maris. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 249 

the Apollinarian party, apparently also at Antioch, some half-century 
later (Greg. Naz. Epist. 102, Op. n. pp. 94, 96; Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvii. 
21, 23 sq.; Sozom. H. E. vi. 25; Chron. Pasch. p. 548, ed. Bonn.; 
Labb. Cone. ii. 1014); a third, a bishop of Tyre, seceded with the other 
Semiarians from Sardica (A.D. 343) and was present at the synod, of 
Philippopolis (Labb. Cone. n. 710). 

(y) Another valuable indication of date is found in the plagiarisms 
of this Ignatian forgery from preceding writers. The most obvious of 
these is the opening sentence of the Epistle to the Antiochenes ( EAa&lt;pa 
Hoi KOL Kov(f&gt;a. to. Seo-yua o Ki ptos TTfirofyKtv), which with one insignificant 
exception (TrcTrot^Kcv for eTroi^crev) is taken verbatim from the commence 
ment of a letter addressed by Alexander of Jerusalem to this same 
church early in the third century (Euseb. H. E. vi. n). It is scarcely 
less clear again, that the distinction made in Philipp. 1 2 between Matt, 
iv. 10 vTraye Sarava and Matt. xvi. 23 virayt. OTTUTW /xov is derived from 
Origen (see u. p. 784), and therefore cannot have been written before 
the middle of the third century. The obligations to Eusebius again can 
hardly be overlooked or questioned. The notice of Ebion (Philad. 6) 
is taken from Eus. H. E. iii. 27, as the close resemblances of language 
show (see ir. p. 797). A polemical passage relating to the Logos 
(Magn. 8) seems to be suggested by the Ecd. Theol. ii. 8, 9 (see n. p. 
755), while the preceding context (Magn. 6) is apparently borrowed 
from the companion treatise, c. Marcell. ii. i, 4 (see n. p. 754). The 
comments on the fall of Satan (Philipp. ii) present close resemblances 
to Praep. Ev. vii. 16 (see n. p. 783). The remark on the descent into 
Hades (Trail. 9) is evidently taken from the Doctrine of Addai, as 
quoted in Eus. H. E. i. 13 (see n. p. 742); and from Eusebius also, 
rather than from the letter itself, was doubtless derived the plagiarism 
from Alexander of Jerusalem of which mention has been made already. 
Again the comparative chronology of the bishops of Rome and Anti 
och in Ign. Mar. 4 is derived by inference from the sequence of the 
narrative in Eus. H. E. iii. 34, 36, 38, and our Ignatian writer has like 
wise followed the historian in making Anencletus, instead of Linus, the 
successor of Clemens, thus deserting in this instance the Apostolic Con 
stitutions which (as will be seen presently) he copies servilely elsewhere. 

These plagiarisms throw the date of this Ignatian forgery as far 
forward as the middle of the fourth century at least. The coincidences 
with later writers than these, though not decisive, are sufficiently close to 
raise a suspicion. Thus the hoar head of a prematurely wise youth in 
Mar. Ign. 2 is described in language closely resembling that of S. Basil 
when speaking of Daniel (Comm. in Esai. 104), whom our Ignatian 



250 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

writer also mentions in his context (see n. p. 725 sq.). Again the 
expression in Trail. 6 ov xptcmavot aAXa ^ptaTe/xTropot appears in Basil 
Ep, 240 xpLo-refjiTTopoi KOL ov xpmavoi (see n. p. 737), an( ^ this can 
hardly be accidental, unless indeed it had become a proverbial expres 
sion (see n. p. 759). On the whole it appears more probable than 
not, that the writer was acquainted with S. Basil s works. On the 
other hand no stress can be laid on the fact that he (Magn. 9) in 
common with Gregory Nazianzen calls Sunday the queen of days 
(n. p. 758), for this seems to have been a recognized designation. But 
the resemblance in the opening of Ign. Mar. i to the opening of one of 
Chrysostom s letters (Epist. 27) is very close (see n. p. 729); and yet 
perhaps not close enough to establish a plagiarism, if there should be an 
absence of other indications in these Ignatian letters pointing to so late 
a date. 

The obligations of our Ignatian forger however to another source are 
far greater than to any of the writers hitherto mentioned. The coinci 
dences with the Apostolic Constitutions are frequent and minute, as 
may be seen by references to the notes in this edition; 11. pp. 725, 727, 
736, 739, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 750, 751, 752, 756, 758, 760, 761, 
766, 771, 777, 784, 785, 786, 787, 789, 790, 791, 792, 794, 796, 797, 
800, 801, 802, 807, 808, 809, 823, 824 sq., 826, 828, 830, 831, 832, 
846, 848. These resemblances were far too prominent to escape notice, 
and demanded an explanation from the very first. Those who, like 
Turrianus, accepted both the Apostolic Constitutions and the pseudo- 
Ignatian Epistles as genuine, had a very simple and natural solution. 
Ignatius was supposed to have borrowed from Clement. Writers like 
wise, such as Vedelius, who condemned the Ignatian Epistles as forged 
or interpolated, supposed that this false Ignatius was indebted to the 
Apostolic Constitutions for the passages which they had in common. 
No one, so far as I know, maintained the converse solution, that the 
writer of the Apostolic Constitutions borrowed from these Ignatian 
letters, whether the latter were regarded as genuine or as spurious. 

Ussher was not satisfied with this view. The resemblances seemed 
to him so striking that he could only ascribe the two works to a 
single hand. Both the Apostolic Constitutions and the Ignatian 
Epistles of the Long Recension were, he supposed, the work of one and 
the same author, who lived in the sixth century (Ign. et Polyc. Ep. 
p. Ixiii sq.). 

Pearson again (Vind. Ign. p. 155 sq.) started a theory of his own. 
He supposed the existing eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions to 
have been put together subsequently to the age of Epiphanius from pre- 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 251 

existing SioW/caXicu or SiSa^ou, which bore the names of Clement, 
Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. To these works, and not to the epistles of the 
Apostolic fathers, he believed the reference to be in the Stichometria of 
Nicephorus (see above, p. 213), where they are included among apocry 
phal works. From the StoW/caXia of Ignatius he conjectured that the 
Ignatian interpolator borrowed the passages which the two documents 
have in common, unless indeed (which he thought less probable) the 
3iSao-KaXta itself was made up from the pseudo-Ignatian epistles. 

The hypothesis of Pearson has not found any favour. The solution 
of Ussher also has commonly been rejected by subsequent writers on 
the Apostolic Constitutions, though apparently not without one notable 
exception (Lagarde Rel. Jur. Ecd. Grace, p. vii) 1 . Meanwhile the 
problem has been complicated by new discoveries. Not only have 
shorter recensions of the Ignatian Epistles come to light, but the Apo 
stolic Constitutions also have been discovered in a briefer form. Such 
a form of the first six books of the Constitutions in Syriac was pub 
lished in 1854 by Lagarde (DidascaUa Apostolorum Syriace), and with 
the help of the larger document he re-translated them into Greek 
(Bunsen s Anal. Antenic. n. p. 35 sq.). As in the case of the Ignatian 
Epistles, so here also it is a question of dispute whether the Greek is an 
enlargement from the short form represented by the Syriac, as main 
tained by Lagarde (Rel. Jur. Ecd. Graec. pp. iv, Ivi), Zahn (/. v. A. 
p. 145 sq.), and others, or whether on the other hand the Syriac is an 
abridgement of the longer form extant in the Greek, which is the opinion 
of Bickell (Geschichte des Kirchenrechts I. p. 148 sq.) and others. For 
reasons however which will appear hereafter, we may waive this ques 
tion, and address ourselves to the investigation whether the Ignatian 
writer is indebted to the author of the Constitutions or conversely, or 
whether (according to Ussher s theory) the two are the work of one hand. 

The result of such an investigation is to establish the priority of the 
Apostolic Constitutions. In one passage (Trail. 7) the Ignatian writer 
accidentally betrays the source of his obligations. He enjoins reverence 
for the bishop according as the blessed Apostles ordained (ol /xa/capiot 
SuTaavTo aTrocrToXot) for you . The reference is to Apost. Const, ii. 20 
(see below, n. p. 739). If indeed this allusion had stood alone, we 
might have felt doubtful about the correctness of the inference. But 
there is no lack of passages showing on which side the indebtedness 
lies. Thus in Apost. Const, ii. i it is stated that Josias began his 

1 Bunsen too so far acquiesces in Us- if not from one and the same hand (/&gt;- 
sher s opinion as to maintain that the natius v. Antiochiai etc. p. 206). 
two works issued from the same school, 



25- 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



righteous reign when he was eight years old ; but in Magn. 3, which 
partly copies the language of Apost. Const, ii. i, he is apparently repre 
sented as only eight years old when he extirpated the idolatries, and in 
Mar. Ign. 4 accordingly he is spoken of as hardly able to speak and 
as still lisping with his tongue at this time, though the Biblical 
chronology makes him twenty years old. The Ignatian writer has been 
misled by the passage in the Constitutions and has not referred to his 
Bible to correct his misapprehension (see n. p. 727). So again in 
Magn. 4 the false Ignatius, after mentioning Absalom, states that 
Abeddadan lost his head for a like reason. The statement is inex 
plicable in itself; but turning to Apost. Const, vi. 2, we find that the 
author has by an accidental error ascribed to Abeddadan (Obed-Edom) 
the words and deeds assigned in the Biblical narrative to Sheba 
(see n. p. 751). Here also our Ignatian writer has trusted the author 
of the Constitutions too implicitly. Again, in Ephes. 15 we have the 
statement that Jesus Christ first did and then taught (-n-pwov c-n-oirjcrev 
/cat TOTC e8i 8av), as Luke bcareth witness. The reference is not 
apparent till we turn to Apost. Const, ii. 6, where the expression is 
began first to do and then to teach (r/p^aro Trpcorov Trotetv KCU rore 
StSao-Keiv), whence we see that the passage in question is Acts i. i (see 
n. p. 846). Again in Antioch. 9 wives are bidden to honour their 
husbands and not to dare to call them byname . The meaning of 
this prohibition is only then explained, when we refer to Apost. Const. 
vi. 29, where the same injunction to obey and honour husbands appears 
with the added sanction as the holy Sarah honoured Abraham, not 
enduring to call him by name but addressing him as lord (see ii. p. 823). 
In several other passages also the Ignatian Epistles are elucidated by 
the Constitutions. Thus in Ant. 12 the deaconesses are designated the 
keepers of the sacred doors, as if it were their main or only business; 
while in Apost. Const, ii. 57 we find this assigned to them as their 
special function. Again in Magn. 9 the statement that the purpose of 
the sabbath was the study of God s laws (fieXen; VO /AWV) is explained by 
the fuller treatment of the same topic in Apost. Const, ii. 36, vi. 23 (see 
ii- p. 756). In other passages likewise, where there are parallels, the 
priority of the Constitutions may be inferred from the additions in the 
Ignatian letters. Thus in the enumeration of church officers, Ant. 12, 
the mention of the copiatae, the grave-diggers, which is absent from the 
corresponding passages of the Apost. Const, iii. n, viii. 12, suggests that 
the office had been created, or at least that the name here assigned to 
it had been given, during the interval which elapsed between the 
composition of the two works (see n. p. 824 sq.). 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 253 

Thus the priority of the Apostolic Constitutions seems to be deci 
sively established. Moreover the plagiarisms are taken from the work 
as we have it now. Modern critics are disposed to attribute the 7th 
and 8th books to a different hand from the earlier six. This is a ques 
tion into which we need not enter. The obligations to these two last 
books, more especially to the eighth, are hardly less considerable in 
comparison with their length than to the earlier and larger part of the 
work. Of the references given above (p. 250), the following refer to 
these two books; pp. 736, 742, 743, 751, 752, 760, 761, 766, 777, 786, 
800, 802, 826, 828, 830, 831, 832, 848. Though Zahn (/. v. A. p. 
146 sq.) disputes the inference, the strength of the parallels compels 
us to extend the plagiarisms to these 7th and 8th books 1 . It is true 
indeed that our Ignatian writer (Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 7) has adopted 
another view from the author of the Constitutions (vii. 46) respecting 
the succession of the early Roman bishops (see n. p. 731), preferring 
in this instance to follow Eusebius (see above, p. 249). But it is difficult 
to understand the weight which Zahn assigns to this fact, or to see how 
it affords any presumption against his free use of the seventh book 
in other parts. 

Nor again (as I have already intimated) will it be necessary for our 
purpose to consider whether or not the Apostolic Constitutions, as we 
have them, are a later recension of some earlier work or works as 
for instance, whether they are an expansion of the Syriac document 
which has been mentioned already. If the priority had been assigned 
to the Ignatian Letters and the author of the Apostolic Constitutions 
had been proved the plagiarist, the question would have been compli 
cated, and the history of the development of the Apostolic Constitutions 
would have had a direct bearing on the question before us. As it is, we 
are spared this trouble. Other clear indications show that our Ignatian 
letters were forged and interpolated not before the middle of the fourth 
century. There is nothing in the Apostolic Constitutions, even in their 
present form, inconsistent with an earlier date than this, while their 
silence on questions which interested the Church in the middle and 
latter half of the fourth century is in itself a strong presumption that 
they were written before that date. But as Zahn has truly said (/. v. A. 

1 Zahn s attempts to account for the Magn. 1 1 ; viii. 46 in Tars. 3 ; vii. 25 in 

coincidences in the passages which he Philad. 9. The section, Hero 5, is made 

notices will not, I think, command as- up of passages from these books of the 

sent; and he altogether overlooks several Constitutions. Bickell (i. p. 58 sq.) inlike 

of the most cogent parallels ; e.g. viii. 12 manner overlooks the closer parallels. 
in Trail. 10; vii. 37, 41, viii. i, 12, in 



254 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

p. 145), the pseudo-Ignatian letters contain far clearer indications of 
date than the Apostolic Constitutions. They should therefore be taken 
as the starting point for any investigations respecting the origin of the 
latter, and not conversely. 

(8) The doctrinal teaching of these Ignatian Epistles affords another 
evidence of date not less decisive than any of the former. There may 
be some difficulty in fixing the precise position of the writer himself, 
but we can entertain no doubt about the doctrinal atmosphere in which 
he lived and moved. The Arian and Semiarian, the Marcellian and 
Apollinarian controversies of the middle and subsequent decades of the 
fourth century are his main interest. On the other hand these epistles 
contain nothing which suggests that the writer was acquainted with the 
Nestorian and Monophysite disputes of the succeeding ages. This 
silence is the more significant, when we remember the polemical spirit 
of our Ignatian writer. 

The Catholic doctrine of the Person of Christ is exposed to perver 
sion, or is discredited by extravagant statement, in two opposite direc 
tions. On the one side there are the aberrations of Arianism and 
Nestorianism ; on the other of Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, and 
Monophysitism. On the one side there is a dividing of the Substance 
in the Godhead, on the other a confounding of the Persons, with their 
attendant or allied errors in each case. The true Ignatius of the early 
years of the second century, though orthodox in his doctrinal intentions, 
yet used language which seemed to transgress the bounds of careful 
definition on the latter side. He spoke of the blood of God (Ephcs. 
i), and described our God Jesus Christ as borne in the womb of 
Mary (Ephes. 18). Hence he became a favourite authority with 
Monophysite writers. On the other hand the false Ignatius of the latter 
half of the fourth century, whether orthodox or not in his doctrinal 
position (which is a matter of dispute), leaned to the other side ; and he 
altered and interpolated the early father whose name he assumed in 
accordance with his own leanings. The blood of God becomes the 
blood of Christ in Ephes. i ; and our God Jesus Christ becomes the 
Son of God who was begotten before the ages in Ephes. 18. 

His exact doctrinal position has been the subject of much discus 
sion. For the most part he has been regarded as an Arian. This 
is the view of Leclerc (Cotelier Pair. Apost. n. p. 506 sq., Amstel. 
1724), of Grabe (Spicil. n. p. 225 sq.), and of Newman (Essays Critical 
and Historical i. p. 239 sq.) ; and it has been adopted still more 
recently by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 132 sq.), who is disposed to identify the 
author with Acacius of C?esarea, the scholar and literary heir of 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 255 

Eusebius. Funk (Theol. Quartalschr. LXII. p. 355 sq.) defends him 
against the charge of Arianism, but sets him down as an Apollinarian. 
Ussher discovered some affinities with Arianism, others with Apolli- 
narianism (p. Ixxxv sq., cviii sq.). On the other hand Bunsen (Igna 
tius v. Antiochien etc. p. 205) is doubtful whether either Arian or Apolli 
narian language can be traced in him. Cotelier was inclined to main 
tain his orthodoxy (Patr. Apost. n. p. 43). 

It is much easier to ascertain this writer s antipathies than his 
sympathies. His polemic is aimed directly against the teaching of 
Marcellus and of his pupil Photinus. There can be no reasonable 
doubt that this is the object of Magn. 6 (comp. Smyrn. 3), where 
he maintains the existence of the Logos before and after the present 
order of things (see ir. p. 753). So again in a later passage in the 
same epistle (Magn. 8), where the genuine Ignatius had used an expres 
sion almost identical with the language in which Marcellus clothed his 
doctrine (see n. p. 126 sq.), our Ignatian writer so alters the text before 
him as to make it a direct refutation of Marcellus, and this refutation is 
couched in words closely resembling and apparently borrowed from 
those of Eusebius when dealing with this same heretic (see n. p. 754 sq.). 

So far we see clearly. It is only when we try to realise his own 
position that the difficulty begins. 

The main arguments in support of his Arianism are these, (i) He 
betrays his heretical leanings in the alterations which he introduces 
into the Christological passages of the genuine Ignatius. Two examples 
(Ephes. i, 1 8) have been mentioned already; but inasmuch as in these 
cases the original text seems to savour of theopaschitism, the alterations 
might have been introduced in the interests of the strictest orthodoxy. 
Other examples however occur, where this defence will not hold; e.g. 
Smyrn. i IT/O-OW Xptcrrov TOV eov TOV ourws K.T.X., altered into TOV eoY 
Kal irarepa TOV Kvptov ?7//,c3i/ I^o-ou X/DIOTOV TOV Si CLVTOV OUTWS K.T.A., and 
Ephes. inscr. TOU Trarpo? /cat !T;O-OU Xptcrroil TOV 0eou i^iuov, altered into 
0tov Trarpos /cat Kvpt ov 7^/x.aJv I^o-ou Xpio-Tou TOU oxoT^pos TJ/JU^V (comp. 
Rom. inscr., 3). The force of this argument however is considerably 
weakened by the fact, which will be noticed hereafter (p. 258), that 
frequently elsewhere he deliberately assigns to Jesus Christ the name of 
God, which in these passages he seems to withhold. (2) He is careful 
to distinguish between the Father as ayeVv^Tos and the Son as yew^Tos 
(see above, p. 243). This however proves nothing. If indeed Zahn 
had been right in supposing that in the age when this Ignatian pre 
tender wrote the terms yei/r^TOS and yev^ro s, ayeVvJjTos and ayeV?;TOS, 

were used indiscriminately, there would have been much force in this 



256 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

argument (7. v. A. p. 135 sq.). But it has been shown elsewhere (n. p. 
90 sq.) that the distinction between these words was fully recognized at 
this time ; that in accordance with orthodox theology the Son was 
yfvvrjTos, though not yfvyTos ; and that, though (for reasons which I 
have explained there) the orthodox fathers of the Nicene age avoided 
the term yew^-ros, they could not deny its correctness (e.g. Greg. Nyss. 
Op. III. p. 35, ed. Morel, TOU Se Trarpos iStov TO ayi&gt;r&gt;7Ttos cTvat oyu.oAoyet- 
rai). When therefore our interpolator altered the expression yevv^ros 
KOL ayeVv^Tos which he found applied to our Lord in the text of the 
genuine Ignatius (Ephcs. 7), he acted in the interests of orthodoxy so 
far as regards the removal of the term aytVvt/Tos, which, as applied to 
the Son in His divine nature, involves a contradiction of terms. (3) He 
denies that the Son is d ort Trairwv os, o TWV oAo&gt;v eo?, confining 
these terms to the Father (see above, p. 244). This language however 
is a protest against Sabellianism, and is altogether consistent with the 
Nicene doctrine. Gregory Nyssen himself uses such language again and 
again (e.g. Op. n. pp. 336, 340, 342, 343, etc., HI. pp. 22, 24, 31, etc.). 
(4) He quotes with emphasis the passages in the Bible which speak of 
the unity of God (Ant. 2, 3, 4, Philipp. 2) ; and on these and other 
occasions he speaks of the Father as the /xovos a/Volvos cos (Smyrn. 6, 
Philad. 2, Magn. u, Ephes. 7, Ant. 4, Philipp. 2; comp. Rom. 6). 
But this language is not without parallels in the orthodox fathers ; 
the expression o /xo vos aA^flivos &gt;s is scriptural (John xvii. 3 ; see 
Smyrn. 6) ; and in the very passages (Ant. 2, 3) where he thus deals 
with the Scriptures he proceeds to point out that these Scriptures call 
the Second Person of the Trinity Kvpios and eo;. (5) He uses such 
terms as apxto-TparT/yos (Smyrn. 8) and apxiepev s (Magn. 4, 7, Smyrn. 9) 
of the Son ; and their employment is supposed to betoken a desire to 
withhold higher titles. But this is no necessary inference, and in the 
case of the latter word he is careful to say that Christ is the only high- 
priest (of the Father) by nature (&lt;IKTCI), Magn. 4, Smyrn. 9. (6) He 
never uses the term o/xoov o-ios, though he must have been familiar with 
it. But, if he had any respect for the verisimilitude of his forgery, he 
would naturally avoid a word of which the previous history had been 
carefully investigated, and which was known not to have been used 
except rarely, and then only in a non- Nicene and heretical sense, as a 
definition of the Sabellianism of Paul of Samosata. (7) He insists on 
the preeminence or superiority (uTrepo^/) of the Father (Philipp. 12, 
Smyrn. 7). In the first passage more especially he represents our Lord 
as addressing Satan on the occasion of the temptation, I am cognisant 
of the One, I know the Only (o*8a rov Ira, cTrto-Ta/xat TOV ^wov), from 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 257 

whom thou hast become an apostate. I do not set myself against God 
(OVK clfj.1 ai/Ti0eos), I confess the preeminence. I do not refuse to worship 
Him whom I know, who is the cause of my generation (TOV T^S ep.rjs ytv- 
vrjcrcus amov)...for / live by reason of the Father (Sia TOV Trarcpa) 1 . But 
in the first place, the virtpoyfi of the Father is maintained by the most 
orthodox writers (see Cotelier Pair. Apost. n. p. 86), and indeed, when 
rightly understood, is a necessary element of the Catholic doctrine of 
the Trinity (see Bull Defens. Fid. Nicen. Sect, iv De subordinatione 
Filii ); and secondly, the worship here mentioned is directly connected 
with the temptation, and therefore with the humanity of Christ. Nor 
again is the expression in Trail. 5, TOU re Trvcv/aaros TT}V vif/rjXoTrjra KOI TOV 
Kuptov rrjv /JacriAeiai/ /ecu eVt TTOLCTL TO TOV TravTOKpaTOpos 0eou dirapdOeTOV, 
incapable of an orthodox interpretation. 

On the other hand there are not wanting passages which seem to 
indicate the writer as an adherent of the Nicene doctrine, (i) If he 
avoids the word O/AOOVO-IOS, he uses O/XO TI/AOS instead. In Philipp. 2, 
speaking of the baptismal formula (Matt, xxviii. 19), he says that 
baptism is enjoined not into One with three names nor into Three 
incarnates, but into Three equal in honour (o/um/tovs). It is difficult to 
interpret this otherwise than as a virtual acknowledgment of the Nicene 
doctrine, especially when we compare it with such passages as Athan. 
Expos. Fid. i (Op. i. p. 79), where he calls the Son i~fjv dXydivrjv 
tiKova TOV TrctTpds IffOTtfunv Kal lo~68oov, OT Greg. Naz. Orat. 31 12 
(Op. i. p. 563), where this father speaks of TO iv TOIS rpwriv 6fj.oTifj.ov T^S 
ot a? KOI -n/s 6foTr)To&lt;; (see also other passages quoted by Funk, p. 372 sq.). 
(2) He repeatedly speaks of the Son as begotten or existing Trpd 
cuowiH , etc. (e.g. Ephes. 7, 18, Magn. 6, n, Tars. 6, Antioch. 14). 
This, so far as it goes, tends in the direction of the Nicene doctrine ; 
but, as the statement was accepted by most Arians, no stress can be 
laid on it 2 . (3) He speaks of the Son as by nature unchangeable, TT/ 
&lt;f&gt;v&lt;Tfi aTpcTTTo?. On the other hand Arius in his Thalia had designated 
Him TYJ (frvo-fi TpeTTTo? (Athan. &lt;:. Arian. -i. 5, 9, Op. i. pp. 323, 326), and 
it is difficult to conceive an Arian directly negativing this language of 
Arius. (4) He not only repeatedly condemns those who regard Christ 
as a mere man i/aAds av^pwTros (see above, p. 244), denouncing them 
as Christ-slayers (Hero 2), and saying that such persons are con 
demned by the prophet (Jer. xvii. 5, 6) as trusting not in God but in 
man (Ant. 5); but he also repudiates those who, on the pretext of 



1 This very passage has a parallel in E^w yap, tprjcri, fw 5td r 
Gregory Nyssen c. Eunom. i {Op. u. p. 2 It is even urged by Newman (Essays 

417) T-f)v fj.tv alrlav TOV elfai iKeWev ?x wi/ ! P- 240) as a mark of Arianism. 

IG. I. 17 



258 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

maintaining the unity of the Godhead, deny that Jesus Christ is God 
(Ant. I TOV XpiCTTov dpvcicrOai Trpo^xxcret TOV cvos eou, ib. 5 cva KO.I fiovov 
KaTayye XXei eov CTT dvaipecret r^s TOV Xpurrou fleoTrjTOs). (5) He him 
self repeatedly speaks of Christ as God, sometimes retaining this desig 
nation where he found it in the text of the genuine Ignatius (Polyc. 8, 
Rom. inscr., 6, Ephes. 7), sometimes even inserting it proprio motit 
where it does not so occur (Tars, i, 6, Smyrn. 5, Ephes. 15; and with 
Xo yos or p.ovoyfVT]&lt;;, Smyrn. i, Philad. 4, 6, Magn. 6 ; comp. Ant. 4, 5). 

With these facts before us, we should find it difficult to convict him 
of Arianism. At the most our verdict must be, Non liquet. It is obvious 
indeed that he had a great horror of anything like Sabellianism, and this 
dread led him to avoid the Nicene term o/xoovo-ios; to emphasize the 
antithesis of aye vv^Tos and yevvT/ToV, as designating the Father and the 
Son respectively, though commonly shunned by Nicene writers ; and 
generally to lay stress on the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity 
not without some risking of appearing to divide the Substance. In short 
his position is not unlike that of Eusebius of Caesarea. He leans to 
the side of Arianism, though without definitely crossing the border. 

But on one point he was certainly heretical. If it is highly 
questionable whether he disputed the perfect Godhead of our Lord, it is 
certain that he denied the perfect manhood. In Smyrn. 4 he instinctively 
omits the words TOV TcXeiov d.vOpu&gt;Tfov, though the passage loses greatly by 
the omission, its point being the perfect sympathy of Christ as flowing 
from His perfect humanity. In Philipp. 5 indeed he is made in the 
common text to speak of Christ as perfect man (re Xeios avtfpwTros), but 
it is plain from the authorities (see n. p. 777) that this is a scribe s 
alteration to bring his language into harmony with orthodox doctrine. 
In two several passages he explains his own creed. In Philipp. 5 he 
states negatively that Christ had no human soul (TOV OVK dvOpwrreiav 
tyvxrjv ex orra )- I n Philad. 6 he declares on the positive side that God 
the Word dwelt in a human body, and again that God dwelt in Him 
and not a human soul, wherefore it was heretical to say that Jesus 
Christ was a man, consisting of soul and body. In both passages 
(see n. pp. 777, 796 sq.) copyists or translators have tampered with 
the text, altering it so as to remove this blemish of heterodoxy. 

Is this Apollinarianism? Not strictly so. Apollinaris himself adopted 
the tripartite division of man s nature, vovs (or 7ri/ev/xa), \j/v^, o-w/xa ; 
and accordingly he held that the Divine Logos took the place of the 
human Nous. It is stated however that certain Apollinarians denied 
not only the human vous but the human i/or*^; also (Epiphan. Haer. 
Ixxvii. 2, 24), apparently adopting a bipartite division. This indeed 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 259 

seems to have been the earlier position of the school, from which it was 
driven under pressure of scriptural arguments (see especially Socr. 
H. E. ii. 46). At all events it is the position maintained by our Igna- 
tian writer, whether Apollinarian or not. Against the view that he was 
an Apollinarian, it is urged that the Arians agreed with the Apollina- 
rians in mutilating the humanity of Christ by denying it a human soul. 
This Arianism indeed was a common taunt against the Apollinarians 
(e.g. Athan. c. Apoll. ii. 9, Op. i. p. 755). To this Funk answers (p. 
376) that, though in this respect Apollinarians and Arians were agreed, 
yet they approached the subject from different sides. While the Arians 
adopted this view to depreciate God the Logos as compared with God 
the Father, the Apollinarians on the other hand (Athan. c. Apoll. ii. 
6, Op. i. p. 753; Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, Op. n. pp. 89, 90; Leont. 
Byzant. de Sectis iv, Patrol. Grace. LXXXVI. p. 1220) adopted it that 
they might guard the sinlessness of Christ, and this latter is the 
view distinctly put forward by our Ignatian writer (Philipp. 5 TI irapa.- 

VOfLOV KttXetS TOV TV/S 2o^S KvptOV, TOV TT] (f&gt;V(Tfl ttTpCTTTOV , TL TTapd- 

vo/xov Ae yeis TOV vofMo6f.T7]v TOV OVK u v$pu)7retav i/ v^^v l^ovTa;). Again 
he calls attention to the fact that in Smyrn. 5 the Ignatian forger 
adds 0to v to o-apKO(j&gt;dpov, and this fact he connects with the statement 
of Gregory Nazianzen (Epist. 102, Op. ii. p. 96) that the favourite 
Apollinarian dogma was TO Sctv Trpoo-xweiv p.rj avOpaiirov 6eo&lt;fjopov aXXa 
0edv a-api&lt;o&lt;t&gt;6pov. Yet, notwithstanding these resemblances, the Apolli 
narian leanings of the writer seem to me more than questionable. 
The Apollinarians took the o /xoouVtos of the Nicene creed as their 
starting-point. This is not the position of our spurious Ignatius. Their 
leading idea again was the maintenance of the one nature (fu o. &lt;vons) 
of Christ ; and they therefore welcomed such expressions as God was 
born of Mary, God suffered on the Cross. On the contrary our 
author betrays no anxiety on this point, and even obliterates in the text 
of Ignatius the very language (Ephcs. i, 18) which would most commend 
itself to an Apollinarian . 

On the whole it seems impossible to decide with certainty the 
position of this Ignatian writer. Notwithstanding the passages which 

1 See Greg. Naz. Ep. 103 (Op. II. p. ference of the term ffdpKwais to evavffpu- 

168) O.VTOV TOV fiovoyfvrj Qeov dvifrov ?n;(m, Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, 102 (Op. II. 

flvat. KaraffKevd^fi [6 ATroXXtraptos] Kal TT} pp. 90, 94). Hence also the orthodox, 

ISiq. CLVTOV OcorrjrL TraQos &?cw0ai, Athan. when denounced as dv0pii}iro\a.Tpi)s, retorts 

c. Apoll. ii. 5 (Op. i. p. 752) Xfyere 6eo on the Apollinarian that he is ffapKo\d- 

7fyfvvrjff6ai fK irapOtvov, comp. ib. ii. 14 Tpys, Greg. Naz. Ep. 101 (Op. II. p. 89); 

(p- 758). Hence the Apollinarian s pre- comp. Athan. c. Apoll. i. 6 (i. p. 739). 

17-2 



260 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

savour of Apollinarianism, the general bearing of his language leans 
to the Arian side. But if Arianism in any sense can be ascribed 
to him, it is Arianism of very diluted quality. Perhaps we may 
conceive of him as writing with a conciliatory aim, and with this 
object propounding in the name of a primitive father of the church, as 
an eirenicon, a statement of doctrine in which he conceived that 
reasonable men on all sides might find a meeting-point. 

On the other hand the rough date of this forgery seems fairly certain. 
All the indications, as we have seen, point to the latter half of the fourth 
century; and accordingly in recent years there has been a general 
convergence of opinion towards this date. This is the view for instance 
of Diisterdeck (de Ignat. Epist. Authent. p. 32 sq., 1843), of Hilgenfeld 
(Zeitschr. fur Wiss. TJieoL 1874, p. 211 sq.), of Newman (Essays 
i. p. 238 sq.) 1 , and especially of Zahn (/. v. A. p. 173 sq., Ign. 
Ep. p. vi. sq.), whose investigations have had no little influence on 
the result This view was also confidently maintained two centuries 
and a half ago by Vedelius (1623) who wrote ausim asserere quarto seculo 
post Christum jam ad minimum quatuor [ex sex epistolis supposititiis] 
confictas fuisse (Ignat. Epist. Apol. p. 5). It has been adopted like 
wise by the most recent Ignatian editor, Funk (Theolog. Quartalschr. 
LXII. p. 355 sq., 1880), though he has since in his subsequent work 
(Pair. Apost. n. p. xii sq., 1881) found passages in these Ignatian letters 
which seem to him to attack the doctrine of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
and which therefore oblige him to push the date forward to the earlier 
decades of the fifth century. The passages in question however do not 
bear out this view. The references to the one Lord or one Mediator 
(Tars. 4, Philipp. i, 2, 3, Philad. 4, Ant. 4), which he supposes to 
have been directed against the doctrine of two Sons of God imputed 
to Theodore, are mostly quotations of scriptural texts and seem to have 
no immediate polemical bearing. If any such immediate reference 
were required, it might be found in the fact that Apollinaris accused the 
orthodox of believing in two Sons, and that the orthodox fathers repu 
diate and anathematize this doctrine (Athan. c. Apoll. i. 12, 21, ii. 19, 
Op. i. pp. 743, 749, 762; Greg. Naz. Epist. 101, 102, Op. n. pp. 85, 
94; Greg. Nyss. ad Theoph., Op. in. p. 262 sq. ed. Morel, a treatise 
almost wholly taken up with this one point ; Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvii. 4, 
13, pp. 999, 1007; Theodoret. Dial. 2, Op. iv. p. 113). There is no 
occasion therefore to look so late as Theodore for an explanation. 
Other passages again, which attack false teachers who hold Christ to 

1 Probably, writes Card. Newman, about the year 354 (p. 243). 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 261 

be mere man (\f/i\ov avOpuirov), or who maintain the unreality of the 
Incarnation and the Passion, are much more applicable to earlier here 
sies than to any tenets fastened upon Theodore by his enemies. 

Hardly less decisive than these tokens of date are the indications of 
country. In a moment of forgetfulness our Ignatian writer betrays his 
secret. In Philipp. 8, referring to the return of Joseph and Mary with 
the child Jesus from Egypt, he speaks of it as a return thence to these 
parts (iKtiOtv CTTI TO. TflSe eVavoSo?). This would naturally apply to 
Palestine, but might be extended to Syria. The interest which the 
writer elsewhere shows in Antioch and cities ecclesiastically dependent 
on it, such as Laodicea, Tarsus, and Anazarbus, points to the latter 
country rather than to the former. 

But though compiled in the latter half of the fourth century, this 
recension did not find currency till a much later period. The earliest 
quotations in the Greek fathers, as we have seen, date two centuries 
later. Nor did it ever displace the Middle Recension in the Greek 
Church. The two are quoted side by side in the same age and some 
times even by the same writer (e.g. Theodore of Studium, p. 210 sq.). 
The Vossian Letters still continued to be transcribed, as the existing 
Medicean MS shows. In the Latin Church the Long Recension played 
a more important part. It was translated into Latin at least as early as 
the first half of the ninth century, and for some centuries it was without 
a rival in Western Christendom. Only in the thirteenth century was the 
Middle Form translated by Grossteste or his fellow-labourers ; and even 
then its circulation was confined to England, perhaps to the Franciscan 
order to which Grossteste bequeathed his books (see above, p. 76 sq.). 
Yet, though for several centuries the Long Recension held exclusive 
possession of the field in the West, and though even afterwards its dis 
placement was only local, we may suspect that its diffusion was never more 
than partial. It is at least a remarkable fact that nearly all the known 
MSS, though numerous, are of Burgundian origin (see above, p. 119). 
In the Syrian Church the interpolated letters of this recension seem 
to have remained unknown to the last. The Additional Epistles, as we 
have seen, were appended to the seven letters of the Middle Form, and 
the whole collection was translated into Syriac. Hence the Additional 
Letters only of the Long Recension are quoted by Syriac writers. The 
same is the case with Armenian and Arabic speaking Christians. The 
Armenian Version, which was translated from the Syriac, speaks for 
itself. Arabic Christianity, which would likewise derive its knowledge 
from the Syriac, is represented by Severus of Ashmunin, and he quotes 



262 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

side by side a passage from the Epistle to the Smyrnasans in the 
Middle Form and another from the Epistle to the Antiochenes (see 
above, p. 217). The case of the Egyptian speaking Christians again 
would be the same. The extant Coptic Version (see above, p. 101) 
is a mere fragment. Whether it was ever complete, we cannot say, 
but the extant relique exhibits one of the Additional Epistles in con 
nexion with one of the Seven in the Middle Form. The Ethiopic 
Church would be indebted either to the Coptic or to the Arabic, and 
would thus be in the same case with the rest. Thus the interpolated 
epistles were unknown to any but Greek and Latin Christians, while the 
Additional Epistles were probably accessible to all. 

Besides the epistles extant in various forms in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, 
and Latin, two quotations are given in Arabic and Ethiopic, which seem 
at first sight to belong to other letters not included in any of these collec 
tions. These are printed in the Arabic (of which the Ethiopic is a 
translation) below, n. p. 883 sq. The first is prefaced by the words 
The holy Ignatius... says in his epistle. The passage which follows is 
not found in any extant Ignatian epistle. The second is headed, And 
this holy Ignatius... says in his thirteenth epistle. The sentence fol 
lowing hereupon is from Philipp. 3 AXi^ws ow...&lt;h ay^s, though not 
verbatim, the word eVay^s being amplified. It will be remembered that 
the Epistle to the Philippians is the thirteenth in the Armenian (see the 
table above, p. 222), and therefore in the Syriac collection, from which 
these Arabic fragments would ultimately be derived. The quotation is 
followed by an attack on the Diphysites. Though this latter portion is 
treated as belonging to the quotation, it was evidently not so intended 
originally, but formed part of the remarks of the writer who quotes 
Ignatius. This fact suggests a probable explanation with regard to the 
first passage also. It would seem that in the course of transmission the 
Ignatian quotation has dropped out, and that in this case we have only 
the comment of the later writer who cites this father. Indeed we 
may infer what the passage quoted was from words which occur lower 
down, Therefore when thou hearest that God suffered for us... under 
stand, etc. Can the quotation have been any other than Rom. 6 the 
suffering of my God, which we know to have been frequently quoted 
in a Monophysite interest, and which this writer would rescue from 
a Monophysite interpretation? If this explanation be accepted, we 
can no longer with Cureton (C. L p. 363) see in these passages an 
evidence of extensive forgeries in the name of Ignatius beyond the 
epistles commonly known. 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 263 

It has been assumed throughout this chapter that the Epistle to the Romans from 
the beginning formed part of the collection of thirteen letters contained in the Long 
Recension. In this case it will have undergone interpolation from the same hands 
which tampered with the rest of the Seven Epistles and forged the six Additional 
Epistles. The presumption is certainly strong in favour of this view. The Epistle to 
the Romans is found in all the extant Greek MSS of this recension. It appears also 
in the Latin Version, which certainly dates as far back as the earlier part of the ninth 
century and was translated from a Greek text which the corruptions show to have had 
even then a long history. Zahn however (/. v. A. pp. 115, 128, 161 sq., Ign. Ep. p. 
vii. sq.) gives his reasons for supposing that it was only added to the other twelve 
epistles of this collection at a later date, having been interpolated by some other hand. 
As this view, if admitted, involves some not altogether unimportant consequences, it is 
necessary to consider his arguments at length. 

(i) In the first place he sees an argument in favour of this view in the fact that in 
this collection the Epistle to the Romans stands last in the series (see the table, p. 222). 
But owing to its subject-matter this would be its most natural position. Though 
actually written before some others, yet as dwelling solely on the closing scene of the 
saint s life, it forms the proper sequel to the rest. Accordingly in the Armenian 
collection it is placed last of the Seven Epistles ; and in the Greek collection, repre 
sented by the Medicean and Colbert MSS and by the Anglo-Latin Version, it is 
embedded in the Martyrology which closes the series of letters. 

(ii) Again he finds his view still further confirmed by the phenomena of the 
epistle itself as it now appears in the Long Recension, observing that it has not 
undergone the systematic interpolation which characterizes the pre-Eusebian letters in 
this collection. To this the answer is twofold. 

First. The interpolations, though fewer than in other epistles where the contents 
suggested or encouraged interpolation, are yet decidedly more considerable than in the 
Epistle to Polycarp. Zahn indeed (/. v. A. p. 165) has endeavoured to dispose of 
this parallel by anticipation ; but his argument is too subtle to command assent. 
There is certainly more matter provocative of interpolation by way of doctrinal state 
ment in the letter to Polycarp, than in this epistle. Yet the interpolator has 
escaped the temptation to interpolate largely in the one case, and there is no reason why 
he should not have escaped it in the other. As regards ecclesiastical organization 
again, of which the Epistle to Polycarp is full, there is absolutely nothing in our 
letter which would afford a convenient handle for a digression. Zahn may be right or 
not in supposing that the interpolator waived the opportunity in the Epistle to Poly 
carp, because he had already discussed matters of ecclesiastical order in the Epistle to 
Hero, though in other cases he is far from showing such self-restraint (e.g. the eligi 
bility of young men for the episcopate treated at length alike in Magn. 3 and in Mar. 
Ign. 2, 3, 4) ; but at all events the Epistle to the Romans is untouched by this con 
sideration. The solution of the question respecting identity or difference of authorship 
must be sought in the character of the changes themselves. But what do we find ? 

Secondly. The interpolations and alterations are exactly the same in kind as in 
the other epistles. 

(a) There is the same insertion of scriptural texts : 2 Cor. iv. 18, John xv. 19, in 
3; Matt. xvi. 26 (Mark viii. 36, Luke ix. 25) in 6; Gal. ii. 19, Ps. cxvi. 12, in 8; 
John x. Ji in 9. So also, where the language of Ignatius has been influenced 
by some scriptural passage (e.g. 7 aprov rou GeoO K.T.\. from John vi. 31 sq., or 9 
TToi/j.tvi from John x. ii), other words are inserted from the scriptural context, or the 



264 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

text itself is directly quoted, just as the Ignatian interpolator is in the habit of doing 
elsewhere (e.g. Polyc. i, Trail, n, Ephes. 5, 10, Magn. 7, Philad. 2, 3, Smyrn. 3). 

(|3) The literary and dictional changes are of the same character. Thus in 2 for 
ovvai the interpolator substitutes StaXvOrjvai, being more or less influenced by sound in 
the choice of a word, as in Polyc. 2 6f\ri/j.a is substituted for 8i(M, in Polyc. 3 avafj-elvrj 
for \nro/J.elv-rj, in Polyc. 5 tr\T}v for ir\eov, in Trail. I dvvir6KpiTov for adiaxpirov, in 
Philad. 10 ffvyx u P"l^ ftu ^ or trv YX. eL PV ftu t i n Ephes. 3 vrofjanjffdTJvcu for foraXet^^Twu. 
Again a strong argument for the identity of workmanship may be drawn from the 
interpolator s vocabulary. Thus in inscr. he has introduced the words irvev/j.a.To&lt;f&gt;6pos 
and ira.vroKpa.Tup. Neither word occurs in the true Ignatius. For the former however 
a partiality is shown elsewhere by the Ignatian forger (Ephes. 9, Hero inscr.) ; and the 
latter is a not uncommon insertion in similar cases (e.g. Magn. 8, Troll. 5, Philipp. 7, 
Hero inscr.). Again at the end of i an explanatory clause irpofiacrei (ptXlas ffapKlrrjs 
is added. With this compare Ant. I irpoQavei. TOV evbs 6eou. Similarly at the close 
of 4 after nySev firi0v/j.eiv there is a gloss KOfffuicw rj IM.TO.WV appended. This inter 
polation indeed with others is found in some texts of the Middle Form, but it was 
doubtless inserted there from the Long Recension (see II. pp. 200, 203, 210, 218, 
226 sq.). It exactly accords with the interpolator s manner elsewhere, of which the 
addition in Troll. 1 1 TrapavTlica airoOvr^ffKa [oil TOV irp&0Kaipov Odvarov dXXa TOV alw- 
viov] will serve as an example ; and with this last passage again may be compared 
likewise the elaborate glosses on fwij and 6a.va.Tos in Rom. 6. As regards the par 
ticular words, the interpolator s fondness for adjectives in -tiro s has been already 
noticed (see above, p. 237), and he uses this very word KOffumi elsewhere (Ephes. 19 
ffo&lt;f&gt;la KOfffJUKrj). Again in four several passages (inscr. TOV 0e\ri&lt;ravTos ra iravra, 6 
iKtivov 6f\u, 8 6e\riffa.Te tva Kol vpf n 8e\riOiJTf, ib. r,6e\r l &lt;ja,Tt) the peculiar Ignatian 
uses of 8e\etv (see II. pp. 115, 228) have offended the taste of our interpolator, and 
accordingly he erases or substitutes in all these cases, in accordance with the proce 
dure elsewhere (Magn. 3 TOV 0eXi7&lt;raros ij/uas). Again the treatment of 4 (iKeivoi 
airbffTo\oi t tyb /card/cptros) is eminently instructive. The expression aVioroXot seems 
bald to him, and he adds I-rjffov X/&gt;i&lt;rroD. There is the same treatment in Trail. 3 
a.iroffTb\uv [XpijTov]. Moreover the word KO.TQ.KPITOS is objectionable, perhaps unin 
telligible, to him, and he ejects it, just as it is ejected in Trail. 3 foa uv /cara/c/xTOS 
/c.T.X. in a similar connexion, and again in Ephes. 12 k~i& KaraKpiTos. These are the 
only three occurrences of (card/cptTos in Ignatius. In its place however &lt;?\axi&lt;rroj is 
here substituted. This word is never used by the genuine Ignatius of himself, nor 
indeed does it occur at all in his text. But the Ignatian forger in at least three other 
passages (Ephes. 12 twice, Hero 6) makes the saint so designate himself; and in one 
of these (Ephes. 12 ty& ptv 6 &lt;?Xctxwros) it is a substitute for this same word KO.TO,- 
KpiTot. This passage alone therefore would be almost decisive as to the identity of 
authorship in the interpolations of the Roman Epistle. Again the smaller alterations 
bear traces of the same hand. Such are the substitutions of Sta for els in 6 aTro- 
Oavflv ei j lytrovv X.PHTTOV (comp. Ephes. 3 Sia Tb oco/wt for ev T$ dvofjutn, Philad. 7 81" 
ov StSffiai for tv $ dtdefj.au) ; the omission of riy KO.TO. irdpKa in 9 Trj 65&lt; Ty KO.TO. crap/to, 
(comp. Ephes. i V/JLUV dt ev &lt;rapid em&lt;TK6iry, where in like manner tv vapid is omitted) ; 
the arbitrary alteration of tva into OTWJ in 3 iva. /JLT) fj.bvov \fyufiuu on account of the 
preceding tva (comp. Smyrn. n, and see the notes n. pp. 204, 339). Again such 
erasures as 8 rd di/ euS^j &lt;rr6/aa (comp. e.g. Ephes. 3 Tb aSidicpiTov fin.&v fa, Trail. 
1 1 os tffTiv aMs), and such alterations as 2 rptxwv for Qw/i (comp. e. g. Polyc. i 
6&ffrjt for KoXo/cei^;s, Ephes. 5 ojuoSotfXots for o-vv8ida&lt;TKa\lrcus, Magn. 3 KaTO,&lt;ppo- 



SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 265 

vein for avyxpaffdat, Magn. 14 iroiuavOrjvai for SpoffiffQijvai ), arising from the inability 
of the forger to understand or to appreciate the figurative and epigrammatic diction of 
the true Ignatius, have numberless parallels in the interpolator s work elsewhere. So 
likewise the arbitrary changes, even where this reason did not exist (e. g. 7 irpori- 
fjiare for tiriQvfj.e ire), are altogether after his manner (e.g. Trail. 3 ovrta Siajceicrtfcu for 
otfrws x et&gt;/ ) Again the breaking up and recombining of sentences, such as we have 
in 3 d xP La " riat "- y t los rav A" (r 7 TCU ^ 7ro Koff/j.ov, ^tXeirat irapa Geou, is a device in which 
the interpolator indulges elsewhere (e.g. Trail. 3, 4, oi&gt;x ws aTrooroXos Siardcro-o/xai, 
eiXX 1/j.avrov fJ.erpu, Ephes. IO tdv TIS TrXffov dSiK&gt;?0etj irXelova virofJLeiv-ij, ovros fJ.a.Kapios 

/C.T.X.). 

(7) The doctrinal changes are not less decisive than the literary. More especially 
in the Christological passages can we trace the identity of authorship. There is the same 
anxiety to maintain the supremacy of the Father and to represent the agency of the 
Son as dependent on the Father, which we find in the other epistles ; and this anxiety 
expresses itself in the same way. In inscr. alone four changes are made, all tending 
in this direction. In the sentence irarpos tyiarov Kal Irjeou XpwroC rov /JLOVOV vlov avrov, 
he prefixes Geoi; to Karoo* and substitutes povoycvovs for ftovov (comp. Ign. Mar. inscr., 
Hero inscr., Smyrn. inscr., Ep/ies. 20), the word p.ov oyevris being a specially favourite term 
with the Ignatian interpolator (see above, p. 243). In l-rjffov X/H0ToC rov Geou r]fj.uv he 
adds Kal &lt;rwr7?pos after Geou to break its force, this term a-wrr/p again being introduced 
elsewhere in the interpolations (e.g. Ephes. inscr., Trail, i). For I-qcrov Xpiffrov 
vlov TTCIT/XJJ he substitutes Geou iravroKparopos Kal Irjcrov X/xorou rov vlov avrov, where 
(as I have already remarked) vavTOKparup is a favourite term of the interpolator. 
And lastly, for iv lycrov X/&gt;I&lt;TTV T$ Qe$ r)fjLwi&gt; is substituted tv Qetf Kal warpl Kal Kvplfp 
T)[j.&lt;j}i&gt; I-rjcrov Xptcrry, while again in 3 6 "yap Geos 7)fj.wv lyaovs Xptards /c.r.X. is in like 
manner erased (comp. Ephes. inscr.). Again in 6 a characteristic expression of the 
Ignatian interpolator is inserted, rbv vlbv rov a\tiOu&gt;ov GeoO Kal ira.Tpbs Irjffovv rbv 
Xpitrrov ; for, though the coincidence would have been more close if evbs or JJLOVOV had 
been inserted before aXrjdivov QeoC (see Zahn /. v. A. p. 164), the meaning is the 
same, and the omission of this further defining word does not destroy the resemblance. 
Again in 8 Irjvovs 8 X/Jio-rds becomes ai/ros S 6 Geos Kal irarrjp Kal 6 Kvpios TJ/JL^JV 
Itjffovs 6 Xpt&lt;rr6y (comp. Ephes. 15). It should be observed also that in both these 
last alterations the expression is Jesus the Christ, an order unusual in itself and 
not found in the genuine Ignatius, but especially affected by the interpolator elsewhere 
(Ephes. 4, 7, 9 twice, 15, 21, Philad. 8, Smyrn. 9, 10 ; comp. Tars, ^ l-rja-ovs 6 Kvptos, 
Smyrn. 8 d X/HOTOS lyffovs). Again in 6 rov irdftovs rov Qeov /j.ov, the word Xpiarov 
is inserted (comp. Ephes. i), though here indeed its absence from the Latin Version 
throws very great doubt on its genuineness. Lastly ; in 9 iroifitvi r$ 6e xP^ ra 
yuovos ai/TTji Irjcrovs X/HOTOS ^TritTKOirricrei is changed into iroi^vi xpTJrai ry Ku/x y rcjJ 
elirdvn 710 flfj.1 b Troifj.T]i&gt; 6 KCiXos, Kal /LIOVOJ avrr]i&gt; eiuaKoinfiaei, apparently to avoid the 
inferential identification of Geos with I^eroGs Xptcrros. So too the introduction of the 
Spirit, where the other two Persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the 
genuine Ignatius (inscr., 8), is characteristic of the Ignatian forger (e.g. Trail. I, 
Philad. 9, ii, Smyrn. 13). In the former passage XP 10 TOCO/KOJ, irarpuvv/j.os, irvevfj-aro- 
06pos, the word irvev/J.aro(f&gt;6pos (like the allied word xpK""o&lt;/&gt;o poj) is not only, as I have 
already remarked, a special favourite of the Ignatian forger, but has likewise been 
introduced by him in another passage under similar circumstances and from the same 
motive (Ephes. 9). Thus the doctrinal manipulations are equally significant with the 
literary ; and altogether it is inconceivable that an independent writer should have 



266 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

introduced into this separate letter so many and various changes all so closely resem 
bling in character the interpolations with which the Ignatian forger has enriched 
the other six. 

(iii) It is further urged by Zahn, that the Ignatian interpolator, though in his 
forged letters he plagiarizes from the passage of the Epistle to the Romans quoted by 
Eusebius, yet betrays no knowledge of this epistle outside the historian s quotation 
(see /. v. A. pp. 128, 161); and naturally he lays great stress on this supposed fact (Ign. 
Ep. p. vii). But can this statement be sustained ? Is not the opening of the Tarsian 
Epistle e/c/cX7?&lt;ra dte7rcu i&gt;y /cat d^iofj.vr]/j.oi&gt;euTi i i /cat a.^o.ya.TrriT^ palpably suggested by 
the opening of the Roman Epistle, where, and where alone, there is a similar accumu 
lation of words compounded of atos, and in which also occurs the solitary instance of 
the rare word d itiraivos in the genuine Ignatius ? Again, the opening of Ign. Mar. 

Trj 7]\erjfjL^vT[i xdptri Qtov irarpos \j\j/iarov /cot Kiyn ou I. X dtoW&lt;f&gt;...Mapa ir\eiaTO. Iv 

Gey x a l P fiV more closely resembles other parts of this same passage than anything else 
in the genuine Ignatius. Again in Ign. Mar. 2 the expression dvatnyv TUI&gt; deivuv TUV 
t/j.ol -fiToina.fftJ.tvuv is adapted, as Zahn points out, from a passage in Rom. 5, which is 
quoted by Eusebius. But there is one strong reason for believing nevertheless that it 
was not taken from the historian. In Eusebius the reading is ruv tpol erol^uv without 
any variation ; while in the independent texts of the Roman Epistle it is TUV t/j.ol 
7iToi/j.a&lt;r/Ji{vuv, as quoted in Ign. Alar. 2, likewise without any variation. Again Tars. 
10 Trpoffevxfcrde tWI^crou fiuTi/x^ has its closest resemblance in Rom. 8 ulrfjffaffOe irepl 
ffj.ov iva. liriTVXu (the phrase Iva. Irjaov Xpurrov eiriTvxu occurring twice in 5 of this 
same epistle), though parallels may likewise be found in Magn. 14, Smyrn. n, and 
elsewhere. 

(iv) Lastly ; Zahn (Ign. Ep. p. vii) sees a confirmation of his view in the 
phenomena of the MSS ; Soli epistulae ad Ephesios, quippe quae ultimo loco ab ipso 
interpolatore posita sit, dfj.rii&gt; subscriptum est tamquam clausula totius collectionis (p. 
288, 17). This seems to be a mistake. The a^v is not the concluding word but is 
part of the letter itself, a^v 77 x-P ls ( see below, II. p. 850), and was quoted as such by 
Anastasius of Sinai (see above, p. 196). It occurs moreover in exactly the same 
position in the Epistle to Polycarp (see II. p. 816) ; and there is even some ground 
for surmising that it may have stood originally in the genuine Ignatius in both these 
places (n. p. 850). But Zahn continues ; Atque in codice Vaticano 859 [g 2 ] qui 
reliquis epistulis omnibus subscripsit rov 07101; iepofjujprvpos lyvarlov ttrurToXij irpos 
Azrioxets, Trpos "Hpuva, /c.r.X., sive addito sive omisso epistulae numero, epistulae 
ad Romanes prorsus singularis subjuncta est epigraphe, rov ay. lepofj.. lyv. ira.Tpia.pxov 
Qfov TroXews oVrtoxetas e^icr-ToX?; TT/HJS pu/j.aiovs t/3 . This is true likewise of our other 
chief MSS (gj gj. But Zahn has omitted to observe that a corresponding elaborate 
title (inserting however in this case not iraTpiapxov Geoi/TrdXewy but apxifriffKOTrov 
Geoi/TToXews) is also placed at the head of the Letter to Mary, the first in the collection 
of epistles ascribed to Ignatius, as the Letter to the Romans is the last, in these MSS 
5i 2 (comp. also g 4 ). Thus the more elaborate superscription and subscription bind 
the whole collection together ; and the phenomena, so far from showing that the last 
letter was originally separate, establish its close connexion with the rest. The 
only inference that we can draw from these facts is, that the parent MS from which our 
existing MSS (at least g x g 2 g 4 ) were derived was not written before the age of Justinian 
(A. D. 538), when Antioch acquired the name of Theopolis. 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 



THE genius of Ussher, followed closely by the discovery of Voss, 
had narrowed the field of controversy. There was no longer any 
serious question about the spuriousness of the Long Recension. The 
eccentric advocacy of this recension by Whiston provoked no strenuous 
opposition, simply because it won no strenuous adherents. Later 
efforts to maintain the same cause fell still-born from the press. The 
Vossian letters alone held the ground. From the middle of the seven 
teenth century onwards the controversy raged about these. The attack 
of Daille (1666) and the defence of Pearson (1672) were the main 
incidents in this warfare. Of other combatants it is unnecessary here 
to speak. The whole question will be considered in a subsequent 
chapter. I need only add for the present, that most opponents of the 
genuineness of the Vossian Epistles were prepared to admit in them 
the existence of a genuine substratum, overlaid however with later 
additions and interpolations. 

But in the year 1845 a new era in the Ignatian controversy 
commenced. The existence of a Syriac version of the Epistles of 
Ignatius had long been suspected. In the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu, a 
Syrian writer at the close of the thirteenth century, of which a Latin 
version had been published by Abraham Ecchellensis (A.D. 1653), 
mention is made of Ignatius as an author (Assem. Bill. Orient, in. i. 
p. 1 6). In another list of books also, belonging to a later Ignatius, 
Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, who resided in Rome at the time of the 
reform of the Calendar under Gregory xin, a version of the Epistles 
of Ignatius in Syriac or Chaldee is included (see ib. p. 17 ; comp. n. p. 
229). A copy of this latter catalogue was brought to England by H. 
Saville, the learned editor of S. Chrysostom ; and the notice naturally 
attracted the attention and excited the hopes of Ussher (p. xxvi), 



268 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

who prosecuted some enquiries but without success (Life and Works wi. 
pp. 53, 64). Again in 1680, 1681, Fell, at that time Dean of Christ 
Church, made attempts through R. Huntington, then British Chaplain 
at Aleppo, but afterwards Bishop of Raphoe, to obtain a copy of this 
Syriac version. Extracts from the correspondence of Huntington with 
certain dignitaries of the Oriental Churches are given by Cureton 
(C. I. p. xxiv. sq.) from D. Roberti Huntingtoni Rapotensis Epistolae 
(Londini 1704). Huntington s endeavours however failed, though 
strangely enough among other places he visited the very convent of the 
Nitrian desert in which the MSS of the Syriac epistles were afterwards 
discovered. At a later date (A.D. 1716) Renaudot in his Liturgiarum 
Orientalium Collectio (n. pp. 225, 488, ed. Francof. 1847) inferred the 
existence of an ancient Syriac version of the letters of Ignatius from 
the fact that he found several extracts in a collection of canons. These 
extracts are designated Sj above (p. 89 sq.), and the MS used by 
Renaudot (Sangerm. 38) is the same which is there described. The ex 
tracts themselves are printed at length below, n. p. 677 sq. A few years 
later (A.D. 1725) J. S. Assemani (Bibl. Orient, in. i. p. 16) printed in the 
original Syriac the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu already mentioned ; and in 
his notes and elsewhere (ib. i. p. 606) he speaks of a Syriac copy of the 
Acts of Ignatius in the Vatican Library, contained in a volume of mar- 
tyrologies which was brought by himself from the monastery of Scete in 
the Nitrian desert in 1715 (Bibl. Orient, i. praef. xi). This MS has 
been described above (p. 100). From that time forward nothing more 
is heard of a Syriac version for nearly a century and a quarter. 

This long period of silence was terminated by the appearance of 
Cureton s Antient Syriac Version of the Epistles of S. Ignatius to S. 
Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, London 1845. This version 
was discovered by the learned editor in two MSS which had been pro 
cured in recent years for the British Museum (Add. 12175, and Add. 
14618; described above, p. 72). Its publication was the signal for the 
revival of the Ignatian question. The controversy, which had long 
been flickering in the embers, now burst out anew into a flame, and has 
burnt brightly ever since. The Syriac version, as published by Cureton, 
contained only the three epistles above named, and these in a shorter 
form than either of the Greek and Latin texts. The editor contended 
that the genuine Ignatius had at length been discovered, and that the 
remaining four epistles of the Vossian collection, as well as the 

1 It should be mentioned however that Trallian Epistle ( 4, 5) of the Middle 
at the close of the Epistle to the Romans Form. 
is incorporated a fragment from the 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 269 

additional portions of these three, were forgeries. He was at once 
attacked by a writer in the English Review (no. viii, July 1845), since 
known to be Dr Chr. Wordsworth, now Bishop of Lincoln, but at that 
time a fellow Canon with Cureton at Westminster. Wordsworth 
maintained (p. 348) that this Syriac version was a miserable epitome 
made by an Eutychian heretic, and that so far from invalidating the 
claim of the Greek text to be received as the genuine language of 
Ignatius, it does in fact... greatly corroborate and confirm it. The 
gauntlet thus thrown down was taken up at once by Cureton. In 
his Vindiciae Ignatianae (London 1 846) he defended his position against 
his anonymous assailant, and more especially vindicated the Syriac. 
epistles from the charge of heresy ; and, having meanwhile discovered 
a third MS, likewise in the British Museum, he published three years later 
his most complete work on the subject, the Corpus Ignatianum (London 
1849), in which he discusses the whole question at length and gives, 
in the words of the title-page, a complete collection of the Ignatian 
Epistles, genuine, interpolated, and spurious, together with numerous 
extracts from them, as quoted by ecclesiastical writers down to the 
tenth century in Syriac, Greek, and Latin; an English translation of the 
Syriac text, copious notes, and introduction. 

Meanwhile the subject had been taken up by other combatants on 
both sides, and the fray became general. Among the earliest and 
staunchest allies of Cureton, was the Chevalier (afterwards Baron) 
Bunsen, who defended his position in two several works published at 
the same time (Hamburg 1847), Die drei dchten u. die drei undchten 
Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien and Ignatius von Antiochien u. seine 
Zeit. The former work contains the text of the epistles in the 
several recensions and is dedicated to Lachmann; the later discusses 
the main question in seven letters addressed to Neander. On the same 
side also were ranged A. Ritschl (Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche 
ed. i, 1850; ed. 2, 1857), Weiss (Reuter s Repertorium 1852, p. 169 
sq.), R. A. Lipsius in two several tracts (Ueber die Aechtheit d^; f 
syrischen Recension der ignatianischen Briefe in the Zeitschrift f. die 
historisthe Thcologie 1856, i. p. 3 sq. ; Ueber das Verhdltniss dcs Textes 
der drei syrischen Briefe des Ignatios zu den iibrigen Recensionen der 
ignatianischen Literalur in Abhandlungen filr die Kunde des Morgen- 
landes 1859, i. p. i sq.), Pressense (Trois Premiers Siecles 1,1. p. 392 sq., 
1858), Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Israel vn. p. 281 sq., 1859), Milman 
(Hist, of Christianity n. p. 102, ed. 2, 1863), Bohringer (Kirchengesch. 
in Biographieen i. p. 16 sq., ed. 2, 1864) and (though less definitely) 
Bleek (EM. in das Neue Test. 1862, p. 142), with others. The opposition 



270 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

to Cureton s view combined critics of two directly antagonistic schools. 
On the one hand its ranks included writers like Baur (Die ignatianischen 
Briefe u. ihr ncuester Kritiker, eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn Bunsen, 

1848) and Hilgenfeld (Die apostolischen Vdter p. 274 sq., 1853), who 
denied the authenticity of any recension of the Ignatian letters, 
being forced by their theological position to take this side. If for 
instance Baur had accepted the Ignatian letters as genuine even in 
their shortest form, he would have put an engine into the hands of his 
opponents, which would have shattered at a single blow all the 
Tubingen theories respecting the growth of the Canon and the history 
of the early Church. But as he had already, in a treatise published 
before the discovery of the Curetonian letters (Uebcr den Urspntng des 
Episcopats p. 149 sq.), placed the Vossian letters as early as the age 
of the Antonines, he could not have admitted the priority of the 
Curetonian letters without dating them so far back as to place them 
within or near to the age of Ignatius himself. Thus it was a matter of 
life and death to theologians of the Tubingen school to take their side 
against the Curetonian letters. At the same time critical conservatism 
prompted writers of a wholly different type such as Denzinger (Ueber 
die Aechtheit des bishcrigen Textes der ignatianischen Briefe^ Wiirzburg 

1849) and Uhlhorn (Zeitschrift f. die historische Theologie 1851, pp. 3 sq., 
247 sq.) to range themselves in the same ranks. This view was 
adopted also in their subsequent editions by two principal editors of 
the Patres Apostolid, Hefele (ed. 3, 1847) and Jacobson (ed. 4, prol. 
p. Ivii), while a third, Dressel, whose first edition (1857) appeared after 
Cureton s discovery, speaks in a very confused and unintelligible way 
(prol. p. xxix), accepting neither recension as free from spurious 
matter and declining to pronounce on the question of priority. The 
priority of the Vossian letters was also maintained by two Oriental 
scholars of name, Petermann and Merx. Of the edition of the Ignatian 
Epistles by the former, which appeared in the same year (1849) with 
Cureton s larger work the Corpus Ignatianum, and has contributed 
greatly to the solution of the Ignatian question by the republication 
of the Armenian version, much has been said already (p. 84 sq.), 
and I shall have to recur to the subject again 1 . The work of 
Merx also (Meletemata Ignatiana 1861) has been mentioned more 
than once (pp. 98 sq., 183 sq., 192 sq.). On the same side also 

1 It is cliaractcristic of Ussher s critical ing an Armenian version which should 
foresight that two centuries earlier he had throw light on the Ignatian question (see 
contemplated the probability of discover- Life and Works XVI. p. 64). 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 271 

were ranged not a few other writers of repute, more especially in 
England. 

The general bearing of the controversy will have appeared from this 
sketch of its history. While the advocates of the priority of the Vossian 
letters took different sides on the question of their genuineness, the cham 
pions of the Curetonian letters almost to a man maintained these to be 
the authentic work of Ignatius. There was however one exception. 
Volkmar (Evangelien p. 636 sq., 1870; comp. Ursprung uns. Evang. 
p. 51 sq., 1866) advocated the priority of the Curetonian letters, sup 
posing that the Vossian collection was enlarged from them about 
A.D. 170; while at the same time he condemned the Curetonian letters 
themselves as spurious. This theory stands self-condemned, and natu 
rally it has failed to find supporters 1 . 

It would not be easy to overrate the services which Cureton has 
rendered to the study of the Ignatian letters by the publication and 
elucidation of the Syriac texts. The questions also which he started 
or revived and the information respecting the past history of the con 
troversy which he gathered together have not been without their 
value. It may confidently be expected that the ultimate issue will be 
the settlement of the Ignatian question on a more solid basis than 
would have been possible without his labours. But assuredly this 
settlement will not be that which he too boldly predicted. Neither 
his method nor his results will stand the test of a searching 
criticism. 

His method is vitiated by a threefold confusion. First , there is the 
confusion, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter (p. 278), 
between various forms or recensions of the epistles and various readings 



1 In the Contemporary Revieiv, Feb. curtness in the style, but the epistles 
1875, p. 346, I placed the author of read more consecutively, without faults 
Supernatural Religion in the same cate- of construction or grammar, and passages 
gory with Volkmar, as assuming the which in the Greek text were confused 
priority of the Curetonian letters. I did and almost unintelligible have become 
so on the strength of such passages as quite clear in the Syriac. The interpola- 
this (S. R. I. p. 262 sq.) ; Those who still tions in the text in fact had been so 
maintain the superior authenticity of the clumsily made that they had obscured 
Greek Shorter version argue that the the meaning, with much more to the 
Syriac is an epitome of the Greek. This same effect. I am still at a loss to under 
does not however seem tenable when the stand what other sense could be assigned 
matter is carefully examined. Although to these words ; but the author (S. R. I. 
so much is absent from the Syriac ver- p. xlv, ed. 6) repudiates my interpreta- 
sion, not only is there no interruption of tion of his language, 
the sense and no obscurity or undue 



272 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

in particular passages. Secondly, there is a studied attempt to con 
found together the evidence for the Vossian letters and for the epistles 
of the Long Recension, as if the external testimony in the two cases 
stood on the same level. This confusion I have already discussed at 
some length (p. 238 sq.). Thirdly, he collects together with great assi 
duity the passages in earlier critics (before the discovery of the Syriac 
letters) in which objections were raised against the genuineness of the 
Ignatian Epistles, as an argument in his favour, failing to see that, if 
valid, they would tell equally against the Curetonian letters as against 
the Vossian. If a larger number of these affect the Vossian letters 
than the Curetonian, the ratio is only proportionate to the greater 
length of the former ; so that the previous history of the controversy does 
not really afford any presumption in favour of the Curetonian letters 
as against the Vossian. 

So much for his method. His results will be canvassed and (as I 
venture to believe) refuted in the following pages. In the earliei 
stages of the controversy indeed, it seemed as if they were in a fair 
way to obtain general acceptance. A large number of influential 
names, especially in Germany, was enlisted in their favour. This was 
not unnatural. The Ignatian letters had long lain under the suspicion 
of interpolation ; and here was a sudden discovery which appeared to 
confirm this opinion. Hence it was taken up with avidity, as offering 
the desired solution of the Ignatian question. The extreme partisan 
ship of Cureton and Bunsen indeed would repel some minds ; but the 
more moderate advocacy of Lipsius, whose first treatise is the ablest 
work on this side, commended itself by its impartiality and did much 
to strengthen the cause. But the tide has altogether turned within 
the last few years. The phenomena of the Armenian version and of 
the Syriac fragments, which, though emphasized by Petermann (1849), 
Denzinger (1849), and Merx (1861), were slurred over by the advo 
cates of the Curetonian letters in the first instance, have at length 
asserted their importance as a main factor in the settlement of the 
question. Zahn s work Ignatius von Antiochien (1873) quite the 
most important contribution to the solution of the Ignatian question 
which has appeared since Cureton s discovery dealt a fatal blow at the 
claims of the Curetonian letters. Since the appearance of this work, 
no serious champion has come forward to do battle for them. Lipsius 
(Ueber den Ur sprung des Christennamens p. 7, 1873; Zeitschr. fur 
wissensch. Theol. xvn. p. 209 sq., 1874; Jenaer Literaturzeitung 
13 Januar 1877, p. 22) has recanted his former opinion and finds 
himself no longer able to maintain the priority of the Curetonian 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 273 

letters . He states that he had misgivings even while his second 
treatise was going through the press (1859), and that the work of 
Merx two years later convinced him of his error. Even Volkmar con 
fessed that his opinion respecting the priority of the Curetonian letters 
was shaken by Zahn s arguments (Jenaer Liter at urzcitung 1874, no. 20, 
p. 290, referred to by Zahn Ign. Ep. p. vi). So likewise Renan (Lcs 
Evangiles p. xv sq., 1877) has declared himself very decidedly against 
the Curetonian theory. One by one, it is losing its old adherents, and 
no new champion has started up*. I venture to hope that the dis 
cussion which follows will extinguish the last sparks of its waning 
life. The investigation of diction and style has never been seriously 
undertaken before, and the results will, I think, be considered 
decisive. 

The examination falls, as usual, under the two heads of external 
and internal evidence. 

i. External Evidence. 

To the term external evidence a wide interpretation will here be 
given. It will thus comprise three heads : (i) Quotations and refer 
ences ; (ii) Documents and phenomena of the text ; (iii) Historical 
relations of the two recensions. 

(i) All the evidence of quotations, it is urged, prior to Eusebius 
points to the Short Recension as the original form. Every passage cited 
during the Ante-nicene period is found in the three Curetonian letters. 
These quotations occur, it is true, in the epistles of the Middle Form 

1 The author of Supernatural Religion though equally explicit, were misunder- 

(l. p. xxvi sq., ed. 6) takes me to task stood by my critic, who fell into the error, 

because I inferred (Contemporary Review, to which I shall have occasion to refer 

Feb. 1875, p. 340) from the language of below (p. 278 sq.), of confounding various 

Lipsius that having at one time main- recensions and various readings. Lipsius 

tained the priority and genuineness of the in his later writings still maintains that the 

Curetonian letters he had afterwards Curetonian letters preserve older read- 

retracted his former opinion on both ings (as undeniably they do) than the 

questions alike. Nevertheless the infer- existing text of the Vossian, but he not 

ence is unquestionably true. See for in- less distinctly abandons their priority as a 

stance the statement of Lipsius in the recension. 

Jenaer Literaturzeitung p. 22, Ueber 3 One very recent writer however 

die Nichturspriinglichkcit der Cureton- (Chastel Histoire du Christianisme I. 

schen Recension der drei syrischen Briefe pp. 113, 213 sq., Paris 1881) follows 

langst kein Streit zwischen uns besteht. Bunsen blindly, without showing any 

His previous statements in the Zdtschr. knowledge of the more recent criticism 

fiir Wissensch. TheoL xvn. p. 209 sq., on the subject. 

IG. I. 1 8 



274 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

likewise ; so that the fact, if fact it be, is not decisive. But still the 
circumstance that we are not required to travel beyond the limits of 
the Short Recension to satisfy the external evidence of the first two 
centuries after the author s date is in itself a presumption a very 
strong presumption, it is thought in favour of this, as the original form 
of the Ignatian Letters. 

Even supposing that this allegation were true, what would be 
the value of the fact for the purpose for which it is alleged ? It would 
depend partly on the number of the quotations adduced, partly on the 
relation of the two recensions, the one to the other, as storehouses 
of apt and serviceable quotations. 

But the alleged quotations are only three in number, one in 
IREN^EUS (see above, p. 135) and two in ORIGEN (see p. 136). The 
passage cited by Irenasus is the startling image in Rom. 4 I am the 
wheat of God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may 
be found pure bread. Of the two quotations in Origen, one is taken 
from the same letter Rom. ^ But my passion is crucified ; the other 
from Ephes. 19 And the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the 
prince of this world. Thus the direct quotations are very few indeed, 
and they are all obvious and striking. Moreover on the hypothesis 
that the Short Recension is an abridgment of the other, we should 
naturally expect it to have preserved just those passages which would 
strike the reader as especially apt for quotation. The presumption 
therefore, even if the statement itself could be accepted as strictly 
accurate, is so slender, that it must give way before the slightest positive 
evidence on the other side. 

But the statement is open to criticisms, which seriously impair its 
force. 

In the first place it ignores several references to the Ignatian letters, 
which, though individually they may be thought indecisive, yet col 
lectively are entitled to the highest consideration, as evidence in favour 
of the Middle Form. 

The passage in LUCIAN will be found quoted above, p. 129 sq. It 
will be seen at once that, if there be any allusion to the Ignatian letters 
in this pagan satirist, it is not satisfied by the epistles of the Short 
Recension. The statement (p. 133) that Peregrinus sent about letters 
to nearly all the famous cities might indeed be met by the expression 
in Rom. 4 I write to all the churches, though it finds a much more 
natural explanation in the existence of a body of letters like the Seven 
of the Middle Form, with which Lucian may be supposed to have been 
acquainted ; but the superadded words relating how he nominated 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 275 



certain of his companions ambassadors 
whom he called death-messengers (vcKpayye Aous) and infernal-couriers 
(veprepoSpo/Aovs), has no parallel in the Syriac letters, whereas on the 
other hand it is adequately explained as a parody of Ignatius direc 
tions in the Vossian Epistles to nominate (xeipo-roveti/, Philad. 10, 
Smyrn. it, Polyc. 7) certain persons who should visit Syria as God- 
couriers (&lt;9eoSpo/xos Polyc. 7) or God-ambassadors (OeoTrpea-ftfvnjv 
Smyrn. n). The further coincidence in Lucian s description of the 
Christians as despising death (Kara^povovo-i rov Oavdrov) with an 
expression in Smyrn. 3 (davdrov Kare^poV^o-av) deserves also to be 
mentioned, though it does not go far. 

The reference to the letters of Ignatius in the Epistle of POLYCARP 
to the Philippians 13 (see above, p. 128) is discussed in the notes on 
the passage (ll. p. 932). Though the words ras lirurToXds ras TTC/A- 
&lt;j&gt;9eia-as -qplv VTT O.VTOV might be satisfied by the single letter to Polycarp 
in the Short Recension, yet they are much more natural and appro 
priate as referring- to the two letters the one to the Smyrnasans, the 
other to Polycarp himself which are found in the Middle Form. 
Moreover in the context Polycarp speaks of sending with them other 
letters also as many as he had by him (K&lt;U oAXas oo-as CIXO/ACV 7ra p 
r/fjlv). This expression would be amply satisfied by th five additional 
letters of the Middle Recension ; but he could hardly have spoken thus 
of the two additional letters (Ephesians, Romans) which alone are con 
tained in the Short Recension. 

Again Polycarp refers to Ignatius as directing him to take care that, 
if any one should go to Syria, he should convey thither the letters 
from them (the Philippians) also. This is explained by the directions 
in the Ignatian letters of the Middle Recension (Smyrn. n, Polyc. 7, 8), 
charging Polycarp to send a trusty messenger with letters to Antioch 
from the Smyrnsean Church ; but without this key to the interpretation 
it is altogether unintelligible. The Short Recension does not contain 
these directions. 

Besides these more decisive references, there are other coincidences 
which could not have been regarded as decisive, if they had stood 
alone, but are not without their value as cumulative evidence. Thus 
the reference to the fetters of the martyrs, Ignatius and others, as the 
diadems of the truly elect ( i), seems to be taken from the similar 
image in Ephes. u. The description of the deacons, as deacons of 
God and Christ, not of men ( 5), has a close parallel in Smyrn. 10 
(comp. Magn. 6, Trail. 2). The injunction to be subject to the 
presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ is an echo of several 

1 8 2 



2/6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

characteristic precepts scattered through the letters of Ignatius (Ephcs. 
6, Magn. 3, 6, Trail. 2, 3, Smyrn. 8). The modified form of the 
quotation from Is. Hi. 5 ( 10) seems to be a reminiscence of Trail 8. 
The apology But I have not perceived or heard of any such thing in 
you ( n) resembles similar apologies in Ignatius (Magn. n, Trail. 8). 
Other coincidences also with passages which are not contained in the 
Curetonian letters will be found above, p. 128. 

But this is not all. It is true that the two direct quotations from 
Ignatius in Origen are found in the Curetonian letters. But in one 
there is a variation which, though slight, is far from unimportant. 
Origen, quoting the opening of Ephcs. 19, cites it KCH eAa$cv K.T.A., as it 
stands in the Middle Form. In the Curetonian letters the connecting 
particle and is omitted. This is not a mere accident. In the 
Middle Form (the Vossian letters) the passage stands in direct con 
nexion with the miraculous conception and birth of Christ ( 18), and 
accordingly the connecting particle is appropriate ; but in the Cure 
tonian letters all this preceding passage is wanting, so that the words 
quoted follow immediately after topics altogether irrelevant ( 18 vp.lv 
Sf o-oj-nypia KCU w?7 cuomos). Thus there, is an abrupt transition in this 
recension, and the connecting particle would be out of place. It must 
therefore have been deliberately added in the Vossian letters, if these 
are an expansion of the Curetonian, or deliberately omitted in the 
Curetonian, if these are an abridgment of the Vossian. Hence its 
presence in Origen s quotation is an indication of no light moment. 

Moreover there is another very strong reason for supposing that 
Origen had the Vossian letters before him. The Vossian letters were 
in the hands of Eusebius, who does not appear to have known any 
others. But in all matters relating to the literature of the early Church 
Eusebius made use, as naturally he would, of the valuable library 
which Pamphilus, the friend of Origen, had gathered together at 
Caesarea and left as an heir-loom to the Church there (H. E. vi. 32). 
This library contained the books which had belonged to Origen. When 
therefore we find Origen and Eusebius within about half a century of 
each other citing the same writer (though not very frequently cited 
in the early centuries), this fact affords a strong presumption that they 
quoted, if not from the same MS, at all events from MSS closely allied to 
each other and belonging to the same family. The presumption is 
certainly much stronger than any which can be advanced on the other 
side. 

But, if Origen be withdrawn, the solitary quotation of Irenaeus alone 
remains. An induction from a single example is no induction at all. 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 277 

But even this testimony may be invalidated. The reader who compares 
the references given above (p. 135) will form his own opinion of the 
value of the coincidences with the Ignatian letters in the language of 
Irenaeus ; but they cannot count for nothing. To this point however I 
shall return hereafter. It is sufficient at present to observe that with one 
exception (Ephes. 19) they all refer to passages in the Vossian letters 
which have no place in the Curetonian. 

The force of coincidences in other writers prior to the age of 
Eusebius, which have been noted in the previous chapter (p. 129 sq.), 
will be differently estimated by different minds. But" the references of 
Eusebius himself (see p. 138 sq.) to the Vossian Epistles are unques 
tioned and unquestionable ; and the same is true of all subsequent 
writers during the next two centuries, who cite this father to any extent, 
e.g. Theodoret, Timotheus, and Severus. There is in fact a catena of 
authorities extending over seven or eight centuries from the age of 
Ignatius. On the other hand not a single quotation, early or late, has 
been adduced, of which .we can say confidently that it was taken from the 
Curetonian Letters, as distinguished from the Middle Recension. The 
value of this silence must not indeed be exaggerated. As the two recen 
sions have large parts in common, the range of possible quotations bearing 
distinct testimony to the Curetonian Letters apart from the Vossian 
is not wide. But still it is a significant fact. 

(ii) The next subject which I propose to consider under the head 
of external evidence is the phenomena of extant manuscripts and autho 
rities for the text. 

Not a little stress has been laid on the fact, that the MSS of the 
Curetonian Recension are older by some centuries than the MSS (whether 
Greek or Latin) of the Vossian Epistles. It will have appeared from 
the account given above (p. 72 sq.), that the three MSS of the Curetonian 
Syriac range from the first half of the sixth to the ninth century. On 
the other hand the Greek MSS of the Vossian letters, the Medicean 
and Colbertine, cannot be dated before the tenth or eleventh century, 
while the MSS of the Latin Version are still later. If we had no other 
data for determining the question than the relative ages of the MSS, this 
fact might have afforded a presumption a very slender presumption in 
favour of the Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. How slight this 
presumption would have been we may judge from analogous cases. 
The oldest extant MS of Herodotus is about four centuries younger than 
the oldest extant MSS of Jerome and Augustine. Yet Herodotus 
flourished eight centuries before Jerome and Augustine. The oldest 



278 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

extant MS of Bede is two or three centuries older than the oldest extant 
MS of ^schylus. Yet an interval of twelve centuries separates Bede 
from vEschylus. Such examples might be multiplied indefinitely. 

But we have other highly important data. The Vossian letters were 
certainly in the hands of Eusebius and Theodoret. We may here 
waive all contested points, such as the allusions in Polycarp or the 
quotation in Origen, which, if allowed, would carry the evidence much 
farther back. The references in Eusebius no one has questioned or 
can question. But Eusebius wrote more than two centuries before the 
date of the earliest Syriac MS of the Curetonian Epistles. Thus we are 
certified of the existence of the Vossian Recension two hundred years 
before we hear of the Curetonian. And from that time forward the 
evidence for the former is varied and continuous, whereas the latter can 
produce no credentials outside these three Syriac MSS themselves. 

No light stress again has been laid on another consideration, 
which will not bear the strain put upon it. It is argued that in those 
parts which they have in common the special readings of the Curetonian 
letters bear the stamp of greater antiquity than those of the Vossian, and 
hence it is inferred that the Curetonian Recension itself must be older 
than the Vossian. 

Here two wholly different things are confounded together. In the 
comparison of two recensions so wide apart as the Curetonian and the 
Vossian, two classes of variations must be considered. There are first 
the deliberate additions or omissions or alterations which are due to the 
author of that recension which is later in time and founded on the 
earlier. These variations are directly literary or doctrinal in their 
character. They are also for the most part intentional. There are 
secondly those divergences which are due to the separate and successive 
transmission of each recension, owing to the caprice or carelessness of 
the scribes. These are chiefly clerical or transcriptional. They are 
commonly accidental, but may be deliberate. Thus a and ft are two 
recensions of the same author ; (3 being a literary recension, whether by 
abridgment or expansion or otherwise, of a. The state of the text of 
a and ft respectively in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth 
centuries after ft was produced from a, and the two recensions began to 
be transmitted separately, are represented by a, a 2 a 3 a 4 a 5 a g , ft t ft 2 /2 3 
/? 4 ft s ft 6 , respectively. Suppose that of a we have only a 6 extant, while 
of ft we have /?,. It is quite plain that in the parts common to both 
the only readings of ft which are known to us must show greater 
antiquity than the only readings of a which are known to us, though (as 
a recension) ft is the offspring of a and not conversely. This is a 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 279 

rough representation of the relation of our actual authorities for the 
texts of the Vossian and Curetonian letters respectively. For the 
former our chief authority may be said to be represented by a g , for the 
latter by /?,. When the case is thus stated, the fallacy of inferring the 
superior antiquity of the recension from the superior antiquity of the 
extant readings becomes apparent. Yet Ignatian critics, following 
Cureton s example, have repeatedly built upon this hollow foundation l . 

This is perhaps the proper place for considering a curious fact 
relating to the documentary evidence. The headings of the epistles in 
the Greek MS (the Mediceari), which however contains only six of the 
seven letters, present remarkable differences in form. Taking them in 
the order in which they occur, we get the following titles : 



I. 

2. npoc noAYKApTTON ir N &lt;*Tioc. 

3. rrpoc e&lt;t&gt;ecfoYC ifNATioc. 

4. MAfNHCieYCIN ifN&TIOC. 

5. MArNHCiefciN &lt;}&gt;iA&AeA(}&gt;eYCiN 

6. Tp&lt;\AAl&NOIC 



The word /xayi/ryo-tcvcriv in the fifth title has evidently crept in from 
the subscription to the Epistle to the Magnesians which immediately 
precedes. The seventh letter, the Epistle to the Romans, is found 
only in a separate MS, the Colbertine, where it is without any title*. 

The epistles thus fall into two separate classes according to their 
titles; (i) 2/AVpvatoi?, Mayv^crteuortv, ^tXaSeX^evcrtv, TpaXXtavotsj (2) TTpos 
HoXvKapirov, Trpos E&lt;ecrious. It will be seen at once that these two 
classes comprise respectively those which are not, and those which are, 
represented in the Curetonian set of letters. The value of this fact is 
increased by two considerations ; first, that the epistles belonging to 
the two classes are not kept separate in the MS, but are mixed up 
together; and secondly, that, though there are minor variations in the 
titles (e.g. the omission or insertion of lyvcmos), these have not pre 
vailed so as to obliterate the main distinction of the two classes. 

1 The inference has been drawn from thing to Zahn s refutation of this in- 

the subscription to the MS S 2 , Here end ference (/. v, A. p. 188 sq.). 

(the) three epistles of Ignatius (see above 2 The facts with regard to this MS are 

p. 72, n. p. 669), that the translator or incorrectly stated by some editors of 

transcriber knew of no other epistles of Ignatius, who assign to it the title TT/JOS 

Ignatius (Bunsen Die drei aechten etc. Pw/nat ovs : see above, p. 75, and comp. 

pp. xvi, xvii, Lipsius Ucber die Aechtheit Journal of Philology II. p. 157 (1869). 
etc. p. 159). It is unnecessary to add any- 



280 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

In the versions we should be prepared to find the difference 
obliterated ; for there are not many languages in which it would occur 
to an ordinary translator to render Trpos E^eo-tov? and E&lt;riois by 
different expressions. It is not therefore a very important fact that this 
distinction does not appear in either the Latin or the Armenian Version. 
In the Long Recension again no traces of it are visible, as the headings 
of all the epistles have the same form TT/JOS 2/xvpvcuou?, irpos E&lt;e&lt;rtoi;s, etc. 

When I first observed this curious fact, which I had not seen noticed 
in any writers on the Ignatian question 1 , it impressed me strongly, and 
I called attention to it in an article in the Journal of Philology i. ii. 
p. 47 sq., 1868 (comp. n. p. 157, 1869). It seemed to me to show 
that the collector or redactor of the Middle Recension must have 
derived these seven epistles directly or indirectly from two different 
sources! So I inferred that the three epistles were circulated by them 
selves at an early date. And, though not regarding the argument as 
conclusive against the genuineness of the other four, I considered it to 
weigh powerfully on that side. 

But I have since seen reasons for altering my estimate of the 
importance of these facts. It seems evident to me now that the titles, 
as we have them, cannot have belonged to the several epistles in the 
first instance and must be regarded as comparatively late additions. 
This is certainly the case with Mayyiprtcucrur, for no such form is found 
till many centuries after the latest possible date of the Epistle to the 
Magnesians. The only plausible heading for it is Trpos TOUS iv Mayv^crta, 
as I have shown (n. p. 105 sq.). Thus it would correspond to the 
heading of the Tarsian letter vrpos TOVS ev Tapo-oi 2 . So again the varia 
tions in the heading of the Epistle to the Trallians (see n. p. 150 sq.) 
show that the form in the MS, TpaAAiai/ots lyvcmo?, is destitute of early 
authority. Whatever therefore may be the explanation of these facts 
relating to the titles, they have no direct bearing on the question before us. 

(iii) The third question for consideration under the head of ex 
ternal testimony has reference to the historical relations between the 
two recensions, so far as these can be traced. 

It has been shown above (p. 86 sq.), that there existed in the early 
centuries a Syriac version of the seven Vossian letters, to which were 

1 I have since seen that attention is " The Tarsian letter stands next to the 
called to this fact in B. H. Cooper s free Magnesian in the Long Recension (see 
Church of Ancient Christendom. The above, p. 222) ; and its heading was pro- 
book is without a date, but I am informed bably suggested by that of its immediate 
that it appeared in 1852. predecessor. 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 281 

appended the six additional spurious Ignatian letters. From this Syriac 
version the extant Armenian translation was made at a comparatively 
early date. It has been proved also (p. 89 sq.) that this Syriac version 
was intimately connected with the Curetonian letters ; that where they 
cover the same ground, the two are identical ; that this identity is such 
as to preclude the supposition of accidental coincidence ; and that 
therefore the only conclusion is the alternative, either that the Cure 
tonian letters are abridged from the Syriac version of the Vossian 
letters, or that the Syriac version of the Vossian letters was an expan 
sion from the Curetonian letters made by filling in the missing parts 
with the aid of the Greek. Which is the more probable supposition? 

The abridgment theory is a very simple postulate. The abbreviator 
had only to run his pen through the passages which he wished to omit, 
to substitute here and there an epitome for a longer passage, to supply 
here and there a link of connexion, and to transcribe the whole. He 
need not even have taken so much trouble as this. He might have 
performed the work of abridging as he went on, currente calamo. A 
very few hours would serve to complete his task. 

On the other hand the expansion theory is full of difficulties. We 
must suppose that some Syrian had before him the Curetonian letters 
in Syriac, and the Vossian letters in Greek ; that he carefully noted all 
the passages which were wanting or transposed or different in the 
former ; that he produced conformity by translating from the latter, 
supplying omissions, inverting transpositions, and altering divergences ; 
and that he did this in such a way as to produce a harmonious Syriac 
whole corresponding to the Greek whole which he had before him. If 
any one will take the trouble to compare the Vossian letters with the 
Curetonian, he will see what enormous labour and care such a work 
would involve. The relation is not one of simple curtailment or simple 
expansion. It is one either of careless, rough, and capricious manipu 
lation, if the Curetonian letters be an abridgment of the Vossian, or of 
elaborate and consummate literary artifice, if the Vossian letters be an 
expansion of the Curetonian. This being the relation between the two 
forms, it will be seen at once how great must have been the labour of 
the Syrian who set himself to fulfil the task here supposed. Any one 
for instance, who will compare in the two recensions the igth chapter 
of the Ephesians or the opening salutation of the Romans will be able 
to judge for himself. Or we may take the close of the Epistle to the 
Romans in the Curetonian Form, which incorporates two chapters from 
the Vossian Epistle to the Trallians, and try to imagine the amount of 
care and attention which would be required for such a task. Indeed it 



282 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

would have cost much less time and trouble to have translated the 
whole three letters direct from the Vossian Greek, than to have under 
taken this elaborate piecing of the Curetonian Syriac. Moreover there 
is, I believe, no appreciable difference in style (so far as it can be 
inferred from the remaining fragments and from the Armenian transla 
tion) between the portions taken on this hypothesis from the preexisting 
Curetonian Syriac and the portions whether isolated passages or whole 
letters supposed to have been supplied by this second translator 
some centuries after. Yet it is not the uniformity of literalness ; for 
this version has a rough freedom characteristic of itself. It would 
perhaps be too much to say that no Syrian could have been found in 
those ages capable of such a work. But who would have been likely 
to undertake it? And what sufficient motive would he have had to 
stimulate and sustain him ? 



2. Internal Evidence. 

This branch of the subject also may be conveniently considered 
under three heads : (i) The diction and style ; (ii) The connexion of 
thought; (iii) The topics, whether theological, ecclesiastical, or per 
sonal. 

i. The value of diction as a criterion of authorship will vary 
materially in different cases. In the Ignatian letters, which (whatever 
other faults they may have) are not deficient in character, its value will 
be high. As the subject has never been thoroughly investigated before, 
I offer no apology for the length and minuteness of the treatment, 
trusting that the result will be considered its best vindication. In the 
following table the first column contains words and expressions which 
occur in the Curetonian letters ; while in the second parallels are given 
from those portions which are absent from the Curetonian Recension 
and appear only in the Vossian. 



of outward demonstrations of affection (see n. p. 34 1 ); 

Polyc. 2 TCI Seoyid fJ.ov a ^ycnrrja-ag Smyril. 9 dirovra p.f Kai Trapovra rjyan^- 



joined with Trums (see the note n. p. 29); 

Ephes. I Kara Tri cmi/ KOI ayamrp Ephes. 14 rr\v iriomv KOI T^V aydnrjv. 

For other instances see Ephes. 20, 
Magn. i, 13, Philad. I i,.SV/yra.inscr., 
6, 13 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 28 



o 



personified and used in a peculiar way; 

Rom. 9 da-rrdgfTat. vp.as...y dyaTTi] TWV Trail. 1 3 dcnrdfTat upas 77 dydtrr] 2pup- 
fKK\Tjcria&gt;v K.T.X. vaiav, Philad. 1 1 do-jrdfeTai vfias J 

ayanr] ru&gt;v dS(\(pG&gt;v 

identified with the blood of Christ; 

Rom. 7 TO aipa aiirov o tcmv dydirr) Trail. 8 eV dyeing o eariy mp,a l^croD 
a(j)dapros Xpiorou 

AfNeiA in connexion with /aeVeiv ev ; 

Polyc. 5 ? TIS Surarai eV dyvfia fitixiv Ephes. IO eV irdfrrj dyvtiq KOI (T(o(f)po- 

crvvrj [ifixTf 

AfNizeceAi in a strange construction with a genitive (see n. p. 51); 

Ephes. 8 TTfptyrjfjLa vp.a&gt;v KOI ay^o/xat Trail. 13 ayW^erat vpaJVTo e/ioi/7rveO/ia 



in the expression to sing to the Father ; 

Rom. 2 ii/a V dyarrj; xP s yw^***o* Ephes. 4 ^opos yivtade, Iva (Tvpfpcoisoi 
TW Trarpt eV Xpicrrai ITJCTOU K.T.\. ovrts tv 6fj.ovoia...a8r}Tf ev (pcavfj /j.ia Sia 

ir/trov XptoToC TW Trarpi K.T.\. 

in the expression ev at/Acm eou (Xpto-Tou) used mystically ; 

Ephes. I dj/afcoTri/p^ o aKrfS V m/xaTi Phtlad. inscr. ijv d(r7rd^byxai V al^an 
Qctw irjcrov XptcrTou, Smyrn. I JjSpaapfvovs 

,..(v TW aifj.ari Xpio-roO : comp. Trail. 

inscr. (v. I.), Smyrn. 12 

&idiN in the phrase the prince of this world (see n. p. 73) ; 

EpIlCS. 19 eXadev TOV apxovra TOU o ap^cov TOI) at&3voj TOI/TOU occurs 
aiaii/or TOVTOV, 7&gt;a//. 4 KOToXveTat o Ephes. 17, Magn. I, 7?w. 7, Philad. 
tip^utv TOV alwvos TOVTOV 6 

AicoNec in a manner personified as the recipients of a revelation 
or a report ; 

Ephes. 8 fKichrjcrias rfjs 8ia^or/rov rols Ephes. 19 TTWJ owv efpavepcadij rols 
aiaxTiv aluxTiv; Smyrn. I Iva apy arva-a-rjfjLov 

(Is TOVS ala&gt;vas 

&KINHTOC in reference to the faith of the persons addressed; 

PolyC. I (TOV TTJV tv 0cw yvcafj,r]v /Spa(7- Smyrn. I vpas *caT7/pTtcrp.J/ovr V a*ct- 
p.(vi]v toy eVt TTfrpav anivrfTov VTJTO) Tri aret : COmp. Philad. I 7ri- 

yvovs...To dKiivjTov avTov 

AMCOMOC in the connexion ev a/xw/Aw x a p an d similar phrases ; 
Ephes. inscr. eV apw/xw \apa ^aiptiv : Magn. 7 cV r# x a P? T .V d^^M?? comp. 
comp. Rom. inscr. dp.wp.as x a ip fiv Ephes. 4 V dp-oJ^w evorrjn, Smyrn. 

inscr. e i&gt; dpco pw Tri/eupaTt. See also 
Trail, i 



284 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

AN&lt;vreAAo) used metaphorically ; 
Rom. 2 Iva els avrov dvaretXw Magn. 9 17 0)17 ij/iwv dvtrei\ev 5V 



O.VTOV 



AN Hp in the phrase ol Kar avSpa; 

Polyc. I roil KOT avSpa Kara op-or/dfLav Ephes. 4 01 &lt;ar ai/Spa e ^opoJ yivtvGf, 
eoG XdXe i Ephes. 2O 01 Kar di/Spa xoti^ 7ran"f?, 

Trail. 1 3 01 KOT avSpa aXXi/Xovs aya- 
Trarf, Smyrn. 5 ra r^trtpa rav KO.T 
avSpa TradjuaTa, Smyrn. 12 TOVS Kar 
avBpa KOI Koivy Trdvres 



implying devotion to another; 

Polyc. 2 Kara irdvra aov dvrfyvxov e yto Ephes. 21 dvrfyvxov vpS&gt;v e yw cai wi/ 

KOI ra Seo-/xa /*ov, Polyc. 6 ai^t^u^oi/ eVeV^are K.r.X., Smyrn. 10 dirty vx&lt;&gt;v 

(ya&gt; rav vTrorao-o-o/ieVaw K.r.X. (comp. v/iwi/ TO TTi/ev/ia /xou KOI ra 
vpatv Ephes. 8) 



.*. inscr. eVcJcXijo-ia J-frty trponadr]- Magn. 2 roG diodtov vp.u&gt;i 
T&lt;u...dio0eor, Rom. I vpvv TO. diMfa irov, Trail, inscr. 6KKX^o-t a...d^o%, 
Trpoa-eaira Smyrn. 12 rt,v dio6fov tnio-KOTrov 



Ephes. inscr. 177 fKK^Tja-ia TJJ d^o/iaKa- /&gt;/?J. 1 2 HaiJXou. . .roG d 

7. inscr. iXirtg.,.Jm cal Rom. 10 81 E0eo-i coi/ rcbv 



/ inscr. (1. c.) Magn. 13 roG d^toTrpeTreo-rdrou nrurxo- 

7TOU 

in other compounds ; 

) 
d^ieVaifos V /?^. mscr. 



d^oi&gt;ofj.aa-Tos, Ephes. 4 

s, Philad. 2, Polyc. 3 
s, Magn. 13 



with ei/u, more especially in denouncing his own unworthiness 
(see ii. p. 33); 

Trail. 4 OVK oiSa et a^tos i&gt;t Magn. 12 e dwcp a^to? w, Z^. 14 odev 

OVK ai6s flp.i Ka\f1(r6ai (comp. Trail. 
13), Rom. 9 ov8( yap cit-ios dp.i, Smyrn. 
1 1 OVK a&gt;t&gt; aios (KtiQev dvai 

Ephes. 2 i xnpio-aVei os vp.lv diois Smyrn. 9 aioi ynp eVre, ^/J/f. 8 ypd- 



ot (r 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 285 

and used absolutely of things ; 

Polyc. 6 tva TO. aKKOTTa \&gt;p.u&gt;v aia KO/U- Smyrn, 1 1 e(pdiT) pot ovv aiov Trpdypa 



&IIOYN, used especially of himself (see n. p. no); 

Rom. I TOV d^tcodrjvai /it els TtXos dvai Ephcs. 9 ^L(adrjv...Trpoa-o/j.i\fja-at vp.1v, 

ib. 21 rjiu&gt;Br)v (Is Tipr)v Q(ov (vp(di)vai, 
Magn. I cVel ovv i}t&lt;a6T}v I8(tv vfj.as 

Aop&roc in the phrase visible and invisible ; 

Trail. 5 opara re /cat opara, Rom. 5 Smyrn. 6 ot apxovrfs oparoi re Kal 

T&lt;0&gt;v 6paru&gt;v Kal aoparuiv (comp. Polyc. doparot 

2,3) 

ATT&GHC opposed to Tra^ro s and said of Christ; 

Polyc. 3 TOV diraBrf, TOV 81 jpas iraGr)- Ephcs. J jrpuiTov Tradt]Tos KOI TOT( drra- 
rov 6ijs 

TT&lt;\PT[ZIN (comp. also avaTrapria-ro?, 1 1. p. 259); 

Ephes. I TO vvyyfviKov tpyov reXficaf Ephes. 3 OVTTO) aTT^pTia-p-ai, Philad. 5 
d.TTi]pTi(Ta.T(, Ephes. 19 TO Trapa 0e&) i) Trpoartv\T) iiputv... 



AnoAexec9M said of saluting or welcoming persons ; 

s. I a5ToSea/ii/or [i5/i&lt;uj/] tv 8f&) Trail. I aTrofie^a/iei/oy ovj/ TT)V /cara Geov 
TO TToXvayaTn/roi/ oi&gt;ofj.a, Polyc. I OTTO- (vvotav K-T.X. 
TTJV tv Qeu yv(ap.r]v 

said of welcoming persons; 

Eplies. I TTJV jro\vTr\i]d(iav vp.u&gt;v...dirfl- Ephes. 2 ov ((fj.n\dpiov TTJS a0 v 
\r)(pa (v Ovi]crip.u&gt; dycarrjs 

and otherwise ; 

Rom. I TOV KXrjpov fiov dv(p.TTo8i&lt;rTu&gt;s Slliyrn. \ I dntXaftov TO I8iov p,t 
drroXa/Setv 

ApecKeiN of pleasing God or Christ ; 

Polyc. 6 dpf&lt;TK(T( w (rTpaT(vrd( Rom. 2 6eo&gt; dptaai, &lt;Z(nr(p Kal dp(&lt;rK(T( 

APTOC, speaking of the bread of God ; 

Rom. 7 dpTov Qtoii 6t\a&gt; Ephes. 5 voTfpetTai TOV dpTOU TOU Qeov 



Polyc. 2 TO 6tp.a dcpdapaia Kal far; Magn. 6 SiSa^i7i/ acp^apar/aj, Philad. 9 
aiamor 7-0 gf (vayy(\iov a7rapTr/xa ioTW d(pdap- 

&lt;rias, comp. Ephes. 17 



. 7 ayaTTJj !i(pdapTos Trail. 1 1 o Kapnos UIITUIV tlfpdapTos 



286 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



, BACK&NMA, 
Rom. 3 ovS Trore (ftatrnavaTf ov8evi Rom. 7 fiao-Kavia tv vplv p,i) KarotKf iY 

TNCOMH in the phrase mind of God ; 

Ephcs. 3 OTTWS (rvvTpfx*]T Trj yvwfjiT} The phrase yvcS^r] Qeov occurs Rom. 8, 
TOV Qeov Polyc. 8 (comp. yvatp-rj irjo-ov Xptorov, 

Ephes. 3, Philad. inscr.) 

in the phrase mind of the bishop ; 

Polyc. 5 p-fra yv(ap.r)s TOV fTTi&lt;TK.onov Ephes. 4 OWTp*X eo&gt; T .V TOV 
(comp. 4) 

and in other expressions ; 

Polyc. I crou TTJV eV 6ew yvui^v K.T.\. Rom. 7 T^K ets Gedv pov yvu&gt; 

rp&lt;i(}&gt;a) in a particular connexion ; 

Rom. 4 tya&gt; ypd(j&gt;&lt;i&gt; Tra&lt;rais rais fKK\rj- Polyc. 8 Trcurais rals fKK\T)triais OVK 
&lt;riais i}8vvrjdr)V ypd\^ai 

AeAe/v\&i, AeAeMeisioc, in particular connexions, especially of a pri 
soner in Christ ; 
Rom. I SeSe/ie j/oy...eV Xpio-ro) iqo-ou Trail. I 8eSf^eVw &lt;V l^troC Xptoroj 

(comp. Philad. 5, 7) 
TVrt/7. 5 ou xa(9ort 8S/iat et yap *cal Se Sf fiat, Ephes. 3, Magn. 1 2 

AecMA, see above under avrtyvxpv ; 

AecMoc used metaphorically (with Xveiv) of the powers of evil ; 
Ephes. 19 eXvero Troo-a /xayet a xal TTCJ Philad. 8 of Xvo-fi o^ v/xeui 7rrra 



Ai&lt;\ TOYTO followed by Tva or 

Polyc. 2 Sta roCro &lt;rapKiKos ft /cat rrj eu- Ephes. 1 7 Sia TOUTO fj.vpov fXaftfv. . Siva 
p-ariKos Iva K.T.\., Ephes. 3 Sta TOVTO Trye i; K.r.X., Magn. 9 fita TOUTO inrofj,(- 
rrpo(\a/3ov Trapa.Ka\f1v vfias, onu&gt;s &lt;rvv- vop.tv Iva fvpe6u&gt;fj.(V K.r.X. 

K.T.X. 



Al& TTANTOC, 

Polyc. 6 ovaiprjv vfiav 8ta Trai^ro?, Ephes. Ephes. 2, 2O, Magn. i, 6, Smyrn. 12, 
inscr. etvat Sta iravror ety bo^nv Trapd- Polyc. 8 
P.OVOV K.r.X. 

Xi CON, in a particular connexion, where it is equivalent to Si cei- 
vwv a ; 

Ephes. 15 fVa Si cSv XaXel irpdarcrr) Kal Ephes. 4 fetyowfcwqi 81 cof e Trpaa-- 
St cof crtya yivcaa KrjTai (rere K.T.X., Z&lt;5. 14 dt wt Trpd&lt;r(rovcnv 

oipdijcrovTai., ib. 9 8t a&gt;j/ ypd(pa&gt;, irpoa- 
ofj,i\rjcrai vp.lv (comp. / (J. 1 5 | wy) 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 287 

Ai&lt;yr&lt;\ccec6&lt;M in connexion with the Apostles; 

Rom. 4 ovx a&gt;s Tlfrpos Kai IlaGXoy 8ia- Trail. 3 "iva u&gt;v KaraKpiros (as arrocrro- 
ra&lt;rcro/Ltat -v/juv (Kflvoi aTrocrroXot, eyco Xoy vjj.lv 6iaTa&lt;r(rcop,at, Ephes. 3 ov 8ia- 
KaraKpiTos rdcrcro/iai v/iti coy &lt;uj&gt; n 

Ao5&lt;\ in the phrase eis Soav (0cou) ; 

Polyc. 4 ft? Sdap Qfov ir\tov SouXeue- Magn. 1 5 Trapovres els 86av Qtov, 
Taxrav, Ephes. inscr. eis Sd^av napd- Rom. IO TCOJ/ TrpoeX^drrcoj/ p.f...ds 86av 
povov Qtov (comp. also Ephes. inscr.), Polyc. 

7 8od&lt;rr) v[j,a&gt;v rrjv UOKVOV dyaTTTjv tls 



AO^AZOO (yTrepAolAzco) used absolutely, and in a particular connexion ; 

Polyc. I ctTroSf^d/iej/ds 1 crou TTJV ev Oftp Trail. I aTroSe^a/ievo? ouv Tj)f /cara 
-yi&gt;(i)lJiriv...virp8oda&gt; Kara^icodfls K.r.X. Geoi/ tvvoiav St avroi) eSd^arra K.r.X. 
(where the addition of Geoi/ in the 
Syriac text is an obvious gloss) 

AYNAMIC in the phrase ei&gt; Swdfjiei; 
Ephes. 14 lv SvvdfjLfi Trto-rewf Ephes. II eV 8vvdfj.fi irjaov Xpicrrov, 

Smyrti. 1 3 V Swi//xet irciTpos 
AycKoAoc in the neuter SvV/coXov; 

Rom. I f /^tot Se Si^o-KoXdj/ e crrti/ TOU 0eov Smyrn. 4 oTrep 8v&lt;rKo\ov 



CAN in the phrase OUK eofv ; 

Ephes. 3 &gt;/ ayciTTJ; OVK ea /xe (riamav Ephes. Q OVK fiacrare cnreipai fls vpas 

eAp&zem, in the perfect Tj8pa&lt;rdai, Ty S/aaoyxe vo?, especially with lv; 

Polyc. I TTJV ev 0fw yvu&gt;p.r]v ^8pa&lt;rfj,(vr]V Phildd. inscr. ij8pa(rpevrj ev upovota 

fou, Smyrn. I ^8pa&lt;rfj.evovs tv dycnrrj^ 
So too Ephes. IO e8paioi ry Triarfi Smyrn. 13 eSpaa-dai Tricrrei KOI dya^y 

eAeeTN, the perfect participle ^Xe^/xeVo? and the construction with ev; 
Rom. inscr. fasTfptvQ tv /ieyaXetdr^Tt Philad. inscr. ^\erjfj.evrj ... lv 6/j.ovoia 
Trarpd? 0fov, Smyrn. inscr. $\erjfi4vg tv iravrl 

\apicr p.ari 

eXnic used of Christ, especially with KOIVO S (see n. p. 263); 

Ephes. I vTTp TOV KOIVOV 6vop.aTOS KOI Ephes. 21 (v lr)(rov Xptorw TJ; KOIVJJ 
f\Tri8os (\iri8i rmu&gt;v. So too Philad. 1 1 

(comp. Philad. 5). So l^o-oO Xpio-roC 
1-179 f\rri8os jfjiuiv, Magn. n, Trail. 
inscr., 2 

eNoyceAi, especially the perfect participle ^Vw/AeVos; 

Ephes. inscr. ^vu&gt;p.fvr]v KOI eVXeXey- Rom. inscr. ^txu/ieroi? Trda-rj (vroiXf/ 

avrov : comp. Magn. 6, 7, 14, Smyrn. 3 



288 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

INCOCIC union ; 

Polyc. I TTJS eWo-eco? (ppomfc Magn. I CVOHTIV ev^o/iai, Philad. 7 

TT}V fvaxnv ayairarf. comp. Magn. 13, 
Trail, n, Philad. 8, /W^. 5 

:IA in the phrase fov&lt;riav f-x^v TIVO S; 
.7 xP l(TTiav s fWTov fgovaiavovK Smyrn. 4 TOVTOU fie e^ei l^ovviav irj- 

fvfi (TOVS \plCTTOS 

enAiTeAfA, eTT&rreAAeceAi, of the profession of Christianity ; 

Ephes. 14 ov -yap vvv orayyeXi aj TO Ephes. 14 TT UTTIV eVayyeXXo^ei/or ... 
?p-y 0l&lt; eVayyeXXo/ifi oi XptoToti eivai 

enieiKei&lt;\, 
Ephes. 10 Tfl (TTiciKfia The word occurs twice in Philad. I 

eniKeTce&i of impending death (or life); 

^?0;. 6 o 8e TOK6TO? ftoi (TriKftrat Magn. 5 eVucewai Ta Suo &lt;V ^5 Te 

^avaTos Kat ?; fa)?; (but see II. p. 1 17 on 
the reading). 

enicKoneTN of the superintendence of God (or Christ); 

Polyc. inscr. VicrK07n7/iej &&amp;gt; OTTO Geou Rom. 9 avT^v Ir;cro{)r XpttTTof 7ricr/co- 

Tnjffft. So God is called the universal 
firitntaiTos, Magn. 3. Compare 0eou 
(nio-Koirri Polyc. 8. 

enupeneiN in the imperative fcrtrptyarc; 

^. 10 eVtTpe ^aTe o v auTois KUV Rom. 6 tirvrp^YCcri ftoi /nt/i^r^i/ eu&gt;ai 
v/iTi/ p.adrjTfvdfjvai K.T.X. 

with an infinitive following ; 

Ephes. I fmTv^flv fv Paipr) 6r]pio[jL a- Ephes. I emTu / ^ij 8vvr)6^ p.a&r]TTjS 
[i, /?&lt;?;. I (TTfTVxov iftdv K.T.X. eti ai 

in the phrase eTrirvxetv eou ; 

z. i, 2, 4, / fl/yc. 2 ; comp. l^o-oO The phrase occurs Ephes. 12, Magn. 
Xpto-ToC eVirux"" ^ w - 5 (twice). 14, TVw//. 12, 13, Rom. 9, Smyrn. 11, 

/ o/xr. 7. 

So rvxfi" &gt;S Ephes. 10 So rvxeti &lt;oi) Magn. l 

enoypANiA, especially in reference to angelology ; 

Trail. 5 ^J) ov 8i/vap.ai TO. tnovpavta Smyrn. 6 Kal ra eVovpcivta KOI rf So^a 
ypd^ai, ib. 8vvap.ai voelv TCI enovpcivia TVV ayytXwv : compare Ephes. 1 3, 

Trail. 9 

ep&N (not found in the N. T. or in Clement or Polycarp) ; 
Rom. 2 (paa-6fJT( TTJS crapKos p.ov, Polyc. Rom. 7 fpwv TOV mroQavtlv 
4 (pciTaxrav cnro TOV KOIVOV eXev$epov- 
&lt;rdai. So too fpas Rom. 7 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 289 

AzeiN, the perfect participle passive; 
Ephes. 9 TfToniaa fjitvov (Is oiKo8op.t)v Rom. 5 ra&gt;v 6r)piu&gt;v Ttav ffiol ijroi/iao&gt;ie- 



, the perfect participle passive with lv ; 
Ephes. inscr. rfj fvKoryrj^vrj iv fjLfy0fi Magn. inscn 177 fvXoyjj/itVfl eV x"P lTl 
K.T.A. K.T.\. (comp. Ephes. 2) 

eypfcKeiN in the aorist passive evpfOrjvai, a characteristic Ignatian 
expression ; 

Rom. -2, 3, 4, 5, Polyc. 4, 6 Ephes. 10, 11, 12, 14, 21, Magn. 9, 

Trail. 2, 12, 13, Smyrn. 3, Polyc. 7 

eyxec9Ai used with especial frequency, and in sentences of similar 
form ; e.g. 

Ephes. I ov tv^ofiai Kara Irjcrovv Smyrn. 1 1 fjv fv)(O[wi rf\fiav pot 80- 
XpiaToy vnat dycnrav ^fat, /^. 13 fjv (v^o^at *8pacrdai 

CXGIN with an infinitive; 
Rom. 2 fx tTf tiftypa^vai Philad. 6 t^ft TIS Kav\ij&lt;ra(rdcu 

with Qovaiav (see s. v.), and with xaipoV (see s. v-). 
ZHN with KO.TO.; 

Ephes. 8 apa Kara Qfbv rJTt Philad. 3 Kara iqo-oui/ XpioToi/ fc3i^-ff : 

comp. Ephes. 6, 8, Magn. 8, 9, 10, 
7h*//. 2, ^0/. 8. 

HcyxfA of God or of Christ. The two passages quoted are the only 
cases of its occurrence in these letters ; 

Ephes. 15 SiWrcu xal Tf}s ri&lt;rvxlas av- Ephes* 19 aViva eV J}&lt;Tv\iq Qeov eVpa^- 



, used absolutely of the Divine will (n. p. 85); 

Rom. I tuvTTfp dfXrjfMj) Ephes. 2O iav pt 

*col 6f\t]fj.a y, Smyrn. 1 1 Kara 6e 

fie KO.TTjiu&gt;6riv, Polyc. 8 &lt;uff TO 6e\r)fj.a 

Trpoorao-o-ei (comp. Smyrn. l) 

0HpiOM&xeTN of himself; 

Ephes. I frri-rvxf iv tv Pw /i?? 0rjpiofj.a- Trail. IO rt Se cai ey^o/iai fypiopa- 

X^" at &gt; Rom. 5 ATTO Svpi aj 



used metaphorically; 

Rom. 2 (Off &lt;Vt 6vcria&lt;TTr)piov froifjiw Ephes. 5 f av p,?; Ttf &gt;J evrbs TQV dwiacr- 
(o-riv rrjpiov (comp. Trail. 7), Magn. 7 o5y 

7rt &lt;/ &v(ria&lt;TTriptov (comp. Philad. 4) 

IG. I. 19 



290 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

K&0&lt;MpeTc0&lt;M of the powers of evil; 

Ephes. 13 naOaipovvTai at Svi/a/itty TOU Ephes. 19 Kadrjpf iro TraXaia /3ao-tXeta 



KAipoc, especially in the phrase Kcupov x eu/ followed by an infinitive; 
Rom. 2 ov yap e-yw TTOTC eco Kaipov Smyrn. 9 y [en] Kaipov 
TotoOrop Qfov c rnrvxf ~w 



fA in the same connexion; 
Polyc. 5 ray KaKOTtx^ias &lt;f&gt;evye Philad. 6 (pevyfTf ovv ray 



K&TA with the accusative (e.g. Polyc. i, Ephes. i); a favourite form of 
expression in various connexions (see n. p. 107). Thus we have Kara 
cov, Kara Kvpiov, etc.; 

Polyc. 5 6 ya^otr, Kara Kvptov, Ephcs. See Ephes. 2, Magn. i, 8, 13, Trail. 
I Kara irjcrovv Xpicrruv dyanav, ib. 8 I, Philad. 3, 4 
opa Kara 0eo/ f^re 

again in the expression Kara TTOVTO. ; 

Polyc. 2 KOTO Traira &lt;rou dvrfyvxov See Ephcs. 3 (twice), Magn. 8, 12, 
t yw /c.T.X. Trail. 12, Smyrn. 9, 12, etc. 

so too in the phrase C 1 ?^ Ka Ta rtva (or TI); see above, p. 289, 



in the imperative; 

Polyc. 3 rovy Kaipovs Kara/j.av0avf Smyrn. 6 KarapadeTf 5e rovy eVfpoSo- 



, a favourite Ignatian word (see n. p. 85); said of himself; 

Rom. 2 o Gfoy KaTTjgiaxrev (vpfQrjvai, So used in Ephes. \2,Magn. I, Trail, 
Polyc. I Karaici&gt;$ely roO 7rpo(rc!&gt;nov crov 12, Smyrn. II 

and of persons to be despatched to Syria ; 

Polyc. 8 TOV jue XXwra Kara^toCo-^at So used Polyc. 7, Philad. IO 

K.T.X. 

K&lt;vr&rrAHCceiN to overawe ; 

Polyc. 3 ot...eYepo&ia&lt;TKaXo{)i Tey /*&gt;/ o~e Philad. I ov KaTa7T7rXr;y/iat T^V eVift- 



KAfipoc of his own circumstances, especially of his martyrdom ; 

Rom. I ets TO TOV K\fjpov /MOV dvfp.no- Ephes. 1 1 Iva tv K\ijpa&gt; E0eo-/&lt;uz/ 
fit crrwy (ZTroXa/Set^ evpe^&lt;5, Trail. 12 rov xX;poi ovnep 

eyKifji.ai (?) rv^f ", Philad. 3 ij/a e j/ S 

/cX/po) yXdj 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 291 

KOINOC in the phrase TO KOLVOV, 

Polyc. 4 p.}/ ipartoarav O.TTO TOV KOWOV Philad. I TTJV SiaKoviav TT)V els TO 
cXtvOfpovcraai KOIVOV dviJKOv&lt;rav 

and connected with \7rts (see above, p. 287). 



KP&YCH, Kp&YrAzeiiu, of preaching; 
Ephes. 19 rp ia fjiva-Tijpia Kpavyrjs Philad. J e/cpavyacra p.trav coi/ 



Ephcs. \ o KfKTT)&lt;r0f (pvo-(i diKaia Ephes. I a^t oif ovai TOIOVTOV tirivKa- 

&lt;TTOV KfKTT)(rdat, ib. 14 dydTTTJV KfKTrj- 

pvos, ib. 15 o \6yov ij/trou KfKTrjfjLevos, 
Philad. I KtKTTjffdai TTJV SuiKoviav, 
Polyc. 8 Qtov yv(afi.T)v KeKTT]fj.tvos 

more especially in a particular connexion ; 

Polyc. I aKoip.r)Tov irvfV[j.a KtKrr)ij.tvos Magn. 1 5 KfKTrjp.fi/oi doia.Kpi.Tov irvtvpa 



frequent in Ignatius ; and especially of mere profession, as 
opposed to right action ; 

Ephes. 15 AaAoiWa /XT; elvat x.r.A. See Magn. 10, Rom. 7, Philad. I 



in this same contrast; 
Rom. 3 Iva p.r) p.6vov Xtyu&gt; Ephes. 1 5 tav 6 \tycov noirj 

and the passive Xeyea-Oai to be reckoned, speaking of himself; 

Rom. 3 \fya&gt;fj.ai xptoriaz&gt;or...Kai At- Trail. 13 ov*c a^io f et/it Ae 



yf cr^at 8vv afJ .ai Rom. 9 e^ aurwv \fyf&lt;rdai 

Aeinece&i with a genitive, to lack ; 

Polyc. 2 OTTWS wo tvbs \fiTTT] Trail. 5 u&gt;a GeoiJ /ii) Xfinwp.edu 

AIMHN, as a metaphor or simile; 

Polyc. 2 wr xf MaCoMfor At/i/ca Smyrn. 1 1 Xiptvos ijorj trvyxavov 

Aye IN of the defeat of the powers of evil ; 
Ephes. 19 eXv cro TrSo-a payda KOI Trap Ephes. 13 Av frai 6 oXtdpos OVTOV 



(comp. Philad. 8) 
especially in the passive; 

Ephes. 10 /c rwi/ e pyai/ u/xlv p.adr)Tfv- Ephes. 3 ap^^ ex 



Bfjvai, Rom. 5 eV fie roir d8i/cj; p.a(7tj/ AV;. 3 a p.adt]TfvovTfs fVTf\\f(T0f 
avToiv p.n\\ov fJLa6r)Tfvop.ai 

IQ 2 



292 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

M&GHTHC of discipleship to Christ (sometimes used absolutely), more 
especially of his own imperfect discipleship ; 

Ephes. I tva firirvxttv 8vvr)0u fj.adr]r^s Rom. 5 vvv apxofiai fjLadrjrfis flvai 

flvai, Trail. 5 ov...irapa TOVTO ij8r) KOI Magn. 9 tra fvp(6up.fv fj.adr)Ta\ I 

Ha6r)rf)S ( i&gt;, Rom. 4 Tore fffopai padr)- Xpiorov : COmp. Magn. IO 
T^J d\T]da)s TOV Xptorou 



in unusual connexions ; 

Ephes. inscr. (v\oyrjp.(vrj lv fKytdd, Smyrn. 1 1 a7rAa/3oi/ TO 
Rom. 3 p.(yt6ovs firrlv 6 



MIMHT^C of imitating God or Christ ; 

Ephes. I fjLiftrjTai ovrfs Qtov Trail. I /u/if/rar ovras OfoC : comp. 

Ephes. 10, Rom. 6, Philad. 7 

MONON used elliptically (see the note, n. p. 61); 

Rom. 5 fjLovov Iva Ijcro{5 XptoroC eVt- Ephes. 1 1 povov tv Xpiorw I^o-oC evpt- 

^ijj/ai K.T.X., Smyrn. 4 povov tv roi di/6- 
/xan irjaov Xpt&lt;rrou /c.r.X. 

of the revealed truths of the Gospel; 
Ephes. 19 rpia pvo-Trfpia xpavyrjs Magn. 9, Trail. 2 

NOMOC of the law of Christ ; 
Rom. inscr. xpiorovopos Magn. 2 as v6p,a&gt; Iqa-nv XptoroO 

oiKONOMOc, oiKONOMiA, of God s stewards and stewardship; 

Polyc. 6 ws 0eoO otKoi/o^ioi Ephes. 6 oi/ irffiTTti 6 otKoSfOTroTTjs els 

TI/V I8iai&gt; oiKovopiav 

oMOHGeiA of conformity to God; 

Polyc. I Kara o^or)6fiav Qeov Magn. 6 opoijOfiav Gfov X 



OMOICOC KA) used in simple enumeration ; 

Ephes. 19 17 -rrapBtvia Mapias KOI o Ephes. 16 6 ToiovTos...6p.oitag aal 6 
TOKTOS avrfjs, ofttoittt KOL 6 ddvaTos rov dicovaiv ovrofi, Trail. 13 ofioitas KOI rw 
Kvpt ov (comp. Polyc. 5 where op.oiW 
KOI also occurs, but in a more usual 

way) 



in more than one connexion ; 

Polyc. 6 ovaipTjv vfJiOiv Sta iravros Ephes. 2 ovaip.r)v vpfav 8ia iravros 

(comp. Magn. 12) 
Polyc. I ov ovaifjirjv tv Q( &lt;B Magn. 2 ov y&lt;" ovalfjujv 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 293 



ONOMA in the phrase e ovo/ 

Polyc. 4 * o^o/xaror Trdirar tfrti Ephes. 2O Trdirf ? eV xap m f di/o/ 

&lt;rvvfpxr0f, Polyc. 8 ao-TrajJo^ai Trdvrar 
oi&gt;6fj.aTOs 

and of actions done in or for the name of Jesus Christ or of God ; 

Rom. 9 ruv ftt^anevav pe fit vvopa Smyrn. 4 povov ev TO&gt; ovopaTi irjvov 

Irjo-ov XpioToO, Polyc. 5 7rapdyyXXe XpioroO, zA 12 a&lt;r7rafo/iai...eV oi/d/ian 

eV dvo/iari iqcroO XpierroG, Ephes. I e f l^troC Xptorov, 7?^wz. inscr. ; comp. 

di/o/xart Gfov drr(i\r](j)a Philad. IO wrep di/d^iarof Geou 

also used absolutely, without further definition (see n. p. 37), of the 
Divine Name; 

Ephes. 3 88f jiiu tv TW ovopari : comp. Ephes. 7 TO oj/o/za Trepi^/peti/, Philad. 
ib. I vTrep ToC KOIVOV oVd/xoror IO So^dcrai TO ovopa 

also used of individual men and nearly equivalent to person ; 
Ephes. I A.Troifan(vos [vpa&gt;v] Iv 0eu Polyc. 8 *AXcJji/ TO TTO^TOC jioi oi/o/ia 
TO TroXvaydTnjTof ovo/xa (comp. Smyrn. 13), /fo;. IO Kpd&lt;os 

TO nodr^rov pot ovop.a 

OP&TOC see on aoparos above ; 
TTAGHTOC see on aTra^ s above ; 

TTAeoc in the phrase in the passion, * by the passion, etc. ; 
Ephes. inscr. eAcXXy/ie^i/ tv irddfi Trail, inser. tlptjmav*j)...Tf [v. 1. iv\ 
tl\i)du&gt;&lt; uddft. irjcrov Xpio-Tov. For tv [TW] 

nddd see Magn. 1 1, Trail. 1 1, Philad. 
inscr., and for the prominence of the 
passion the note on II. p. 25 

nAp&K&Ato in the expression I charge you, and more especially with 
an imperative following (see n. p. 166); 

Rom. 4 Trapa/taXw vfias p.rj fvvoia a/cat- Trail. 6 TrapaAcaXw ovv vp.ds ..XP jo df, 
pos yi&gt;rj(r6( poi, Polyc, I TrapaKaXw &lt;T( Philad- 8 7rapa&lt;caXco 8f vpds, fjir)8ev 
tv xdpin K.T.X. KOT tpifffiav irpd(r&lt;TfTf, For 7rapa/caXa&gt; 

(7ropf&lt;dX*o-a) vfj-as comp. also Ephes. 

3, Magn. 14, Rom. 7, Polyc. 8 

TT&P&lt;\MONOC of eternal things; 
Ephes. inscr. tlvai 8ia rravTos tls 86av Philad. inscr. x a P^ dittos KOI Trapd- 



n&lt;icxeiN in particular phrases relating to his own martyrdom; 

Trail. 4 dyana /xei&gt; yap TO iradflv Polyc. 7 tdvntp 8id TOV jradffv Qtov 



Rom. 4 dXX tav irddct, dtrt\fv6fpos Rom. 8 fav ird6(a y y 

K.T.\. 



294 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

nepicceyeiN of spiritual gifts; 

Polyc. 2 KOI ncon-os xapiV/xaros 7repr- Smyrn. 9 Traj/ra ovv vfiiv cv xapirt irc- 

ptoro-eveVa) 



eoN in a somewhat strained sense, meaning beyond ; 

c. 5 ai&gt; yvma-df] irXeov TOV tVio-Ko- Magn. IO os yap aXXa&gt; ovo/ian KaXeirai 
Trow, f^Baprai ir\eov TOVTOV 

see also under the word &lt;po/?eto-0cu. 



in the perfect participle; 
Rom. inscr. TmrXjjpwp.e i ois (Tren-X^pw- Smyrn. inscr. 



the plenitude of the Divine Nature ; 

Ephes. inscr. fv\oyr)p.ev7) eV p-tyedet Trail, inscr. ^v KOI do-Trdfo^ai eV 
Trarpoy 



in the expression my spirit ; 
Ephes. 1 8 irtpfyTipa TO f^ov irvev^a Smyrn. 10 dvrfyvxov vpa&gt;v TO irvevpd 
TOV oraupou, A ^w. 9 do-7rdfTat v/iias /uou, 7"rrt//. 13 dyvi&Tdt vpav TO tpov 
TO fnov Trveu/xa 



and in the combination flesh and spirit ; 

. 5 rols wpputis dpKc urdai &lt;rapitl Magn. i, 13, 7&gt;//. 12, ^;. inscr., 
l TTj/fv/naTi Smyrn. i, 3 

and see also under 



oc joined with 
. 8, /Wj^. i, 2 ^. 7, J*/&lt;J. 13, ^yr. 12 



rroAy- in elaborate compounds ; 

Ephes. I TO rroXvayoTr^rov ovo/ia, #. Magn. I v&gt;wi/ TO TroXvcvTaxTOJ/ 
T^V TroXvTrX^etai/ vjucov Kara 9eov dyaT 



Trail. 4 xPfl t ^" 7rp a ^ Tr ? ro ^ comp. Trail. 3 77 Se TrpaoTTjr OVTOU Su 
Polyc. 2, 6. So TrpaiJf, Ephes. 10 So 7rpai}7rd#eia, 7m//. 8 



in particular phrases, as e.g. with Kara o-a 

Ephes. 8 a 8e KOI KOTO, (rapxa npdvo-fTe Ephes. 1 6 01 KQTO trdpica Tavra Trpdo-- 

trojTff, 
and conversely xaTti Qcw in Philad. 4 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 295 

and with avev or ^topi s 
Polyc. 4 fJLi]8ev avev yvtafjujs trou [You Magn. 4 x&lt;opi? 8f avrov \rov eiricrKo- 



OTTOv] yiveado), p^/8e &lt;rb avev Qeov TTOV] irdvra irpdcrffovviv, Trail. 2 avev 
TI irpacrcre rov fTTicrKonov p.rj8ei/ 7rpd(T(rfiv Vfj.as, 

Trail. 7 o ^topis 7rto-Ko7rov...Tt Trpdcr- 
a-cov, Smyrn. 8 p.T]8fls x^P ^ ro ^ e&gt;7rt " 

0-K07TOU Tl 



npenei frequent in Ignatius ; 

Polyc. 5 TrpeVei Se rois ya/ioOo-i K.r.A. Ephes. 4, Magn. 3, Tnz//. 12, Smyrn. 

n, Polya. 7; and similarly Trpeirov 
e cmV, Ephes. 2, Magn. 3, 4, ^?(?w. 10, 
Philad. 10, Smyrn. 7 

TrpoKA0HM&lt;M of ecclesiastical precedence; 

Rom. inscr. Trpofcd^rai V T07rcp...7rpo- Magn. 6 jrpoKadrjp.(vov TOV e 
K.adr)fjifi&gt;T) TTJS dyairr]s TTOU...TO) eVttrKOTra) /cat TOIS 



in the expression 

Ephes. 10 Ephes. 21, Smyrn. 4, and with 

Trail. 12 

TrpoceyxH in the expression in or through your prayer or prayers ; 

Ephes. I eXTTifoi/ra T^ irpoaevxti vpni/ Ephes. II, 20, .Z?0;. 9, Trail. 13, 
eVtTux"" K.r.X. Philad. 8, Smyrn. n, comp. Magn. 

14, Philad. 5, 10, /V/}/*:. 7 

rrpocexeiN to give heed to ; 

Polyc. 6 TO) eVto-KOTra) Trpoo-e^ere, Trail. Philad. J rw eVto-KOTro) 
4 /xij 7rpo&lt;rfx fiv T0 r fywiova-iv p.e Smyrn. 7 irpoa-fxeiv 8e roij 

rais 



(not elsewhere in the Apostolical Fathers and only twice 
in the N. T.); 

Polyc. 5 raif aSeA&lt;paif /xou Trpoo-XdXet Ephes. 3 TrpocrXaXco v/nti car crvi St- 

iTaty /xov, Magn. I TrpoorXaX^crai 



rrpocoonON with ^aiv 
Polyc. 2 ra (paivofAfvd &lt;rov fls TrpocrtoTroj Ephes. 15 (pavijcrfTai jrpo irpoatajrov 



of persons whom he visited or who visited him ; 

Polyc. I Karaia&gt;$ftf TOU npocranrov trou Rom. I eVtVu^oz/ iSftc vp-cov ra d^to 

Trpoo-wTTa : comp. Magn. 6 



296 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

TTYKNCOC, TTYKNorepoN, in connexion with congregational gatherings ; 
Polyc. 4 nvKvoTfpov (Tvvaywyal ytveo-- Ephes. 13 &lt;rirov$a(T( ovv nvnvoTtpov 
6(acrav (rvvfpx(crdni T ...oTat&gt; yap TTVKVWS cVt TO 

avTo yivtcrdf K.r.X. 

TTYP, fire as an instrument of martyrdom ; 

Rom. 5 nvp Kal (rravpos, dijpiuv Tf Smyrn. 4 npbs nvp, Trpbs fid 
ffvtTTafffiS npbs drjpia 

as a metaphor or simile ; 

Rom. 7 nvp [$iAoi;Xoj/] Trail. 2 &lt;/&gt;u\a(r&lt;re(r&u ra e 

a&gt;s nvp 

pu&gt;NNYc6&lt;M, in the final salutation tppwo-Of. with ev; 

Rom. 10 tppaxrOe ds rt Xoj eV viropovfi For eppwo-tft c v see Ephes. 21, Magn. 
Irjffov Xpiorov IS, Trail. 13, Philad. n, Smyrn. 13, 



&lt;: . 8 
oc, see on TTVCV/XUTIKOS above ; 

C&lt;\pi in Kara crapxa ; 
Ephes. 8 a 8 xal Kara aapKa trpcuMTfTf, Ephes. 1 6 Kara aapKa TaCra TrpaV- 



68&lt;u T^ Kara (rapxa O-OJTS-, /&lt;^. 2O, Magn. 6, 13, ./?0w. 8, 

Philad. 7, Smyrn. i (with /?#;. 9 
cornp. Ephes. I t5/iwv 8 eV crapxt 



joined with 

. 5 o-apKj (cat Trvev/iart Rom.\nscr.,Magn. r, 13, TVvz//. inscr., 

12, Smyrn. i, 3 (comp. Philad. n) 

with Kupi ou or XPTTOV, especially in a mystical sense ; 

Rom. 7 aprov Qfov 6(\a&gt; o etrnv crap^ Trail. 8 eV Tr/orei o tcrriv &lt;rap TOV 
XptoT-oi), Polyc. 5 eif rt/ii^i/ r^r crapKos Kupi ou ; see also Philad. 4, 5, Smyrn. 
TOU Kvp/ou 6, 12 

CI|-N, speaking of the merit of silence ; 

Ephes. 15 &lt;W...8i r wj (rtya yii/tocr^rai Ephes. 6 o&lt;roi ^Xret rts aiyavra eVi- 

(TKOTroV) Philad. I os (Tiya&gt;v irKtlova 
dvvarai, Ephes. 1 5 ;cai a o-iyco^ Se TTf- 
aia TOV Trarpof crriv 



followed by an infinitive, and in all cases in imperative 
sentences ; 

Ephes. 10 ^117 o-7rovSab&gt;T dvrifj.ifj.ij- Ephes. 5, 13, Magn. 6, 13, Philad. 4 
OVTOVS. . . p.ip.r)Tal 8f TOV Kvpiov 
dvai 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 297 

CTAYROC, stress laid on the Cross, generally in some strong image; 

Ephes, 9 ava&lt;pfpop.fvoi etf ra v^/"ij 8ia Trail. II icXaSoi TOV trravpov /c.r.X., 
TTJS prjxavfjs lr)O~ov Xptorou os forty Phildd. 8 ra a6iK.ro. ap^eia o oravpor 

(TTOVpOS, ib. 1 8 irfptyqiMl TO f fJ.OV TTVV fJLO dVTOV, Smym. I KCl6r)X(0p.(VOVS (V T&lt; 

roi) (rravpov oravpa) TOU Kupi ou K.T.X. 

cyM(}&gt;epeiN in the expression &lt;rv/A&lt;pepiv nvt ; 
Rom. 5 rt /ioi (ru/i(pepei K.r.X.. Stnyrn* 7 crvvefaptv 5e avrots K.r.X. 

CYNTOMCOC, 
Rom. 5 KoXaxevtrco o-vvro/xws /xe Kara- Magn. 14 &lt;rui/ro/ia&gt;f TrapfKaXecra t5 



signifying to concur ; 
Ephes. 3 oTTtuf &lt;rvvTp(XTjT( rfi yvto/i^ Ephes. 4 arvvrpfx*" TJJ TOV e 



rou eou 



^p, in connexion with the same words; 
Ephes. I eV Xpio-ro) J lt]&lt;rov rw (rcor^pi Magn. inscr., V XptoraJ *I;o-oi} 



reAefcoc, 

Ephes. I TO vvyyeviKov tpyov reXeicas Ephes. 14 ai&gt; ... TfXfiwj ^K ir Y rf T *) v 
aTrriprivarf iricmv, Smyrn. 5 reXft cos avrov djrijp- 

VTJTCII 

TIMH, in the phrase eis rt/xi/v, more especially when the honour of 
God is concerned ; 

Polyc. 5 Travra ds Tip.f]v 0eou yivevdw The phrase etV Tip.f]v Qtov or fiy Gfou 

Tip.i) v occurs Ephes. 21 (twice), Smyrn. 
1 1 ; comp. Magn. 3 eiy rt^i^i lutivov 
TOV 6(\r)(TavTos K.r.X., Trail. 12 tls 
rifjifiv Trarpos K.T.\. 

Polyc. 5 e Tip-^v rrjs (rapKos TOV Ephes. 2 e?s TI/J.TJV v^.u&gt;v KOI TOV tTTi- 

KvptOV CTK07TOU 

TOTTOC used of ecclesiastical office; 

Polyc. I (KftiKfi &lt;rov TOV TOTTOV Smyrn. 6 TOTTOJ p.^o tva (pvcriovTa) 

rponoc in the phrase Kara Travra rpoirov ; 

Polyc. 3 TW Kara Travra Tpoirov 81 77/105 Trail. 2 Kara irdvra Tponov TTCUTUI 
inrop-fivaira dpto-Kfiv. The phrase occurs also 

Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 10 

YrrepHc}&gt;ANeTN, to disdain, with an accusative; 

Polyc. 4 SowXous KOI SovXar \u\ vnfpr}- Ephes. 5 ouro? fjBr) vTrtpr/^avfl, Smym. 
(pdvtt lo TU Setr/ia /xov, a 01!^ vnfpr](j)avtjo-aTf 



298 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

YTTOMeNeiN in the phrase endure all things ; 

Polyc. 3 evtKtv GeoC iravra vnopevfiv Smyrn. 4 Trdvra inro^tvco avrov /if tv- 
ijfias Set K.T.X., ib. TOV [Traira] KOTO. Swapovvros K.T.X., tb. 9 5 * ov Taira 
TTOVTU Tpoirov 6V yfi,as i/iroyLfivavra viro^tvovrfs avrov T(v((rde 

YTTOMONH, especially in the phrase in endurance ; 

Rom. IO iv inro/jiovfj Irja-ov XptcrroO Trail. I abianpirov tv vTropovr) 

Polyc. 6 T; inropovrj o5y navoTrXia Smyrn. 12 viro^ovri 8ia TTCIVTOS, Ephes. 

3 



of obedience to bishop and clergy; 



Polyc. 6 dvrfyvxov eya&gt; rav VTroracrcro- The phrase vrroTatTtTfcrdai TW e 

rw eTrier/coTrw, Trpta-flvrfpois, 8ia- etc., occurs Ephes. 2, Magn. 2, 13, 

: and the bishop himself is Trail. 2, 13 (comp. Ephes. 5) 

enjoined 2 rows XoipoTepovs tv irpao- 



in great frequency. The word does not occur at all in 
Clement or Polycarp, and only three times in S. Paul ; 

Trail. 4 TO yap 77X0? TroXXots pev ov Ephes. 1 5 oVep KOI ta-nv KOI (fravija-trai, 
(jxiivfTcii, Rom. 3 OTOV KocrfJLUt p.rj &lt;paiv(t&gt;- Rom. 3 Irjcrovs Xpioro? eV Trarpi wv 
fj.ai, ib. ov8(i&gt; (jiaivop-evov xaXov p.aX\ov (ftatverat, Polyc. 2 ra (fraivofjifva. 

(TOV els irpoo-cairov. See also Magn. 3, 
4, 6, 7, TVd//. 2, n, Smyrn. 8, n. 
Thus altogether it occurs 14 times. 

(}&gt;ANepoYN also occurs with unusual frequency; 

Ephes. 19 dvdpct&gt;TrivG&gt;s (pavepovpevov, Magn. 8 (Is 6fo? eVrtj o ^avtpuxras 
Polyc. 2 TO 8e dopara airti tva o"ot (j&gt;av- eavrov Sta I^o-oO XpttTToO TOU viov 

avrov : comp. Ephes. 19, Rom. 8 



in the imperative &lt;&lt;%, ^evyerc, avoid. It does not occur 
in any other part of the verb ; 
Polyc. 5 ras KaKOTfxvias favyc Trail. II, Philad. 2, 6, 7, Smyrn. 7 



&lt;J&gt;oBeTc0&lt;M in the expression to fear more ; 

Trail. 4 vvv yap pe del ir\fov (po- Ephes. 6 TrXeioi/wy avrov (pofif{(r0ca, 
fielo-Qat Philad. 5 " *p Sefif/xeVos 



(J)poNiMoc in the phrase 

Polyc. 2 &lt;p/joVi/*or yiVou cos o^)is eV Ephes. 17 8ta rt fie ov 7raj^-fS (pp6vip.oi 

yivopeQa ; The word occurs also 
Magn. 3 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 299 

&lt;J&gt;YCIOYN to elate, puff up ; 

Trail. 4 /XT) Trpoa-e^eiv Toly (pvcriova-tv Magn. 1 2 otSa on ov &lt;pu(rioO&lt;r$f , Trail. 
/if, Polyc. 4 f"7 avrol (pvo-iovo-daxrav 7 TOVTO Se eorai V/LUI/ /IT) (pvcriovfjifvois, 

Smyrn. 6 TOTTOS p.T)8fva &lt;pv&lt;rtovra&gt; 

(}&gt;YCIC of natural as opposed to acquired qualities; 

Ephes, I 6 KfKTfjo-de &lt;pucrei K.T.\. Trail. \ eyvav upas fxovras ov KOTO. 

Xpfjcriv dXXa Kara (favcriv 

XAR&, see above under 
Xipic in the phrase ev [TT}] 

Polyc. I TrapaxaXcS a-e eV xP 11 " 4 K.r.X. Ephes. 20, Magn. inscr., Philad. II, 

Smyrn. 9, 13 

X^RICMA in connexion with the idea of lack or abundance; 

Polyc. 2 TTOVTOS xapla-^a-ros irepHrcrfVTjs Smyrn. inscr. ai/uoreprjra) OVOTJ/ 



XHPAI, speaking of care for the widows; 
Polyc. 4 xw ai M Bfu kcto dtHrtBt Smyrn. 6 ov p.eX avTols...7T(pl 

xopdc in the phrase forming a choir ; 

Rom. 2 fv ayairrj ^opoj yevuptvoi Ephes. 4 oi KOT av8pa 8e ^opoj yivrQt, 

ib. 19 xopbs iytVfTO T a 



Trail. 4 XPIlfa * v TrpaorrjTos Trail. 12 T^J a^) v/*wi&gt; d-ya7n;f 



XPICTIANICMOC, 

Rom. 3 peytdovs fVT\v o xpicrTiavi&lt;rfj.6s The word occurs Magn. 10 (three 

times), Philad. 6 

XpicriANoc somewhat frequently; 

/fow. 3 /n^ p.woi \fyafj.ai ^picrrtai of, The word occurs Ephes. 1 1, Magn. 
Polyc. 7 xpKTTiavos eavTov e^ovtriav OVK 4&gt; Trail. 6 



in the sense contain (with an apparent reference to Matt. 
xix. I2o Swa/xevos ^copeii/ ^wpeiVa)) ; 

Trail. 5 ov 8vvr)6evTs ^copijo-ai Smyrn. 6 6 ^wpc 



Besides these, we meet with other resemblances which it would not 
be easy to tabulate. Thus an injunction is followed by an apologetic 
disclaimer, implying that it is superfluous; e.g. Polyc. i wo-Trcp /ecu TTOICI?, 
$. 4 OTrcp ovS Trpacrcrcis (comp. 2 Trept ^9 Kat cru TTCTrctcrat). Such dis 
claimers, expressed in very similar language, are frequent in the parts 



300 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

not represented in the Curetonian letters; e.g. Ephes. 4 oVcp KCU 
ib. 8 uMTTrep ovSe eo,7raTao-0e (comp. Rom. 2, Trail. 2, Smyrn. 4). Again 
a certain course is enjoined either as an act of reciprocation to God for 
the like (Polyc. I Travras /2currae ws Kat &lt;re o Kupios, /$. 6 /j.a.KpoOvp.rjcraTf 
ovv p.tT dXX?7Xojv...ws KCU o eos ff-fO v/xwv) or as a means of obtaining a 
like return from God (Polyc. 3 iravra vTro/xeVeiv Set, Iva. /cat avVos i7/u." s 
VTTo/m vT;, /$. 6 TO* cVtaKoVu) TTpocre^eTC tva KCU o eos v/&gt;uv). Such expres 
sions as these again are frequent outside the Curetonian letters; e.g. 
Ephes. 2, 21, Smyrn. 9, 10, Philad. 10, n. Closely connected with 
these are such turns of language as Polyc. inscr. cVio-KoVa) cK/cXrjo-tas 
2/AVpvaiwv, fidXXov tTrtcrKOTr-rj/jievw VTTO eov K.T.X., Trail. 5 TroXXa yap 
r/ju.iv XetTTti Iva eov p.rj XeiTroj^te^a. With these compare Rom. 8 0eX?;craTe 
Tva Kai v/xcts OeXrjOrJTc (not in the Curetonian letter), Smyrn. 5 ov rives 
ayvoouvres apvoui Tai, jtxaXXov 8e ij,pv^Or](Tav VTT avrov, with the note on the 
latter passage. Again there is the anacoluthic commencement of a 
letter, as in Ephes. i, Rom. i. With these compare Magn. 2, Philad. i, 
and see the notes n. pp. 29, 31, no, 194, 251, 288, whence the close 
but subtle resemblances in the irregularity of the style will be apparent. 
Again there is the frequent use of os (o) eortv, and the like, as expletives, 
sometimes with an unusual attraction as regards the gender ; Ephes. 9 
T?7S fJ.rj^avT}&lt;i I. X. os ecrrtv crravpos, ib. 18 TOV oravpoC, o ICTTLV o-KavSaXov 
K.T.X., Rom. 5 SeVa XeoTrapSois o ecrrtv crrpaTWDTiKoi/ rdy/j.a, ib. 7 aprov 
cov 6fXw o ecrriv crap^ TOV Xpio-Tov...ro at/xa avrov o ecrnv dydirf] a^Oap- 
TOS. With these compare Ephes. 17, 20, Magn. 7, 10, 15, Trail. 6, 8 
(twice), n, Philad. inscr., Smyrn. 5, and see the notes, H. pp. 73, 122. 
Again we meet with an imperative introduced into the antithetical clause 
of a sentence, so as to break the symmetry ; Polyc. 2 Iva. rd ^atvo /xcva 
(rov ets Trpoa-wTTov KoXa/cevgs, ra Se aopara a?rt K.r.X ; comp. Magn. 
ii, 7&gt;a//. 2, Smyrn. 4, and see the note on n. p. 339. Again our 
author has a mode of speaking with respect to the representatives of a 
church. He regards himself as seeing or welcoming the whole body in 
these representatives. With Ephes. i rrjv TroXvTrXtjdfLav 
cV Ovrjcrifjua compare more especially Magn. 6 v rots 

TO TTO.V TrXrjOos e^ecopr/o-a and Trail. I WQ-TC /x.e TO TTCIV 7rX^0os 
uVw Oewprjo-cu, and see the note, n. p. 32. 
The results of this investigation must, I believe, be regarded as 
decisive. The resemblances are not only numerous and close, but they 
are frequently of the most subtle kind. It must be remembered also 
that the whole body of the Curetonian letters, when translated into 
English, only occupies some six not very closely printed octavo pages 
(see n. p. 670 sq.), and that the Seven Epistles are only some four or 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 301 

five times as extensive. If this fact is borne in mind, the amount of 
coincidence is surprising ; and one who maintains that the Seven 
Epistles of the Middle Form were produced by interpolation from the 
Curetonian letters, postulates in his pseudo-Ignatius a prodigy of minute 
observation, of subtle insight, of imitative skill, of laborious care, which 
is probably without a parallel in the history of literary forgeries and 
which assuredly was an utter impossibility among the Christians in the 
second and third centuries. 

It will have been observed also that the coincidences extend over 
all the letters. Thus our examination supplies a refutation alike of 
Ussher who accepted six out of the seven and rejected the Epistle to 
Polycarp alone, and of Renan who rejects six out of the seven and 
accepts the Epistle to the Romans alone. If indeed we had taken the 
Epistle to Polycarp or the Epistle to the Romans as our starting point 
and set ourselves to show by the evidence of diction that the epistle in 
question was the work of the same author as the other six, a very much 
larger body of proof might have been gathered together bearing on the 
question at issue. But though our main object has been somewhat 
different, sufficient evidence has been forthcoming incidentally to estab 
lish these points also. The Seven Epistles as they stand in the Middle 
Recension are evidently the work of one hand. 

2. Another highly important consideration is the connexion of 
thought. Where whole clauses, sentences, and paragraphs are absent 
from the one recension and present in the other, the greater or less 
coherence in the consecutive parts may be expected to furnish a criterion 
of the highest value. The recension in which thoughts succeed each 
other naturally and easily claims the palm of priority over the recension 
in which abruptness and inconsequence prevail. The transitions indeed 
are often rapid in either form, and this must therefore be regarded as a 
characteristic of the author (whichever may be the original form of the 
letters); but we have a right to expect that there shall be no incon 
gruity. 

On this point it is well that the advocates of the three Short Epistles 
should be allowed to state the case themselves, and I therefore give 
Cureton s own words (C. /. p. xlii); 

In the Epistle to the Ephesians at least two-thirds of the matter has 
been omitted. Now had these passages so omitted belonged to the original 
epistle, it seems hardly possible that they could have been taken away in 
the manner in which they have been, sometimes entire chapters, at others 
considerable parts, sometimes whole sentences, and at others half sentences 
or single words, without interrupting the general tenor of the epistle or 



302 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

causing any hiatus and producing obscurity. But what is now the state of 
the case? Not only is no obscurity caused, nor the tenor of the epistle 
broken ; but on the contrary several places which before were unintelligible 
become now clear; the whole epistle runs on uninterruptedly; each sen 
tence adheres closely to that which precedes it; and what is still more 
remarkable, all this almost without the necessity of making any grammatical 
change in the order or construction of the sentences ; and further, one 
passage omitted in the Greek [ i videre festinastis in the Latin], which 
Bishop Pearson had previously pointed out as necessary to complete the 
context, is restored and supplied by the Syriac. 

This statement is not supported by any examples or any analysis of 
passages ; and to me it seems to be directly opposed to the facts. The 
last clause one passage etc. does indeed state a truth; but this truth 
has no bearing on the question at issue. It furnishes an instance of the 
confusion, on which I have adverted above (p. 278), and which has 
been already dealt with. For the rest, it would be true to the facts to 
say that in no single instance does the Curetonian Recension produce a 
better sense or a more intelligible sequence of thought than the Vossian ; 
that in very many cases the sequence in the Curetonian letter would 
pass muster, though in the majority of these it is smoother and more 
regular in the Vossian ; and that in some few instances the phenomena 
are quite incongruous and improbable in the Curetonian letter, where 
no such fault can be found with the Vossian. 

Who for instance can bring himself to believe that Ignatius ended 
the letter as it ends in the Curetonian form: And that which was 
perfected in the counsels of God had a beginning ; whence all things 
were put into commotion because the destruction of death was pur 
posed? Is it at all intelligible that a letter which commences with an 
elaborate greeting and goes on to speak at some length of personal 
relations should thus end abruptly in the midst of the discussion of a 
theological topic, without a word of farewell or any personal reference 
of any kind ? Is this possible in itself? Does it become at all more 
probable, when we compare the other Ignatian letters, which even in 
the Curetonian Recension end with a salutation and a farewell ? 

Or again take this passage ; 

It is better to keep silence and to be, than to talk and not to be ; [it is 
good to teach, if the speaker be a doer also. There is then one Teacher, 
who spake, and it was so; yea and even the works that He hath done in 
silence are worthy of the Father. He that possesseth the Word of Jesus can 
also listen to His Silence, that he may be perfect ;] that through the things 
which he speaks he may do, and through the things wherein he is silent, he 
may be known. 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 303 

Here the words in brackets are omitted in the Curetonian letter. 
The thoughts which they contain do not indeed lie on the surface ; and 
this very obscurity would be a sufficient motive for their expulsion. But 
the words are full of meaning, when examined; and their ejection 
produces a dislocation by which the logical connexion is altogether 
shattered. The words It is better to be silent etc. are no logical 
introduction to the last clause that through the things which he speaks 
etc. On the other hand this clause is fitly introduced by the sentence 
which commends the appropriation alike of the utterances and the 
silence of Jesus, as combining to make the perfect man. 

Again in 8, 9, the sentence in the Curetonian letter runs For ye 
do all things in Jesus Christ, having been prepared unto the building of 
God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights by the engine of Jesus 
Christ which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit etc. Here is 
an elaborate metaphor introduced, and yet the key-word to it is wanting. 
The preparation for the building might perhaps stand without expla 
nation, because by frequent use the metaphor of building or edifica 
tion had become so common as almost to cease to be a metaphor. 
But the hoisting up supposes some previous explanation. This 
explanation appears in the Vossian letter, which inserts several sentences 
after the first clause, and in which the words, as being stones of the 
Father s temple, occur immediately before the clauses having been 
prepared etc., so that all runs smoothly. 

Another example is in 10. In the Vossian letter the passage is 
read thus ; 

Towards their fierceness be ye not zealous to imitate them by requital 
(avrifj-ifirja-aa-dai). Let us be found their brothers by our gentleness, but let us 
be zealous to be imitators of the Lord, (vying with each other) who shall 
suffer greater wrong, who shall be robbed, who shall be set at nought. 

In the Curetonian Recension the passage Let us be found... of the 
Lord runs But let us be imitators of the Lord in our gentleness 
and (by vying with -each other) who etc. Here indeed there is no 
dislocation in the sequence of thought as is the case elsewhere, but 
the subtle expressiveness of the Vossian letter is entirely lost. In 
the latter the connexion of thought is as follows: Do not show 
yourselves like them by copying them and thus requiting wrong 
for wrong. If you desire to claim kindred with them, claim it in 
another way; prove your brotherhood by treating them as brothers. If 
you would have somewhat to copy, take God as your pattern. Imitate 
His gentleness and forbearance. 

The other passages which offer themselves for comparison in this 



304 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

epistle do not call for any comment. The sequence of thought in the 
Curetonian letter is preserved sufficiently to disarm criticism, though 
the connexion is closer in the Vossian form. 

The Epistle to Polycarp contains very little which invites considera 
tion from this point of view. The variations between the two recen 
sions are immaterial throughout the first six chapters. At this point 
however the divergence begins. Of the two concluding chapters (the 
seventh and eighth) in the Vossian form, which are occupied with 
personal matters directions to Polycarp with the concluding saluta 
tions etc. the Curetonian letter retains only two sentences, the latter 
in an altered form ; The Christian has not authority over himself, but 
devotes himself to -God. I salute him who shall be counted worthy to 
go to Antioch in my stead, according as I commanded thee. The 
former sentence is unexplained by anything in the context of the Cure 
tonian letter, whereas in the Vossian it stands in close and immediate 
connexion with the directions which precede and follow it. In the 
latter the incident assumes a different character, but the change does 
not affect the connexion with the context. 

In the Epistle to the Romans, as it appears in the Curetonian 
recension, the opening salutation is much abridged, but the relations 
of the two forms in this part are not such as to call for examination. In 
the first five chapters the two recensions agree very closely. Only 
here and there a sentence is wanting in the shorter form ; but the 
continuity of the sense is not generally affected by the omission. One 
point alone calls for a remark. In 6 a passage runs; Have sympathy 
with me. What is expedient for me, [I know. Now am I beginning to 
be a disciple]. Let nought of things visible and invisible grudge me 
that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. The words in brackets appear in 
the Vossian letter, but are omitted in the Curetonian. It will be seen 
at once that they are needed for the sense. No great stress however 
can be laid on the omission, as it might be pleaded that they had been 
left out by the inadvertence of a transcriber, and that therefore the 
omission does not affect the main question at issue. Of the five remain 
ing chapters as they stand in the Vossian letter, only a few sentences 
appear in the Curetonian ; but as a compensation two chapters from 
the Trallian Epistle are introduced at the close. These few sentences 
are isolated, and their purport is such that no continuity need be looked 
for. Here again however one passage deserves consideration ; 9 My 
spirit saluteth you, and so doth the love of the churches which wel 
comed me in the name of Jesus Christ, [not as a traveller on his way 
(oux irapoSeuovra)] for even those (churches) which did not lie near to 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 305 

way according to the flesh (ai p.rj irpoanJKOva-ai fj.ol rfj o 8&lt;3 Tfl Kara. 
escorted me onward from city to city. Here the words in 
square brackets are omitted in the Curetonian letter. Their bearing is 
not obvious at first sight, and this would account for the omission. 
But reflexion shows that they are demanded by the context. The atten 
tion paid to him was not merely the humane consideration which 
would be extended to any wayfarer. It was a token of brotherhood in 
Christ. This was shown from the fact that churches not on his route 
bore their part in it. 

The great question however affecting the Epistle to the Romans 
is concerned with the appearance, at the close of the Curetonian form, 
of the two chapters which in the Vossian recension belong to the 
Trallian Epistle ( 4, 5). Which was their original place? 

Let us look first at their position in the Trallian Epistle. 

Ignatius exhorts the Trallians to obey their bishop, priests, and 
deacons. He bears personal testimony to the excellence of their bishop, 
whom even godless men must respect. He might write more sternly 
to them, but he forbears. He remembers that he is only a condemned 
criminal, and he therefore will not assume the authority of an Apo- 
stle ( 3). 

Though much knowledge is vouchsafed to him in God, yet he puts 
limits to himself (e/uavroc ^lerpw). He will not boast, lest he perish by 
boasting. He fears the praises of others, lest they should elate him. 
He desires to suffer, and yet doubts his worthiness. Above all things 
he prays for humility ( 4). 

True, he could write to them about heavenly things, but he forbears. 
It would be too strong meat for babes, and they would be choked 
thereby. He may know the mysteries of the celestial hierarchy; but 
this will not make him a disciple. He and they still lack much, that God 
may not be lacking to them ( 5). 

Therefore he exhorts them nay not he, but the love of Christ to 
seek only the wholesome food of true Christianity and to avoid the rank 
and noxious weeds of heresy, etc. ( 6). 

The connexion here is intelligible. The motive is obvious. What 
more natural than this alternation between the humility of self-condem 
nation and the thanksgiving for spiritual privilege ? He exalts himself 
only to depress himself; and he abases himself only to exalt himself. 
He shrinks from commanding, and yet he desires his words to have the 
effect of a command. I am therefore altogether unable to acquiesce in 
Cureton s opinion (C. I. p. xlvii) ; It is difficult to understand for 
what especial purpose these chapters should have been introduced into 
IG. I. 20 



306 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the Epistle to the Trallians. We know of no reason why he should 
make any allusion to his knowledge of heavenly things when writing to 
the Trallians ; nor even is there any apparent purpose to be gathered 
from that epistle for his doing so, as it now stands. There is no more 
difficulty in understanding the purpose of Ignatius, than there is in 
understanding the purpose of S. Paul in the loth, nth, and i2th chap 
ters of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he too is dealing 
with false teachers, where he too lays stress on his spiritual illumi 
nation, where he too fluctuates between the dread of boasting and the 
necessity of boasting. Indeed we can hardly resist the conclusion 
that, when Ignatius wrote this passage, the spirit, if not the very 
language, of the Apostle thus writing to the Corinthians was present to 
his mind. 

On the other hand these two chapters (Trail. 4, 5) have no special 
propriety at the close of the Epistle to the Romans. Cureton indeed 
(p. xlvi) invents a motive for their insertion; The Romans seem to 
have spoken of his great spiritual knowledge, and to have pressed it as 
an argument why he should desire to have his life spared for the benefit 
of the Church : and treating this fiction as a fact, he proceeds to argue 
thereupon for the propriety of the position which these chapters occupy 
in the Curetonian recension. But the very necessity of such an 
assumption betrays the weakness of the case. Beyond the fact that 
the Epistle to the Romans is concerned almost entirely with his ap 
proaching martyrdom, and that in the course of these chapters reference 
is made to it, there is no link of connexion. On the other hand, when 
he speaks to his readers as children who could not digest strong meat, 
this language is far more appropriate as addressed to the Trallians of 
whose spiritual danger he had personal knowledge and to whom in 
other parts of the letter he utters words of warning, than to the Romans 
with whom he was unacquainted and whom he addresses as teachers 
of others ( 3) and describes as filtered clean from any strange colour 
ing of heresy (inscr.). 

3. Under the third and last head we have to consider the topics 
which the two recensions respectively comprise. Here the Curetonian 
letters differ from the Vossian almost wholly in the direction of omission. 
The topics may be roughly classed under three heads, theological, eccle 
siastical, and personal. 

(i) As regards the theological topics, it would be difficult to show 
that any difference exists between the two recensions. No adequate 
doctrinal motive can be alleged either for the omission of the missing 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 307 

portions in the Curetonian letters or for the insertion of the additional 
portions in the Vossian. 

A characteristic feature of the Ignatian theology is the accentua 
tion of the twofold nature of Christ His deity and His humanity. A 
crucial passage appears in the Curetonian letters Polyc. 3, where our 
Lord is described as He that is without time, He that is invisible, He 
that was seen for our sakes, He that is impalpable, He that is impassible, 
He that suffered for our sakes. Flowing from this twofold nature we 
have on the one side the human birth from a virgin, Ephes. 19 the 
virginity of Mary was unperceived by the prince of this world ; on the 
other, the theopaschite language describing His passion, Ephes. i the 
blood of God. Moreover it is not only the positive theology of 
Ignatius that remains unaffected, whichever recension we adopt. His 
polemics are also the same. The characteristic feature in the polemical 
theology of the Vossian letters is the constant antagonism to Docctism. 
This appears in the Curetonian letters also in a single passage only it 
is true, but one passage is as convincing as many, so far as regards the 
question at issue. Addressing the Ephesians he describes the Church 
of Ephesus as united and elect in a real passion (Ephes. inscr. T/Vw/xeV^ 
/cat fK\cXey/jLevr) iv 7ra0ei aA^ivw); for it cannot be doubted (see n. p. 
25 sq.) that this is the true reading in the Curetonian letters, as well as 
in the Vossian. In these respects therefore no gain is effected, for no 
difficulty is overcome, by setting aside the Vossian letters in favour of 
the Curetonian. Nay, there is an actual loss ; for the Vossian letters 
show that the Docetism against which the writer aims his shafts is Judaic 
in its character, and therefore exhibits a very early type of this error. 

Again ; the eucharistic teaching of the Ignatian epistles has been a 
stumblingblock to some ; but the strongest eucharistic passage (Rom. 
7) appears in the Curetonian letters, as well as in the Vossian. 

Again; the angelology of Ignatius has been held unworthy of a 
primitive father of the Church ; but the most emphatic angelological 
passage (Trail. 5) has a place in the Curetonian letters also, though 
transferred in these from the Trallian to the Roman Epistle. 

(ii) Nor again is the position altered when we turn to ecclesiastical 
questions. The advocacy of the episcopal office, which is associated 
with the name of Ignatius, appears very definitely in the Curetonian 
letters. The writer warns those who resolve to remain in virgin purity 
to reveal their resolution to no one but the bishop ; and he enjoins 
those who purpose marrying to obtain the consent of the bishop to 
their union, that their marriage may be after God and not after concu 
piscence. Give heed, he continues, to the bishop, that God also 

20 2 



308 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



may give heed to you : my life for the life (OVTL^V-^OV eyw) of those who 
are obedient to the bishop, to the presbyters, to the deacons : may it 
be mine to have my portion with them in the presence of God (Polyc. 
5, 6). He addresses Polycarp as bishop of the Church of the Smyr- 
naeans and charges him to vindicate his office (Polyc. i). His people 
must do nothing without his approval, as he himself must do nothing 
without the approval of God (Polyc. 4). In like manner he designates 
Onesimus bishop of the Ephesians, and he charges them to love and to 
imitate him (Ephes. i). So also, speaking of himself, he regards it as a 
signal manifestation of God s purpose, for which the Romans are bidden 
to offer praise and thanksgiving, that He has deigned to summon to 
the far west the bishop from Syria (Rom. 2). Thus, though the lan 
guage may lose something in strength and the directions may lack the 
same precision, the authority of the episcopal office stands out not less 
clearly in these Curetonian letters, than in the Vossian, as the key 
stone of the ecclesiastical system. 

By accepting the Curetonian Recension as the original form of the 
Ignatian letters, we do indeed dispose of certain other difficulties which 
critics have raised relating to ecclesiastical organization and nomencla 
ture (e.g. Smyrn. 8 77 KaOoXucrj cx/cA^o-ia, ib. 13 ras TrapOevovs ras Aeyo- 
/AeVas x^P a&lt;: ) but it will be shown hereafter that these difficulties have 
arisen from a misunderstanding of the expressions used. On the other 
hand we lose more than one expression indicative of a very early date, 
which the Vossian Epistles contain (e. g. Smyrn. 8 ovre /?a7m v cure 
ayaTTTjv TTOUIV). 

(iii) Lastly ; so far as regards the personal matter, it may be fairly 
said that the loss from the adoption of the Curetonian Recension would 
be greater than the gain. Hardly a single difficulty is appreciably 
diminished not one is removed by its substitution for the Vossian 
letters. The long journey to Rome, which has been the main stumbling- 
block with some critics, remains untouched. The ardent craving for 
martyrdom, which not a few have judged unworthy of an apostolic 
father, still confronts us in its noble extravagance. The self-depreciation, 
at which others have taken offence, is indeed diminished with the 
diminution of area, but it is not obliterated (Ephes. i, Rom. 4, 5). The 
free communication with the churches by letter, which has been judged 
inconsistent with the status of a condemned and strictly-guarded 
prisoner, is still fully recognized (Rom. 4 eyw ypa&lt;/&gt;o&gt; Tra o-ais rats e/cKX^- 
o-iais). The intercourse with individual friends is not interfered with ; 
the embassies from distant communities and the journeys of his friends 
from city to city are still recorded as before (Rom. 9 j comp. Polyc. i, 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 309 

Ephes. i, Rom. i). But, while the gain is thus inappreciable, the loss 
is very serious. It will be seen, when the subject is discussed at length 
in the next chapter, that the movements of the martyr himself and his 
relations with the deputies of the several churches, as they appear in the 
Vossian Epistles, reveal various and subtle coincidences which cannot 
without all violation of probability be set down to a forger s pen. All 
these have vanished from the Curetonian letters. 

To sum up; 

If we are prepared still to maintain the priority of the Curetonian 
Epistles, we must make two great postulates. 

We must first postulate a writer in the second or third century who 
makes a careful study of the three short Ignatian Epistles before him; 
who has the patience and the insight to note all the most subtle features 
of vocabulary and grammar; who has the genius and the skill to repro 
duce all these characteristics; who, equipped with these capacities and 
acquirements, sets himself to interpolate, enlarge, and supplement these 
three letters so as to form a body of seven letters; who so performs this 
task that the sequence of thought is better observed in the enlarged 
epistles than in the original; who in the interpolated and forged por 
tions so constructs his personal and historical framework as to reveal to 
a careful scrutiny subtle and inobtrusive harmonies and coincidences; 
and who exercises such self-restraint as to avoid all theological and eccle 
siastical questions which have an interest for his own time, because they 
would be anachronisms. In short he is prepared to sacrifice every 
conceivable purpose of a forgery to ensure the success of his forgery. 
Who is bold enough to affirm that such a person could be found 
among the ranks of the Christians in these early ages ? 

But secondly, we are obliged to postulate in (say) the fourth or 
fifth century a Syriac translator who, having before him a pre-existing 
Syriac version of the three short Epistles and also a Greek copy of the 
Seven Epistles (enlarged from the original three in the manner supposed), 
undertakes to bring the Syriac version into conformity with this enlarged 
body of letters. Accordingly he not only translates the four additional 
epistles, removing however the two chapters which he finds ready to hand 
at the close of the Roman Epistle in the existing Syriac version and 
placing them in their new position in the Trallian Epistle; but in the 
three epistles already rendered into Syriac he supplies the insertions, 
effaces the omissions, transposes the transpositions, follows every arbitrary 
change, and thus produces a Syriac work exactly corresponding to the 
Greek. This task indeed does not suppose the same combination of 



310 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

qualities as the former, but it does demand marvellous patience. What 
parallel can be found to such a work in the Christian literature of those 
ages? 

This last demand alone would be a severe strain, and an opinion so 
weighted would need very strong independent support to sustain it; 
but the two together are enough to break the back of any theory. I 
need not advert to the other difficulties with which those who maintain 
the priority of the Curetonian Form are confronted. 

The preceding investigation has, if I mistake not, established the 
result that the Curetonian Letters are an abridgement or mutilation of 
the epistles of the Middle Form. But the further question arises; In 
what interests or with what motive was the abridgement made? 

The earliest opponent of the Curetonian letters, the English Re 
viewer, who has been mentioned already (p. 269), had his own answer to 
this question. He considered them to be a miserable epitome made by 
an Eutychian heretic (p. 348), and he even went so far as to express his 
own opinion that the collection of Syriac MSS recently deposited in the 
British Museum would turn out to be a nest of Eutychianism (p. 336). 
To this accusation Cureton in his Vindidae Ignatianae (p. 67) returned 
an effective reply. 

For Eutychianism we may substitute the word Monophysitism; for 
the theory is placed in a more advantageous position by such a re 
statement, and this is in effect what the Reviewer meant. Thus re 
stated, the theory has this prima fade ground, that a considerable 
number of the MSS in this Nitrian collection contain Monophysite 
works or are derived from Monophysite sources. It is even possible 
that one or other of the MSS containing this abridgement may have been 
transcribed by Monophysite hands. But the theory itself is sufficiently 
refuted by these three considerations, (i) The contents of the three 
MSS in which the Curetonian Epistles are preserved do not betray 
any special Monophysite leanings. They comprise various patristic 
treatises, some doctrinal, some practical, some historical, mostly 
by well-known writers, Basil, the two Gregorys, Cyril, etc. (see 
Cureton C. I. p. xviii sq.). (2) The great Monophysite leaders, Timo^ 
theus of Alexandria (see above, p. i65sq.) and Severus of Antioch 
(p. i69sq.), not to mention other anonymous advocates of Monophysite 
doctrine (p. 186 sq.), persistently use the Middle Form of the Ignatian 
Epistles; and there is no trace whatever in them of acquaintance with 
the Curetonian Abridgement. They quote freely from all the seven 
epistles; and even in the three epistles, wherever the two recensions 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 3 11 

.differ, their quotations are taken from the Middle, not the Short Form. 
(3) So far from betraying Monophysite purposes, this abridgement is 
much less serviceable to Monophysite interests than the Vossian letters. 
By omitting altogether four out of seven epistles, it omits many passages 
which were held to favour Monophysitism (e.g. Smyrn. i. 2, 5, 6, Magn. 
6, 8); but even in these three, which it preserves, it strikes out some of the 
texts which were most important from a Monophysite point of view; e.g. 
Polyc. 8 lv ew T/ /Awv Iijo-ov XpioTw, Ephes. 3 I^o-ovs Xpicrrds . . .TOV Trarpds 
9 yvoyu;, Ephes. 7 ev dvOpwiru eo5, Ephes. 18 d yap os rjfJ.w I^trovs o 
Xpurrds eKvotpopyQ-r} K.T.X., Ephes. 19 eou dvOpwrtvo* ^avcpov/xeVou 
(altered into TOV wov tpavepovfitvov), Rom. inscr. ev Lyo-av Xpiorw r&lt;3 w 
ty/xwi/, ^?0;#. 3 d yap 0eds T//XWV I^crous Xpiords K.T.X., ^w. 6 Iwirpfyvri 
fjLOL /u/u/rqv flvat TOV 7ra(9ous TOV 0eou JU.GU (the most favourite of all Mono 
physite texts). In short, it would have been a more tenable hypothesis 
to maintain that the epistles were abridged in an Anti-monophysite 
interest. 

Thus the suggested doctrinal motive entirely failed to account for the 
phenomena. It was justly rejected by Jacobson ( minus felix in eo quod 
Syrum pravitatis haereticae simulaverit ) and has found no favour else 
where. With a nearer approach to the truth Hefele suggested (proleg. 
p. Iviii, ed. 3) a moral aim. He regarded the Curetonian letters as an 
epitome made by some Syrian monk for his own pious purposes (a 
monacho quodam Syriaco in proprios usus pios confectam). This seems 
to be only so far wrong in that it supposes some definite aim pursued 
on some definite plan; and this erroneous conception of the character of 
the abbreviator s work is still more prominent in a subsequent note 
(p. 156), where he states that this monk appears to have omitted every 
thing which he thought less consonant or less necessary for himself and 
his ascetic purpose, adding that he gathered together all the hortatory 
passages which tended to good discipline of life. Cureton, when re 
plying to Hefele (C. /. pref. p. x), might have contented himself with 
asking what pious uses a monk would find in the directions respecting 
matrimony which are allowed to stand in the Epistle to Polycarp ( 5). 
This question renders the rest of his refutation superfluous. 

As a matter of experience, abbreviators are apt to do their work far 
more capriciously and carelessly than either of these . theories supposes. 
A scribe, having copied out the task which he had set himself, finds 
that he has a few leaves of parchment or paper still unfilled. It would 
be a sinful waste to leave his manuscript so. How shall he cover the 
vacant space? A volume of Ignatius happens to be at hand. He will 
copy out just so much as there is room for. Of Course the historical 



312 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

parts must be omitted. Of the rest there are some passages which he 
does not understand, others which are blurred in the copy before him. 
As he turns over the leaves of the portions which he is omitting, a 
terse maxim here and there strikes him. These must have a place. 
He is desirous perhaps of finishing his volume before a certain time. 
The Ignatian matter is only a stop-gap after all, and he does not care 
for completeness. So he breaks off the Epistle to the Ephesians ab 
ruptly in the middle of a subject. Perhaps the manuscript before him 
is mutilated and has lost a quire here. Elsewhere the leaves are trans 
posed. A fragment of the Trallian letter is inserted in the Epistle 
to the Romans; and accordingly as a part of this latter epistle it 
appears in his copy. This mode of procedure is not without parallels. 
The history of literature, Greek, Latin, and Syrian, abounds in exam 
ples of abridgement and mutilation, ranging from the carefully executed 
epitome, or the well selected collection of extracts illustrative of some 
particular subject, to the loose and perfunctory curtailment, such as 
we have here, which is neither epitome nor extract, but something 
between the two 1 . 

The date of this Syriac abridgement is a matter of inferior 
moment; nor is it ascertainable except within somewhat wide limits 
of time. 

The earliest MS (2,) belongs to the year A.D. 534 or thereabouts 
(see above, p. 72). This MS indeed only contains the Epistle to 
Polycarp, but the abridgements of the two remaining epistles, which 
are found in the later MSS (2 2 2 3 ), were evidently made by the same 
hand. This earliest MS however is evidently not the archetype. It 
already contains a few false readings, where the text is correctly given in 
the later MSS ( 5 yap for Se, together with other slight errors). Yet 
these phenomena are such that 2 t might well have been copied 
directly from the original MS. Thus, so far as the evidence goes, 

1 The Ignatian literature itself (in ad- reason can be assigned why so much and 
dition to the Curetonian letters) exhibits no more should be given ; (4) an extract 
thefollowingexamplesillustratingthephe- from the Epistle to the Ephesians with 
nomena of curtailment : (i) a shortened modifications in Paris. Grace. 950 (see 
and modified form of the Epistle to the p. 76) ; (5) the loose and modified quota- 
Romans in Symeon the Metaphrast (see tions in the Arabic (n. p. 883 sq., see 
II. p. 5); (2) the mutilation of the end of above, p. 262). I have not reckoned in 
the Epistle to Polycarp in the Latin this enumeration mere collections of ex- 
Version (see above, p. 124) ; (3) the open- tracts, whether Greek or Syriac (e.g. those 
ing of the Epistle to the Romans in a of S, described above, p. 89 sq.), which 
Monte Cassino MS (see p. 123), where no present no extraordinary features. 



THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 313 

the Syriac abridgement might have been made as late as the early 
decades of the sixth century. 

The terminum ad quern being thus fixed, we have next to search 
for the terminus a quo. But here the data are still less satisfactory. 
The first requisite is to assign a date to the unabridged Syriac Version 
(see above, p. 89 sq.). This however is not an easy matter. If this 
version originally comprised the six Additional Letters, it cannot have 
been made till after the middle of the fourth century when these letters 
were forged (see above, p. 245 sq., p. 260), and some little time would 
probably elapse before they were attached to the genuine letters. 
Without a more thorough examination of the fragments of this Syriac 
Version and of the Armenian Version which was derived from it, 
it would be premature to assert with absolute confidence that the 
version of the six Additional Letters proceeded from the same hand 
as the version of the genuine Seven Epistles, though I have not yet 
seen sufficient reason to suspect the contrary. Supposing this unity 
of workmanship to be granted, the Syriac Version cannot well date 
much earlier than A.D. 400. Nor can we place it much later, if at 
least Armenian scholars are right, or nearly right, in their conclusion 
that the Armenian Version itself belongs to the fifth century (see above, 
p. 85). Yet this date for the Syriac Version is not without its difficul 
ties. A passage in Ephraem Syrus (tA.D. 373) seems to be a reminis 
cence of Ephes. 1 8 in the Syriac Version (see n. p. 74); but the 
connexion is far from certain. The resemblance between the two 
passages is not decisive as to any obligation on either side ; and even 
if it were otherwise, the translator might have adopted his rendering 
from a well-remembered passage of this famous Syrian father rather than 
conversely. Again, John the Monk, whose date I have placed ap 
proximately at A.D. 380 390 (see above, p. 145), seems to have used 
this Syriac Version (see p. 146). But the identity of the person 
bearing the name John is not made out beyond dispute ; and even 
if my identification be correct, the time of his literary activity might 
be placed a few years later. Provisionally therefore we may perhaps 
place the date of the Syriac Version about A.D. 400, or possibly as 
much as two decades earlier. A century before this time (c. A.D. 300) 
we find members of the literary society, which gathered about Pam- 
philus, busied in translating from Greek into Syriac (Euseb. Mart, 
Palest, p. 4, ed. Cureton). Again, several works of Eusebius were 
translated into this language soon after they were written, and probably 
during his own life-time (see Smith s Diet, of Christ. .Biogr. s.v. Euse 
bius of Caesarea pp. 320, 326, 332). The Festal Letters of Atha- 



314 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

nasius also would necessarily have been translated into Syriac, as soon 
as they were issued, for the use of the Syrian monks. From that 
time onward Syriac translations of Greek patristic writings become 
common, and not unfrequently they were made shortly after the publi 
cation of the original works, and sometimes during the life-time of 
the authors. This we know to have been the case, for instance, with 
Cyril of Alexandria, with Timotheus ^lurus (see above, p. 168), and 
with Severus of Antioch (see pp. 25, 174, 181). There is therefore 
no difficulty in supposing that the version of Ignatius was made at the 
time suggested. But no satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at, until 
the text and the diction of this version have been more narrowly 
scrutinized. No long time need have elapsed after this date before 
the abridgement was made, but in the absence of prior testimony to 
its existence we are tempted to place it more than a century later. 



6. 



THE GENUINENESS. 



HP HE investigations of the preceding chapters have cleared the 
ground. All rival claimants have been set aside ; so that the 
Seven Epistles, as known to Eusebius and as preserved to us not 
only in the original Greek but also in Latin and other translations, 
alone remain in possession of the field. If there be any genuine 
remains of Ignatius, these are they. The other recensions, now 
shown to be abridgements or expansions, cease to trouble us. They 
take their place as testimonies to the fame and popularity of the 
letters on which they are founded. The variations of text again 
between the Greek original and the various translations of the Seven 
Letters are immaterial to the question. To allege these as casting 
suspicion on the genuineness of the letters themselves is to throw dust 
in the eyes of the enquirer. They are only such in kind, as we might 
expect to encounter under the circumstances. They are the price paid 
for ultimate security as regards the author s text. This security, in 
the case of an ancient writer, will depend mainly on the multiplicity of 
authorities ; and multiplicity of authorities involves multiplicity of 
readings. The text of the Seven Epistles is assured to us on testi 
mony considerably greater than that of any ancient classical author 
with one or two exceptions. 

With Ussher s discovery the Ignatian controversy enters upon a new 
phase. The main part of the previous literature on the subject had 
been rendered obsolete thereby. The really formidable objections 
which had been urged against the genuineness of the letters applied 
only to the Long Recension and were no longer valid. Doubtless 
many minor difficulties, which critics had discovered, or imagined that 



316 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

they had discovered, in the Ignatian Epistles, still remained. This was 
inevitable. Where there are good grounds for suspecting a man s 
character, even his most innocent actions are scanned with misgiving 
and interpreted to his disadvantage. So it was with these Ignatian 
writings. Suspicion had been justly excited against the only Ignatian 
letters hitherto known ; and, when excited, it unjustly sought a handle 
in any matter that came to hand. Thus the uninterpolated passages 
suffered from their companionship with the interpolations. Not more 
righteous than Jupiter of old, outraged criticism 

incesto addidit integrum. 

Even when Ussher s discovery had severed the companionship be 
tween the false and true, the taint of the old suspicion remained. 
The smirch of the mud previously thrown still clung to the innocent 
victim, and it has never been altogether effaced. 

Yet on the whole Ussher s discovery was felt to have furnished the 
true key to the solution of the Ignatian question. He had acted the 
part of the Good Samaritan, wrote Bishop Hall, and had bound up 
the wounds of the poor traveller who had fallen into the hands of 
thieves and been shamefully handled by them 1 . Adversaries indeed 
have paraded the names of those who, notwithstanding the fresh light 
thrown on the subject by this discovery, continued to condemn or to 
suspect these letters wholly or in part. It is not difficult, where the 
search ranges over a sufficient period, to draw up a considerable list 
of second and third-rate names, with here and there an author of higher 
repute, who took the adverse side. Meanwhile the very far larger 
number of critics and theologians, who have accepted the Seven 
Epistles as genuine, is altogether forgotten. Nor, if we regard the 
weight, rather than the numbers, of the names ranged on either side 
in the immediately succeeding generations, can we hesitate to say 
where the preponderance lies. No such list of names can be produced 
on the other side, as Ussher and Voss and Grotius and Pearson and Bull 



1 Ussher s Works XVI. p. 92 Inciderat vulneribus, abstersit saniem, foedcque 

nempe bonus iste viator Hierosolymitanus hiulca plagarum ora manu tenera fasciavit ; 

in latrones quosdam Hierochuntinos, qui fereque exanimem vestro typorumjumento 

ilium non spoliarant modo sed misere imposuit ; ac communi denique ecclesiae 

etiam peneque ad mortem vulnerarant ; hospitio, non sine maximis impensis, com- 

praeterierant saucium ac fere moribundum mendavit. Later on in the same letter 

nescioquot Parkeri, Coci, Salmasii, aliique (p. 93) Hall writes, Bismartyriumpassus 

nuperae sectae coryphaei... vestra unius Ignatius noster ; tuademum opera, praesul 

pietatis [pietas?], optimi instar Samaritae, honoratissime, reviviscit. 
vinum oleumque infudit tarn patentibus 



THE GENUINENESS. 



317 



and Bentley 1 and Waterland 8 , not to mention others only second to 
these in the field of theological criticism. 

To one school of contemporary theologians however the discovery 
of Ussher and Voss was a grave disappointment. The French Protestant 
divines had attacked the integrity of the Ignatian letters mainly on 
account of their testimony to the early spread of episcopacy ; but they 
had for the most part expressed themselves in favour of a genuine 
though indeterminate nucleus, overlaid with spurious matter. To these 
critics the Vossian letters gave no relief. Though the sacerdotal lan 
guage had disappeared, the testimony to the existence and authority 
of the episcopate was as strong and as precise here as in the letters of 
the Long Recension. It was too much to expect that under these cir 
cumstances the Vossian letters should receive an impartial hearing. 
An interval of twenty years elapsed, before French Protestantism put 
forth its supreme effort in the elaborate work of Daille. But mean 
while other antagonists of no mean repute stepped forward. In 1645 
Saumaise, who had already on the eve of Ussher s discovery mingled 
in the fray (see above, p. 228), again declared himself against the 
Ignatian letters (Adparatus ad Libras de Primatu Papae, Lugd. Bat. 



1 Bentley s Works II. p. 29 The most 
excellent Bishop Pearson had designed a 
new edition of Ignatius s Epistles with an 
ample commentary. A specimen of which 
posthumous work has been published by 
the learned Dr Smith, and the whole is 
earnestly expected from him. For though 
it has not passed the last hand of the 
author, yet it is every way worthy of him, 
and the very dust of his writings is gold. 
In that published specimen there is this 
annotation upon the words of Ignatius 
TON yMAC CO(}&gt;ICANT&lt;\ [Smyrn. i] etc. 

In Monk s Life of Bentley II. p. 44 
(ed. i, 1833) it is stated on the authority 
of a contemporary letter, that a rumour 
reached Oxford in the summer of 1718 to 
the effect that Cambridge was in a great 
ferment on account of Dr Bentley having 
on occasion of a Divinity Act made a 
speech condemning the Epistles of S. 
Ignatius and afterwards refusing to hear 
the Respondent, who attempted to reply. 
All this we are told is given on hearsay. 
What foundation in fact there may have 
been for the story it would be impossible 



to say. We may conjecture however that 
the Respondent had quoted from the 
spurious or interpolated epistles, and was 
called to account for this by Bentley. 
Not many years had then passed since 
Whiston s attempt to resuscitate this re 
cension. Moreover a Respondent in an 
Act would not be unlikely to get his in 
formation at second hand from such a 
book as Suicer s Thesaurus (ed. i, 1682; 
ed. 2, 1728); and in Suicer the Long 
Recension is commonly, if not universally, 
cited. We have an example of a similar 
ignorance and misapprehension as regards 
Ussher ; I could not but smile, writes 
Hammond to Ussher, when I was of 
late required by the London ministers to 
answer the objections you had made to 
the Epistles of Ignatius, Ussher s Works 
xvi. p. 148. But whatever may be the 
account of the mistake, Bentley s views 
are clearly indicated in the passage just 
quoted from the Dissertation on the 
Epistles of Phalaris. 

2 Waterland s Works in. pp. 239 sq., 
262 sq. (ed. Van Mildert). 



318 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

1645, quoted by Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 42). He was followed im 
mediately (A.D. 1646) by Blondel (Apologia pro Ssntentia Hicronymi 
de Episcopis et Presbyteris praef. p. 39 sq.). These writers now saw no 
course open to them but to reject the Ignatian Epistles altogether. 
Apparently it did not occur to them to ask whether Ussher s discovery 
did not require them to reconsider their fundamental position as re 
gards episcopacy. 

With the French Protestants were ranged the English Puritans. 
The treatise of Blondel had been answered by Hammond Dissertationes 
Quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis ct Primaeva Anti- 
quitate adstruuntur etc. (Lond. 1651). Hammond s work provoked a 
reply from the London Ministers entitled Jus Divinnm Ministerii 
Evangelici published by the Provincial Assembly of London 1654. 
An individual minister also, Dr J. Owen, in a preface to The Saints 
Perseverance (1654) replied to Hammond. This elicited a rejoinder 
from Hammond, An Answer to the Animadversions on the Dissertations 
touching Ignatius s Epistles etc., London, 1654. The weapons of these 
English Puritans were taken from the French armoury, and their 
writings do not need any further notice. 

A few years later appeared the famous work of Daille De Scriptis 
quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiochcni nominibus circum- 
feruntur libri duo (Genevae, 1666). As this work created much stir at 
the time, and has been highly extolled by some later writers on the 
Ignatian question, it may be worth our while to endeavour to appraise 
its true value. As regards the spuriousness of the writings attributed 
to Dionysius the Areopagite, the verdict of Daille had already been 
anticipated by sound critics, and has been endorsed since by almost 
all reasonable men. But his treatment of the Ignatian writings does 
not deserve the same praise. It is marked indeed by very considerable 
learning and great vivacity of style ; but something more than know 
ledge and vigour is required to constitute genuine criticism. The 
critical spirit is essentially judicial. Its main function is, as the word 
itself implies, to discriminate. The spirit of Daille s work is the reverse 
of this. It is characterized throughout by deliberate confusion. Though 
at the outset he states the facts with regard to the different recensions 
of the Ignatian letters, as brought to light by Ussher s discovery, yet he 
proceeds at once to treat the whole body of. Ignatian literature as if it 
were the product of one author *. In this way the Vossian letters are 

1 Thus for instance he writes (c. xxiii) ; man to whom they are fictitiously ascribed, 
There are also some things in these letters as for instance his charging wives not to 
foreign to the gravity and wisdom of the salute their husbands by their own names; 



THE GENUINENESS. 



319 



made to bear all the odium of the charges justly brought against the 
Epistles of the Long Recension. Like the Athenian demagogue, he 
takes a lesson from knowing eel-catchers, 

avw re KOL Kara) TOV f36p/3opov KVKWCTI.V. 

Of the sixty-six heads of objection which he urges against the Ig- 
natian Epistles, about one half apply solely to the Long Recension ; 
several others are chiefly, though not entirely, occupied with it ; and 
two or three deal only with the medieval Latin correspondence. 
Thus for the most part he expends his strength in slaying the slain ; 
for Ussher had already dealt the death-blow to these spurious and 
interpolated letters. For the rest, his arguments and positions are such 
as few sane critics, even among the most determined opponents of 
the Ignatian Epistles, would venture to adopt in the present day. Who 
for instance would be bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian 
writings were unknown to all Christians up to A.D. 300, about which 
time they were forged (p. 460 sq.)? or that the passages of Origen 
containing the Ignatian quotations were not written by Origen, but 



Let wives, says he, honour their husbands 
as their own flesh and not dare to call them 
by their own name. ..This writer whoever 
he was (iste vero quisquis fuit scriptor) 
little understood how great a man he had 
undertaken to simulate. ..Again is it not 
excellent and worthy of the modesty and 
holiness of Ignatius, that the same writes 
elsewhere to John (idem alibi ad Joannem 
scribal) that there are many of their women 
who desire to see Mary the mother of Jesus. . . 
But again this betrays a fickle and incon 
stant judgment that he (iste) having pro 
fessed himself unwilling to publish or to 
employ the names of the heretics... But 
their names, being unbelievers, I have not 
thought Jit to set down in writing ; nay 
far be it from me even to remember them... 
Yet the same person elsewhere, forgetting 
the law he himself has laid down (idem 
alibi suae ipse legis oblitus), names Simon, 
Menander, Basilides/ etc. 

Here three different writers are treated 
as one. With a show of frankness indeed 
(ne quid dissimulem) he confesses that in 
one point the fault is interpolatoris...non 
primi epistolarum auctoris, but his lan 



guage and his argument alike treat them 
as one person. 

Besides all this discreditable confusion 
there is great unfairness in Daille s treat 
ment here. He first quotes from the 
Vossian text of Smyrn. 5 TO. 6 6i&gt;ofj.ara 
avruiv, fora aTriffTa, OVK t5ot /ULOI tyypdij/ai 
K.T.X., and then confronts the writer (the 
same writer, as he styles him) with his 
own inconsistency by referring to Trail. 
n, Philad. 6, as given in the text of the 
Long Recension, where certain heretics 
are named. But the author of the Long 
Recension knew what he was about. 
When he reached the Epistle to the 
Smyrnseans, he remembered that he had 
already mentioned names of several 
heretics in his interpolations of the 
Epistles to the Trallians and Philadel- 
phians, and in order to save his consistency 
he inserted one little word, vvv OVK 3o^ 
Hot lyypd^ai, I have not thought fit at 
the present moment to set down in writing. 
The insertion is valuable, as indicating 
that the epistles of the Long Recension 
left their author s hands in the same order 
in which we have them. 



320 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

probably by some Latin author (pp. 283, 438, 443, 474 sq.) ? or that 
a reference to evangelical narratives or incidents not contained in the 
Canonical Gospels (Smyrn. 3) is an argument against the early date 
of the writings which contain them (p. 338 sq.) ? or that an author 
who persistently distinguishes the first and second order of the Christian 
ministry, as bishops and presbyters respectively, could not have written 
during the second century (p. 386 sq.)? And again what shall we say 
of the hairsplitting in which he indulges? Thus he argues that the 
statement in Smyrn. 3 that Christ after His resurrection ate and drank 
with the Apostles cannot have been written by an Apostolic father, 
because the Gospels only record that Christ ate (Luke xxiv. 42, 43), 
never that He drank, after the resurrection, and though they mention 
the Apostles eating and drinking with Him (Acts x. 41), they nowhere 
speak of His eating and drinking with them (p. 365). 

This being the general character of the book, it is difficult to 
account for the extravagant eulogies which have been pronounced 
upon it in some quarters. More especially do the praises of critics 
like Bunsen (/. v. A. p. 239), who accept the Curetonian letters as 
genuine, appear out of place ; for with very few exceptions Daille s 
arguments, if valid at all, are equally valid against the Curetonian 
letters as against the Vossian. The literary ability of this work is 
undeniable; but it has contributed nothing, or next to nothing, of 
permanent value to the solution of the Ignatian question. Its true 
claim to our gratitude is of a wholly different kind. If Daille had 
not attacked the Ignatian letters, Pearson would not have stepped 
forward as their champion. 

Pearson s great work, Vindiciae Epistolarum S. Ignatii, was pub 
lished in 1672. It was incomparably the most valuable contribution 
to the subject which had hitherto appeared, with the single exception 
of Ussher s work. Pearson s learning, critical ability, clearness of 
statement, and moderation of tone, no where appear to greater ad 
vantage than in this work. If here and there an argument is over 
strained, this was the almost inevitable consequence of the writer s 
position, as the champion of a cause which had been recklessly and 
violently assailed on all sides. The least satisfactory, though the most 
elaborate and ingenious, portion of the work is the defence of the 
passage describing Jesus Christ as God s Eternal Logos not having 
proceeded from Silence (Magn. 8). The true solution was reserved 
for our own age, when the correct text has been restored by the 
aid of newly discovered authorities. But on the whole, compared 
with Daille"s attack, Pearson s reply was as light to darkness. In 



THE GENUINENESS. 321 

England at all events his work seemed to be accepted as closing 
the controversy 1 . 

On the Continent one serious attempt at a reply was made. A 
work was published anonymously at Rouen in 1674 under the title 
Observations in Ignatianas Pearsonii Vindicias, but the author is 
known to be Matthieu de Larroque. The main point of his attack 
is Pearson s defence of Magn, 8, as read in the existing text; and 
here he is not altogether unsuccessful. The rest of the work is quite 
unimportant. In later ages Continental writers here and there casu 
ally pronounced opinions more or less unfavourable to the Ignatian 
letters, and sometimes they supported their views by isolated objec 
tions. A catena of passages from such writers will be found in the 
Appendix to Cureton s Vindiciae Ignatianae. This was the state of 
the controversy fifty years ago. About that time the interest in the 
Ignatian question revived ; and soon after the Curetonian discovery 
(A.D. 1845) added fresh fuel to the flame. Of its more recent history 
something has been said already (p. 268 sq.). 

The cross lights thrown upon the main question of the genuine 
ness by the history of the past controversies are highly confusing. A 
calm and impartial verdict would have been much assisted by an 
entire obliteration of this history, if it had been possible. Many 
side issues would have been avoided thereby, and many misleading 
prejudices removed. 

The consideration of the genuineness of the Seven Epistles falls, 
as usual, under the two heads of External and Internal Evidence. 

1 The name of one great English scholar editor of Pearson (Vinci. Ign. p. xii, ed. 
has been alleged, as an opponent of the Churton, 1852), who traced the story to 
genuineness. Cureton (C. I. p. xiv sq.) its fountain-head and learnt from Bishops 
reports that he heard from an English Blomfteld and Kaye, that Person had once 
bishop then living that Porson, after said in conversation with a friend that 
having perused the Vindiciae, had ex- Pearson in his Vindiciae had not alto- 
pressed to him his opinion that it was a gether satisfied him, and that there the 
"very unsatisfactory work", and Bunsen matter dropped without any words of 
(I. v. A. p. 239) gives the same report in explanation from Porson. There is no 
a still more exaggerated form. The reason therefore for assuming that he re- 
obiter dictum even of a Porson would be ferred to the main question. The ex- 
of little value, unless it could be shown pression would be quite satisfied by the 
that he had made a study not only of elaborate disquisition on the Valentinian 
early Christian literature, but of this Sige, which occupies nearly 80 pages in 
special subject ; and of this we have Churton s edition, and which many others 
no evidence. Cureton s report however consider unsatisfactory, though holding 
has been investigated by the recent the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. 
IG. I. 21 



322 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

i. 

External Evidence. 

Under the head of external evidence the EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 
holds the first place. It purports to have been written after Ignatius 
had left Philippi on his way to Italy ( 9), but before the news of 
his martyrdom had reached that city ( 13), though it is assumed 
that he is already dead. If this claim is allowed, it dates within a 
few months, possibly within a few weeks, of the time when the 
Ignatian letters profess to have been written. Thus it is contemporary 
evidence in the strictest sense being immediate and direct. The 
only questions which we have to ask are, first, Whether the Epistle 
of Polycarp is genuine, and secondly, Whether it refers to the same 
Ignatian letters which we possess? 

The first question will be answered at greater length, when I come 
to discuss the Epistle of Polycarp itself. For the present I need only 
say that, being vouched for by Irenseus the scholar of Polycarp, it has 
the highest authentication; that no anachronisms or incongruities have 
been proved against it ; that the one great argument against its 
genuineness is the reference to the Ignatian letters; and that pro 
bably it would not have been seriously questioned if it had not con 
tained this reference. Though the plea of the objectors may be 
garnished with other arguments, this is the real gravamen, as any one 
conversant with the Ignatian controversy will see. It should be added 
also, that no satisfactory explanation has been offered of the Epistle 
of Polycarp on the supposition that it is not genuine. The only plaus 
ible theory is that it was a forgery by the same hand which wrote 
the Ignatian letters. But an examination of the two writings is a 
complete refutation of this hypothesis. No two documents of early 
Christianity differ more widely in all the main characteristics by which 
identity or difference of authorship is tested. 

Others however, who are not prepared to condemn the Epistle 
of Polycarp as a whole, have recourse to a theory of interpolation. 
The portion containing the notices of the Ignatian Epistles is sup 
posed to be a later insertion. When the time comes, this theory will 
be fully discussed. At present it is sufficient to say that no part of the 
Epistle of Polycarp is so well authenticated as this conclusion, and 
that the references to Ignatius, compared with the Ignatian letters them 
selves, are such as to preclude this hypothesis. 



THE GENUINENESS. 323 

The answer to the second question cannot admit of doubt. So 
long as it was a matter for argument whether the Vossian or the 
Curetonian letters represented the original form of the Ignatian Epi 
stles, we might have hesitated to which of the two sets of letters the 
notices in Polycarp s Epistle referred. But after the investigation 
in the last chapter, the Vossian letters alone remain in the possession of 
the field. To these therefore the notice refers. 

And the reference is unusually precise. Polycarp informs the 
Philippians that in compliance with their request he forwards to them 
the letters of Ignatius which were sent by him to us together with 
any others which we had in our possession (/cat aAAas o&lt;ras ct^o/tef 
Trap yfuv). These, he adds, are subjoined to his own letter; and he 
recommends them to the attention of the Philippians as tending in 
divers ways to edification. The description exactly accords with the 
letters of the existing collection. This collection begins with the 
Epistles to the Smyrnseans and to Polycarp (see above, p. 222). To 
these Polycarp evidently refers in the first clause. But in addition 
to these it contains five others Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, 
Trallians, Romans. Four out of the five purport to have been 
written while Ignatius was in Smyrna. The fifth the letter to the 
Philadelphians professes to have been written indeed from Troas ; 
but the messenger, carrying it to Philadelphia, would probably pass 
through Smyrna on his way thither. Thus we see an easy explanation 
how copies of all the five letters not written to the Smyrnoeans them 
selves might have been in Polycarp s possession. This however is not 
the only notice bearing on the Ignatian letters. Polycarp speaks 
likewise of having received instructions from the Philippians as well 
as from Ignatius himself, that whoever went to Syria should convey 
thither the Philippians letter ( 13). What were the contents of this 
Philippian letter, or why it should be sent, we are not told ; but from 
the Epistles of Ignatius himself {Polyc. 8) we learn that he was giving 
instructions to all the churches to send delegates, or at all events 
(where this was not possible) letters, to the brethren at Antioch to 
congratulate them on the restoration of peace. The reference also to 
the person who was to go to Syria is illustrated by the Ignatian 
letters themselves. The Smyrnoeans are there bidden to send some 
faithful and valued representative to Antioch to carry thither a letter from 
them; and this person is to constitute himself the bearer of letters from 
other churches likewise (Smyrn. n, Polyc. 7, 8). This explains the ex 
pression /cat TO. Trap v^tav ypa^ara, your letter also. 1 In the Ignatian 
letters indeed the writer contemplates Polycarp sending some one else 

21 2 



324 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

(Polyc. 8 TOU 7T//,7rovros avroV IIoAuKupTrov) ; whereas Polycarp himself 
regards the possibility of his going in person (Phil. 13 ctre tyw tire ov 
Tre/A^w 77-peo-/3ei;o-ovTa KCU irept V/ACOV). This shows the independence of 
the two documents, and thus it greatly enhances the value of the coin 
cidences. Again, Ignatius speaks of this messenger to Syria as an 
ambassador (Smyrn. n tfeoTrpecr/Seu-n/v, comp. Philad. 10 7rpeo-/3e{j&lt;rai 
Ki eou 7rpecr/36ai ) ; and accordingly Polycarp in the passage just 
quoted uses the same language (Trpecr/Jevo-ovTo.) respecting him. 

It is evident from these statements that Polycarp is familiar with 
these Ignatian letters. But, his mind being essentially receptive 
rather than originative, he is constantly citing indirectly and without 
any marks of quotation expressions from previous Christian writings, 
sometimes from the New Testament, sometimes from the Epistle of 
Clement of Rome. We should therefore expect his letter to contain 
reminiscences of these Ignatian Epistles. In this expectation we are 
not disappointed, as the passages quoted above (p. 128) abundantly 
show. 

But Polycarp is not the only Christian writer of the second century 
who bears direct testimony to the Ignatian letters. IREN^EUS also, 
writing from fifty to eighty years later (A. D. 175 190), quotes from 
Rom. 4 (see above, pp. 135, 139); As one of our people said when 
condemned (KaraK/jifleis) to wild beasts, I am the wheat of God, and I am 
ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread. The 
quotation here is direct and obvious. Bailie" however (p. 267, 434 sq.) 
contends that the allusion is not to the passage in the Roman Epistle 
but to some traditional saying of Ignatius, urging that Irenasus writes 
not scripsit, but dixit (CITTC). He appeals moreover to Jerome s ( Vir. 
III. 1 6) statement 1 , Cumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, ardore 
patiendi, cum rugientes audiret leones ait, Frumentum etc., as showing 
that the words were uttered by Ignatius at tJie time of the martyrdom. 
The right reading however is, Cumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, 
et ardore patiendi rugientes audiret leones, etc. ; and this reading is 
most naturally understood to mean that in the fervour of his desire for 
martyrdom Ignatius already in imagination heard the lions roaring. 
It is a matter of no consequence however what Jerome says, in 
asmuch as he was unacquainted with the epistles themselves and in 

1 The passage is discussed below, II. sage, when correctly read, does not re- 
p. 377 ; but the correct reading is there quire. Jerome s meaning is correctly 
overlooked, and in consequence I have interpreted by Churton in a note to Pear- 
made a concession to the views of Daille, son Vind. Ign, p. 189. 
so^far as regards Jerome, which the pas- 



THE GENUINENESS. 



325 



this account of Ignatius depends solely on the passage of Eusebius 
in which Irenseus is quoted (see above, p. 148, n. p. 377). If therefore 
he supposed the words to have been spoken at the time of the martyr 
dom, he has misinterpreted the C TTCV of Irenseus, which in itself would 
apply equally well to written as to spoken words, though here in ac 
cordance with the general usage of Irenaeus applied to the former 1 . 



1 If the interpretation of this refer 
ence as applying to a written docu 
ment be open to any objections, they 
must lie either (i) against the word, say 
instead of write, or (2) against the 
tense, said instead of says. But on 
neither point can they be sustained. 

(i) The common usage of Irenseus is a 
direct answer to the objection on the first 
head. There must be from 800 to 1000 
quotations, chiefly scriptural, in Irenseus 
from first to last (a considerable number 
however being quotations of our Lord s 
words) ; but I have not once observed 
a passage cited with ypd&lt;pei or typatyev or 
yypa.&lt;ptv. The nearest approaches in the 
Greek are i. 8. 4 irepl Trjs...ffvvylas ypa- 
tpuv tifiT) said of S. Paul, i. 9. 4 6.,.8ta ruv 
Ofj.r)piKi2v ffrixuv ypa&lt;t&gt;uv OVTUS of a con 
catenation of Homeric verses, and v. 33. 4 
yypa&lt;pws liriftaprvpeT of Papias ; and in 
the parts preserved only in Latin, v. 8. i 
non enim erant sine carne quibus scri- 
bebat, v. 13. 5 hoc quod scribit. In 
these Latin passages scribere probably 
represents ypafaiv ; but we cannot feel 
sure of this, since in iii. 3. 3 tTrtffTfi\ei&gt;... 
ypa&lt;j&gt;j]v (of Clement) is rendered scripsit 
literas. Besides these expressions we 
have in scriptural quotations occasionally, 
but not frequently, ytypairTai and scrip- 
turn est. It will be seen at once that 
not one of these examples is analogous to 
the case before us. Possibly however 
some passage may have escaped me, 
though I have gone (somewhat hastily) 
through the whole work. On the other 
hand incomparably the most usual form 
of introducing quotations is some modifi 
cation of saying, as \tyei, ZXeyeif, &lt;f&gt;rj- 
aiv, e(pr]Ki&gt;, elirev, and in the Latin dicit, 



dicebat, dixit, inquit, ait, refert, with other 
parts of these same verbs. Sometimes 
again these forms are varied by yuaprupe?, 
fi^Uvrfrai, /j.ffj.yvvKfi , SirjyfiraL, ^Tre/SoT/crey, 
and the like. With these facts before us, we 
are justified in maintaining that Irenaeus 
would almost certainly not have used 
ypa.(pfn&gt;, when quoting Ignatius, and that 
he would most probably have used elirflv 
or \tyeiv or some similar word. 

(2) The rationale of the tenses in in 
troducing quotations is as follows ; (i) 
The present says (X^yet, (f&gt;r}fftv, etc. ) 
can only be used where the reference is to 
an extant writing. It is most commonly 
employed of the literary author of the 
work, as Isaiah, David, Paul, Luke. But 
it is also used of any person who occupies 
a prominent place in the writing quoted 
and whose words are permanently re 
corded, as especially of Christ in the 
Gospels. The perfect (eip^Kev) is used in 
the same way as the present, and always 
implies a written document, (ii) On the 
other hand the aorist said (flirev, H&lt;j&gt;r)) 
may be used equally of a written docu 
ment and of oral tradition. For instances 
of the former use, with which alone we 
are here concerned, see i. 8. i iv rfj 
avry ^TriffTo\r} eiTrovra of S. Paul (comp. i. 
3. i), i. 8. 5 /caXws ovv elirev of John the 
Evangelist, i. 19. r eiirovra. of Isaiah, i. 
18. I tirt5ei%fi&gt; fliruv of Moses as the au 
thor of Genesis. Accordingly in i. 8. 5, 
in a succession of references to S. John s 
Gospel, Irenseus uses indifferently \tyei, 
(priviv) flirev, l(pij, ttpyKev, etc. So again, 
when quoting Justin, he employs the 
aorist in v. 26. 2 KCI\WS 6 lovcrrlvos $77, 
but the present in iv. 6. 2 Kal /caXws Tou- 
ffr ii&gt;os...&lt;t&gt;r]&lt;rti&gt;. So likewise in i. 8. 2 



326 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

The same remark applies also to the writer of the Roman Acts of 
Ignatius (see below, n. p. 377 sq.), who certainly makes Ignatius utter 
these words in the arena ( 10), and who likewise derived his infor 
mation from Irenseus as quoted by Eusebius (see 1 2). Daille s assump 
tion therefore is altogether gratuitous. The interests of sound criticism 
demand an emphatic protest against this practice of thrusting aside a 
known fact, and postulating in its stead an imaginary something which is 
beyond the reach of verification. But the passage of Irenaeus suggests 
two further remarks. (i) In the first place; whatever Jerome or 
others may have supposed, the language of Irenoeus himself places 
the saying of Ignatius at the same point of time as it is placed 
in the Epistle to the Romans. He does not say /2aXAo ju,ei/os or (3Xr]6ei&lt;s 
ets 6r]pLa but Karaxpi^eis TTOOS Orjpia, and this exactly represents the 
position of Ignatius when he wrote the epistle. (2) Secondly; the 
preceding context of the passage in Irenseus (extant only in the Latin) 
indicates a knowledge of the Ignatian letter to the Romans, as the 
comparison shows : 



Propterea tribulatio necessaria est 
his qui salvantur, et quodammodo 
contriti et attenuate et consparsi per 
patientiam verbo Dei et igniti apti 
sunt ad convivium regis. Quemad- 
modum quidam, etc. 



irvp KOI crravpos, Qrjpiatv rt crvcrra- 
aeis, [ayaro/iat, 8tatpe &lt;mr,] trKopTTicr- 



oorfttv, &lt;rvyK.O7ra /ne 



o\ov TOV 

(rav, p.6vov Iva irjaov Xpioroi) 

(5). 



Here the three words contriti, attenuati, consparsi, correspond to the 
three a-Kop7n.a-p.oL, crvyKOTrai, aXco-poi, the order however being reversed ; 
and the coincidence in the mention of the fire is the more remarkable, 
as Ignatius was not, like Polycarp, burnt to death. 

Nor is this the only coincidence with the letters of Ignatius which 
we find in Irenasus. Taken in conjunction with the direct quotation 
which we have first considered, the references given above (p. 135) 
furnish the strongest suggestion, short of absolute proof, that the other 
letters, besides the Roman, were known to this father. This is the 
case especially with the description of the heretics in Trail. 6 com 
pared with Iren. i. 27. 4 (see n. p. 166), and in Smyrn. 4 compared 
with Iren. iii. 2. 3 (see n. p. 298). So again the censure of the Doce- 
tics in Iren. iv. 33. 5 : 

Quemadmodum enim ipsi vere se putant disputare, quando magister 
eorum putativus fuit? Aut quemadmodum firmum quid habere possunt ab 

we meet with Iv T$ elirelv and lt&gt; r&lt;p Origen s quotation of Ignatius (see 

elprjKhai in contiguous clauses introducing above, p. 136) memini aliquem sancto- 
two successive quotations. rum dixisse is a close parallel. 



THE GENUINENESS. 327 

eo, si putativus et non veritas erat ? Quomodo autem ipsi salutem vere 
participare possunt, si ille in quern credere se dicunt semet ipsum putativum 
ostendebat? Putativum est igitur, et non veritas, omne apud eos: et nunc 
jam quaeretur, ne forte quum et ipsi homines non sint, sed muta animalia, 
hominum umbras apud plurimos perferant. 

The resemblance of this language to the two passages in the 
Ignatian letters, Trail. 10, Smyrn. 2 5, more especially the latter, 
will be evident at once. Not only is there the same insistence on the 
extension of TO SoKetv, as the logical consequence of their creed, so 
that their salvation, nay they themselves, are reduced to mere appa 
ritions ; but the images also bear a close resemblance (Orjpta dvOpu- 
iro/jiopfjxL, wv vcKpo&lt;opos). Nor again does it seem to me altogether 
accidental that Irenaeus in the context ( 8) lays stress on love 
as paramount ( praecipuum dilectionis munus ), just as Ignatius does 
(Smyrn. 6 TO ydp oAov ecrrlv TTIOTIS KCU dydirr], cuv ovSev TrpoKCKptrai : 
COmp. Magn. I TTLO-TCW^ re /cat aydV^s iys ou Sev TrpoKtKptTcu) both writers 
taunting these heretics with their neglect of it (Smyrn. 6 -n-epl dydirrjs 
ov /Ac Xct avrot?, ib. 7 crwe &lt;cpe Se auToIs ayaTraV) and both contrasting it 
(as it is contrasted in i Cor. viii. i) either tacitly or explicitly with know 
ledge (yvwo-ts) which was the boast of these heretics. Nor again is it 
insignificant that Irenaeus, both here ( 9, 10) and when he resumes the 
mention of these Docetics a little later (v. i. 2 Vani enim sunt qui 
putative dicunt eum apparuisse ), lays stress on the testimony of 
Abraham and the prophets, on which Ignatius also lays stress (Smyrn. 
5, 7 ; comp. Magn. 9, Philad. 5, 9), and like him also makes mention of 
the persecutions endured by them in consequence (Magn. 8 Sia TOVTO 
KOL fSuaxOyvav K.r.A..). Nor again can we fail to be struck by the fact that 
in the context of this second passage, arguing against these Docetics, 
he uses the very same expression (v. i, i et firme et vere ) which 
Ignatius uses elsewhere when alluding to these heretics (Magn. 1 1 Trpax- 
OivTa. dA/7#ws KCU /Se/Wws K.r.X.). Nor again does it seem to be a mere 
fortuitous coincidence, that both Ignatius (Smyrn. 7) and Irenaeus (v. 2. 
2, 3) in their respective contexts, though from a somewhat different 
point of view, treat the false spiritualism of Gnostic teachers as a 
denial that the eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Above all, I seem 
to see an allusion to Ignatius himself, when Irenaeus appeals to the 
sufferings of the martyrs (iv. 33. 9) as a testimony against the Docetics, 
just as the writer s own sufferings are appealed to for the same purpose 
in the Ignatian letters (Smyrn. 4, Trail. 10). Nay, is there not in the 
context a reference to the image which occurs more than once in the 
Ignatian letters and is embodied in the martyr s own surname Theo- 



328 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

phorus the God-bearer (comp. Ephes. 9 Traces eo&lt;o poi . . . . X/HOTO- 
&lt;o poi) in these words of Irenaeus? Dominus apparuit in terris, cum 
martyribus nostris, quasi et ipse misericordiam consecutus, opprobrium 
simul bajulavit hominis, et cum eis ductus est, velut adjectio quaedam 
donata eis. So again in the same context he speaks of the Church 
as suffering in the person of those who undergo persecution but anon 
growing fresh limbs and being restored to her integrity (statim augens 
membra et integra fiens), herein employing language which closely 
resembles the Ignatian description of the recovery of the Church 
of Antioch after the restoration of peace (Smyrn. u a7re A.a/3ov TO 
tStov /Aeye^os KOL a.TreKO.Tf(TTa.6r) airrois TO tSiov oxo/xaTttov). In short the 
passages in Irenaeus relating to the Docetic heretics are found, when 
examined carefully, to be instinct with the language and thoughts 
of the Ignatian letters, more especially of the Epistle to the Smyr- 
naeans. It is no surprise to find these resemblances in a pupil of 
Polycarp. 

Here then is the answer alike to Daille (pp. 257 sq., 270 sq., 433 
sq.), who maintains that Irenseus cannot have been acquainted with the 
Epistle to the Romans because he does not quote against heretics the 
other epistles which formed part of the same collection, and to Renan 
(Les Evangiles p. xxxi), who argues that the Epistle to the Romans can 
not have formed part of the same collection with the other six because, 
though Ignatius certainly was acquainted with this one epistle, he be 
trays no knowledge of the others. But one point still remains to be 
considered. What amount of force is there in Daille s assumption that, 
if Irenseus had known these letters, he must have quoted them against 
the heretics ? This question is answered by reference to his practice in 
other cases. Why does he not quote Polycarp s Epistle, though he was 
certainly acquainted with it (iii. 3. 4), and though it contains not a few 
things (e.g. 7) which would have served his purpose excellently? 
Why does he mention Clement of Rome and Papias once only, though 
they would have afforded abundant material useful for the end which he 
had in view? Why are only two passages cited from Justin Martyr, and 
these from works no longer extant, though Justin s extant writings would 
have furnished many more passages suitable for his purpose than the 
Ignatian Epistles? Why lastly does he entirely ignore other early 
Christian writers such as Melito and Dionysius of Corinth, or at least 
not quote them by name, though they wrote on kindred subjects 
and their writings must have been store-houses of serviceable quota 
tions ? Of the passages in the Ignatian Epistles which Dailld: especially 
mentions, as likely to have been quoted, a considerable number are 



THE GENUINENESS. 329 

taken from the Long Recension. With these we are not concerned. The 
fact is only mentioned here as illustrating the deliberate confusion with 
which Daille has been charged above (p. 318). Of the rest the most 
important is the description of Jesus Christ in Magn. 8, as God s 
Eternal Word, not having proceeded from silence. Though this ex 
pression does not directly contradict the Valentinian doctrine, as will 
be shown hereafter, yet it contradicts closely allied views, and might 
not unnaturally, though not necessarily, have been quoted by Irenseus 
against his opponents. But, as Ignatius wrote the passage, both the 
epithet and the negative were absent, so that the expression runs His 
Word having proceeded from silence. Such language would certainly 
have been shunned by Irenaeus, as approaching dangerously near to 
the very views which he was combating, and might even have led 
him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal teaching of the Ignatian 
letters. 

Asia Minor and Gaul were closely related both politically and eccle 
siastically, as mother and daughter. Irenaeus had been educated in the 
one country, and had migrated to the other. His testimony therefore 
represents both regions. But we have also independent evidence alike 
from Asia Minor and from Gaul during his life-time. 

The LETTER OF THE SMYRNJEANS, giving the account of the Mar 
tyrdom of Polycarp (A.D. 155 or 156), shows an acquaintance with the 
Ignatian Epistles. The coincidences in the two passages quoted above 
(p. 129) cannot be accidental. On the latter no stress can be laid, as 
it occurs in a portion of the document which may be a later addition; 
but the former remains unassailable. Besides these there are other re 
semblances not unimportant. Thus 2, 3, They that were condemned 
to the wild beasts endured dreadful tortures (KoAa creis)...for the devil 
(6 Sia/3oXos) devised many things against them, may be compared with 
Rom. 5 Let evil tortures of the devil (xoXacrcts TOV Sia/?o Aou) attack me, 
etc. ; and 6 that he might make perfect his own lot (TOV IOLOV K\rjpov 
aTrapTto-T;) with Philad. 5 Your prayer shall make me perfect (aTraprto-ei) 
unto God that I may obtain the lot (nX-yp^) wherein I found mercy. 
So also the expression in 7 6eo-n-pfTrrj irpeo-fBvrqv reminds us of Smyrn. 
12 fleoTrpeTres TTpfcrfivTepiov. Again the account of Polycarp s moral at 
titude 7 TO evora0es corresponds with Ignatius charge to this same 
person Polyc. 4 cwrntfo, and the description of his final achievement 
17 lo~Te&lt;j&gt;avu&gt;fj.evov TOV T^S a&lt;#ap&lt;ji as crre^avov and 19 TOV Trjs d(f&gt;6ap- 
crtas o-Tf&lt;j&gt;avov a7roAa/3wv with Ignatius exhortation to him Polyc. 2 
vi7&lt;/&gt;e o5s eov dOXi/rnijs TO 0/xa a&lt;0ap&lt;na. With these coincidences 
it would be somewhat sceptical to question a knowledge of the Igna- 



330 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

tian Epistles on the part of the author or authors of this letter of the 
Smyrnaeans 1 . 

The EPISTLE OF THE CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND LYONS records the 
martyrdoms in those cities under M. Aurelius and was written about A. D. 
177. It represents the voice of the daughter Church in Gaul, as the 
other represented the voice of the mother Church in Asia Minor. The 
parallels with the Ignatian Epistles here are slighter than in the Letter 
of the Smyrnseans, as perhaps we might have expected; but they are 
noticeable. One or two of these are given above, p. 133. Other coin 
cidences are the metaphor of 6poo-teo-$at to be sprinkled with dew, 
refreshed ( 6, comp. Magn. 14), of the birth-pangs of martyrdom ( 13 
wcTTrep wStVan/, comp. Rom. 6 o TOKCTO S poi eTrtKetTcu), of a woven crown of 
human beings ( II eva TrAefavres or flavor, comp. Magn. 13 atO7rAoKOV 
Tn/eujaariKov ore&lt;avou), of the fragrance and the ointment of Christ 
( 10, comp. Ephes. 17). So again they have certain words and phrases 
in common, as dva&irvpflv ( 12, comp. Ephes. i), evorweiSirros ( n, 
comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 6), Qrjptwv (3opd ( n, comp. Rom. 4), ouco- 
vo/u o. eow ( 10, comp. Ephes. 18), eve Spa of Satan ( 4, comp. Trail. 
8, Philad. 6), /cA^pos of martyrs ( 3, 7, u, comp. Rom. i, Trail. 12, 
Philad. 5), TreTTiorev/AeVos SICLKOVLCLV of ministerial office ( 9, comp. 
Magn. 6). So again both documents regard martyrdom as making a 
man a genuine or true disciple of Christ ( 3 yi/r/o-tos Xptorou /xa^- 
T?;S, comp. Rom. 4 /xa^-n/s dXyOijs TOV Xptorou), and in both the prayers 
of those addressed are asked that the petitioners may be crowned with 
martyrdom ( 17, Trail. 12, Rom. 4). In like manner there is a striking 
resemblance of diction, though the subject is somewhat different, 
between 6 avo&gt;p$co$?7 TO crwyu,ctTtov...Kat TTJV iSeav aTreAa/Je TTJV Trporfpav, 
and Smyrn. 1 1 dWAa/Jov TO iSiov /xe ye^os KOU a7re/caTeoTa$?7 a^Tots TO 



The testimony of the documents hitherto considered is especially 
valuable as coming from those churches which were likely to be well 
informed. If the Ignatian Epistles were mostly written, as they purport 
to have been written, to or from Smyrna, if the first collection of these 
epistles was made, as it professes to have been made, by an early 
bishop of Smyrna, then the voice of the Smyrnasan Church and of 
her Gallican dependencies is of supreme importance in deciding the 
question of their genuineness. 



1 I have to thank a correspondent for ment, which I should otherwise have 
calling my attention to some of these coin- overlooked, 
cidences in this and the following docu- 



THE GENUINENESS. 331 

But second only to the voice of these churches stands the testi 
mony of a wholly different writer. LUCIAN, the pagan satirist, was born 
at Samosata in Syria, and is stated to have practised as an advocate 
in Antioch. He travelled far and wide. Among other countries he 
visited those parts of Asia Minor Ionia and Bithynia where the Chris 
tians were most numerous. Though he wrote purer classical Greek 
than any writer of his time, his native tongue was Syriac. His satire 
spared nothing in heaven or earth. Among the chief butts of his 
ridicule was one whom he represented as the typical charlatan, half- 
fanatic, half-impostor Peregrinus, surnamed Proteus from his frequent 
transformations of character 1 . The self-immolation of this person at 
the Olympian games in A.D. 165 made him famous throughout the world. 
This incident is the main feature in Lucian s satire De Morte Peregrim, 
which appears to have been written soon after the event. There 
seems to be no ground for doubting the historical character of this 
incident 2 ; but the accessories of the story are open to more question. 
Lucian apparently takes Peregrinus as a peg on which he hangs in turn 
different forms of charlatanry, or of what seems to him to be such. 
Two types more especially are brought prominently forward the two 
which would especially strike the mind of Lucian as the most bizarre 
developments of life which prevailed on any noticeable scale in his 
day. Peregrinus is represented as first a Christian and then a Cynic. 
There was superficial resemblance enough between the two to render 
this combination, which seems altogether incongruous to us, quite 
natural in the eyes of Lucian s heathen contemporaries 3 . Whether 
Peregrinus ever was a Christian or not, we have no means of ascer- 



1 The passages are quoted above, p. monotheism and opposition to idolatry in 
129. The tract of J. Bernays on this the Cynics as a point of contact. In their 
satire, Lucian u. die Kyniker, Berlin practice of public disputation and preach- 
1879, should be read, though it deals ing also they resembled the Christians, 
only incidentally with Lucian s views of Origen c. Cels. iii. 18 (quoted by Bernays, 
the Christians. p. 93) demands the same immunity 

2 It is however doubted by Baur Die for the Christians in this respect which 
dreiersten Jahrhunderte p. 396. was accorded to certain Cynics (ruv Ku- 

3 The resemblance is noted by Aris- VLKUV rives Stifjuxrlq. irpbs roi)y 7ra/&gt;aTiryxd- 
tides Op. II. p. 402, who speaks of the vovras SiaXeyofjievoi). The picture which 
Cynics as rots iv rrj ILaKaiffrlvri 5v&lt;7&lt;re/36n Dion Chrysostom (Orat. 8, p. 276 sq., ed. 
irapa.Tr\ri&lt;Tiot roi/s rpowovs, a passage Reiske) draws of Diogenes disputing and 
quoted by Bernays (p. 39) ; but it may declaiming at the Isthmian games con- 
be questioned whether Jews are not in- tains not a few touches which enable us 
tended here rather than Christians. to realize the attitude of S. Paul at the 

Bernays (p. 31) remarks on the strict same place and on a similar occasion. 



33 2 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

taining; nor has the question any material bearing on our subject. 
Neither again need we trouble ourselves to consider whether Lucian s 
primary aim was not ridicule of the Cynics rather than of the Christians 1 . 
We are concerned solely with his ideas respecting the Christians and 
their doings. His knowledge of the two chief languages of Christen 
dom at this time would materially assist him in acquiring information ; 
and, as a great traveller, he would not lack the opportunities. 

At an early part of his narrative Peregrinus is described in an 
expression which closely resembles the language used by Ignatius of 
himself. He is made a prisoner in Syria ( 4 TOV lv 2,vpia Se0eWa, 
comp. Ephes. i SeSe^eVov O.TTO ^vpt as). After some vicissitudes and 
wanderings he thoroughly mastered the marvellous wisdom of the Chris 
tians in Palestine, associating with their priests and scribes (rots Upevcri 
KO.I ypa/x/xarevo-iv aurcoi/). So apt a scholar was he, that he rose to pre 
eminence as their prophet and band-leader and synagogue-convener 
(Trpo&lt;f&gt;-&gt;]-rr)&lt;; Kol Oiavdpxrjs KCU, vi/ayo&gt;ycvs). In fact they were mere 
children compared with him. He interpreted and explained their 
books, and indeed composed many of them himself. Nay, they 
regarded him as a god and looked up to him as a lawgiver and patron 
(irpoorciT^v) . For his Christianity Peregrinus was put in prison; and 
his imprisonment was as fuel to his passion for notoriety. The narra 
tive then continues as follows : 

When he was imprisoned, the Christians, taking the matter to heart, left 
no stone unturned in the endeavour to rescue him. Then, when this was 
found to be impossible, they looked after his wants in every other respect 
with unremitting care and zeal. And from the first break of day old women 
widows they are called 2 and orphan children might be seen waiting 
about the doors of the prison ; while their officers (ot eV re Xtt avruv), by 
bribing the keepers, succeeded in passing the night inside with him. Then 
various meals were brought in, and sacred formularies of theirs were re 
peated (Xoyoi tepoi aimoi/ IXtyovro} : and this fine fellow Peregrinus for he 
still bore this name was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover there 
came from certain of the cities in Asia deputies sent by the Christian com- 

1 Bernays seems to have shown that stands. In the former he alludes to the 
Lucian s satire was aimed directly at the order of widows (i Tim. v. 9); and it is 
Cynics and only glanced incidentally at worthy of notice that Ignatius himself 
the Christians. salutes the widows at Smyrna (Smyrn. 13 

2 This is the force of ypg.dia XVP -* see tne note u - P- 3 2 3 sc l-)&gt; f rom whom 
Ttyas. So again lower down ( 41) we probably when a prisoner there he had 
have 5ia6riKa.s TLVO.S. In both cases Lu- received attentions similar to those which 
cian uses technical terms of the Chris- the widows are represented by Lucian as 
tians, which he only imperfectly under- paying to Peregrinus. 



THE GENUINENESS. 333 

.munities to assist and advise and console the man. Indeed the alacrity 
they display is incredible, when any matter of the kind is undertaken as a 
public concern ; for in short they spare for nothing. Accordingly large 
sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time from them, on the plea of 
his bonds, and he made no inconsiderable revenue out of it. For the poor 
wretches have persuaded themselves that they will be altogether immortal 
and will live for ever, and with this in view they actually despise death (KOI 
KaTa(f)povov&lt;ri TOV Bavdrov) and the greater part of them give themselves 
up voluntarily (fxovres OVTOVS fTrioiooacriv ot TroXXot ). 

Peregrinus was ultimately released. After other vicissitudes he went 
forth again on his wanderings, drawing ample supplies from the Chris 
tians (IKO.VO. i&lt;f&gt;6oLa e^wv TOUS xpt.o-Tia.vovs), by whom he was attended 
as by a body-guard (u&lt; wv Sopu&lt;opot p:evos), and so enjoyed abundance 
of everything. At length he offended the Christians. He was de 
tected, so Lucian believes, eating something which was forbidden in 
their eyes (ri . . . eo-$iW TWV aTroppiyrwv aurois). Then he became a 
Cynic. Of his subsequent life previous to his self-immolation we are 
told that he sailed to Italy and immediately on disembarking began to 
revile every one, especially the king, knowing him to be most gentle 
and mild, so that he ventured with impunity. Then comes the suicide. 
In the preparation of the funeral pyre and in the incidents of the 
burning we are reminded of the martyrdom of Polycarp, but of this 
I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. After the account of his 
death Lucian adds : 

They say that he despatched letters to nearly all the famous cities 
testaments forsooth (StadrJKas TIVO.S) and admonitions and laws : and certain 
of his companions he nominated (e ^eiporoi^cre) for this business, calling them 
death-messengers and infernal-couriers. 

And lower down again he reminds Cronius, You have known 
these facts long since, having heard me at the time when I came from 
Syria relate how I had sailed with him from Troas. 

A tradition spoke of Lucian as an apostate from Christianity, like 
Julian. This does not seem probable. The strange jumble of titles, 
Jewish and heathen, which he heaps on Peregrinus (Trpo^ifnjs KOL Oiao-- 
tt px^s KOI waycoyevs), and the description of the respect paid to him, are 
unlike the language of one who had any intimate knowledge of Chris 
tian modes of thought and life even after all allowance is made for 
the license of the satirist. So again the account of the offence which 
led to his expulsion from the sect, and which apparently refers to 
some profanation of the eucharist, suggests the same inference. But a 



334 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

gossiping acquaintance with their doings, and probably also a super-, 
ficial glance at some of their writings, is suggested by the narrative. 
We must not indeed overlook the confusion probably studied and 
intentional of men and things. Christian and Cynic, Ignatius and 
Polycarp, unite in one. In a nearly contemporary writing, the Cle 
mentine Homilies, in the same way the chief villain of the story, Simon 
Magus, combines in himself all those teachers whom the writer wished 
to stigmatize as heretical notably S. Paul and Marcion. This is a 
common expedient in such fictions. Bearing this in mind we recog 
nize how largely the whole description is charged with early Christian 
ideas, even in the portions which do not refer to the Christian career 
of Peregrinus. The comparison with the phoenix recalls the analogy 
of the Resurrection as drawn out by Clement of Rome ( 25). The 
prediction of the Sibyl reminds us of the taunt of Celsus, who called 
the Christians Sibyllists on account of their partiality for these fabulous 
oracles (Orig. c. Cch. v. 61 ; see S. Clement of Rome p. 167 sq.). The 
marvellous works of healing ascribed to the hero of the story are a 
counterpart to the miracles of the Gospel. 

Accordingly it is no surprise to find that the resemblances to the story 
of Ignatius are not restricted to the Christian career of Peregrinus, but 
extend through the whole. These coincidences are too many and too 
obvious to be overlooked, and have commanded the assent even of 
opponents of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, such as Baur 1 
and Renan 2 . The latter more especially repeats more than once his 
belief that Lucian alludes to Ignatius and his letters. The first place of 
captivity, certain cities mentioned on the route, the attendance of the 
believers at the prison, the bribing of the guard, the embassies from the 
Churches of Asia, the Christian escort of the prisoner, the confront 
ing and defying of the emperor, the letters sent and the messengers 
despatched by Peregrinus on the eve of his death all these points of 
coincidence taken together are far too numerous to be the result of 



Apollonius von Tyana u. Christtis p. he is silent on this subject. 

epublishedmZ&gt;m ^Maa7ttv?;z 2 See especially Les J&vangiles p. 493, 

etc., 1876. It is suggested by the editor II n est guere douteux que Lucien n ait 

in a note, that at a later date, when con- emprunte aux recits sur Ignace etc., and 

vinced of the spuriousness of the Ignatian he says in a note (p. 494) that Lucian 

letters, Baur would have come to a some- may very well have had in his hands the 

what different conclusion. This is by no collection of the seven pseudo- Ignatian 

means certain, as the case of Renan letters : see also ib. pp. x sq., 488, Z ^- 

shows. In Die drei Ersten Jahrhim- glise Chretienne p. 465, Marc Aurtle 

derte^. 395 sq. when discussing Lucian, p. 376. 



THE GENUINENESS. 335 

mere accident. The last-mentioned point of resemblance more espe 
cially challenges attention. The description of these delegates is a 
lively caricature of the language of the Ignatian letters. The coin 
cidences have been considered already (p. 275); and it is only neces 
sary here to add that, in designating the letters of Peregrinus testa 
ments and Maws, Lucian seems to have confused the Epistles of 
Ignatius with the Scriptures, just as in a previous passage ( n) he 
relates of Peregrinus, then a Christian, that he interpreted and ex 
plained some of the books (of the Christians) and himself composed 
many. 

It has thus appeared that the primary evidence for the Ignatian 
letters is exceptionally good, being both early, precise, and varied. As 
regards the testimony of the next generations, comprising the last 
decades of the second century and the earlier decades of the third, 
we can only say that it does not differ in character or extent from that 
which is forthcoming in similar cases. The coincidences with the 
Ignatian Epistles during this period are indicated above (p. 133 sq.) 1 . 
They are not sufficient in themselves to establish the existence of the 
Ignatian letters ; but reinforcing the earlier evidence, they are valuable, 
as a link of continuity between the testimony of the preceding and 
succeeding ages. One witness indeed, belonging to the period of which 
I am speaking, would be exceptionally important, if we could only be 
sure that we had before us the real person. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH, 
as a successor of Ignatius in the same see while the memory of the 
martyr was still fresh, would have the best right to be heard. The 
coincidence (see p. 134) with the Ignatian letters in the Commentary 
bearing his name is sufficiently close ; but unfortunately the suspicions 
which overcloud the authorship of this work have not been altogether 
removed. 

Towards the middle of the third century ORIGEN again furnishes us 
with precise evidence (see above, p. 136). Besides two direct quota 
tions (Rom. 7, Ephes. 19), there is at least one indirect appropriation of 
the language of Ignatius (Rom. 3), and probably others might be found, 
if this father s works were carefully searched for the purpose. The 

1 To the coincidences quoted above tullian (see de Anim. 55); and the Igna- 

(p. 135) from the Acts of Perpetua and tian Epistles, if known to the writers of 

Felicitas should be added 5 nos non in these Acts, were likely to be known to 

nostra potestate esse constitutes, sed in this father also. Thus the parallels in 

Dei ; comp. Polyc. 7 xpwriai os eaurou the one tend to confirm the inference 

Ifrvffiav CVK ?x i aXXa 6f&lt;? o"X^f e&lt; - This drawn from the parallels in the other, 
document is closely connected with Ter- 



33 6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

reference to the existing Ignatian letters is undeniable. The only 
question is whether the Curetonian or the Vossian letters are the source 
of quotation. Of this question I have already disposed (see above, 
pp. 274, 276). 

During the next few decades there was no great literary activity in 
the Christian Church ; and the extant remains are exceptionally meagre. 
It is very rarely that we find in these any notice which throws light on 
the earlier literature of Christendom. In the case of Ignatius however 
we have one quotation, though not by name, in Peter of Alexandria 
(see above, p. 137). If indeed we could with confidence assign the 
Apostolical Constitutions to this period (and seemingly they ought not to 
be placed later), the evidence would be largely reinforced ; for the 
influence of the Ignatian letters is perceptible again and again in this 
work (see above, p. 136). 

EUSEBIUS OF C^ESAREA is separated from Origen by a period of 
half a century or more ; but Pamphilus is a link of connexion between 
the two. Reasons are given above (p. 276) for supposing that with 
respect to the Ignatian literature Eusebius availed himself of the same 
sources of information from which Origen had before drawn. If so, the 
evidence which he supplies is carried back to the earlier half of the 
third century, when Origen lived and wrote. However this may be, 
the account of the Ignatian letters in Eusebius is so full and so definite, 
that it needs no comment and leaves nothing to be desired (see above, 
p. 137 sq.). 

From the age of Eusebius onward the testimony is of the most 
varied kind. The Ignatian Epistles appear whole or in part, not only 
in the original Greek, but in Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Latin, and 
(at least in quotations) Arabic. They are abridged, expanded, and 
imitated. They are quoted equally by orthodox Catholics and Mono- 
physite heretics. No early Christian writing outside the Canon is 
attested by witnesses so many and so various in the ages of the 
Councils and subsequently. 

And in this many-tongued chorus there is not one dissentient voice. 
Throughout the whole period of Christian history before the Reforma 
tion, not a suspicion of their genuineness is breathed, though they were 
quoted in controversy, and not a few disputants were deeply interested 
in denying their genuineness. Even spurious and interpolated Ignatian 
matter is accepted on the credit of the more authentic epistles. One 
witness indeed has been called against them; but, when cross- 
questioned, he entirely fails to substantiate the case which he was 
summoned to support. NICEPHORUS, Patriarch of Constantinople 



THE GENUINENESS. 337 

(t A.D. 828), adds to his Chronography a Stichometria or list of the 
Books of the Old and New Testament with the number of oTt xot or 
verses in each. This list comprises three divisions : (i) The Canonical 
books universally received by the Church (0euu ypa.&lt;j&gt;al eKK\r)(na.^6^cvai 
KOI Ke/cai/ovicrju.eVai). (2) Those which are disputed (oo-ai avriXeyovrai). 
This section comprises in the Old Testament (roughly speaking) the 
deutero-canonical books included in the ordinary Greek Bibles, e.g. 
Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.; and in the New Testament these 
four, the Apocalypse of S. John, the Apocalypse of S. Peter, the Epistle 
of Barnabas, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (3) The 
Apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments (ocra d-n-oKpv^a rfjs 
TraAcuas, oaa T^S ve as aTroKpv^a). 

Under this third head the Old Testament list is made up of such 
books as Enoch, the Twelve Patriarchs, Eldad and Modad, etc., ending 
with 

10. Of Zachariah the father of John, 500 verses. 

u. Of Baruch, Habakuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel, spurious works 






In like manner the New Testament list, which will be found above 
(p. 213), ends, 

6. Of Clement the First and Second (Epistles) 1 , 2600 verses. 

7. Of Ignatius, Polycarp, the Shepherd, and Hermas. 

On this passage Dailld (pp. 242 sq., 460) lays great stress, as 
Saumaise had done before him. Nicephorus, he argues, held the 
highest position in the Church, and personally enjoyed a great reputa 
tion. Therefore his opinion reflects the feeling of the Greek Church in 
his age. Moreover his work was translated into Latin later in the same 
century by Anastasius the Librarian, without any word or mark of 
disapproval. From this we may infer the sentiment of the Latin Church 
on this question. This tremendous structure piled upon this sandy 
foundation crumbles at the first touch of criticism. For 

(i) At the outset, it must seem strange that Nicephorus should 
condemn at one breath all the writings of the three Apostolic Fathers, 
Clement 2 , Ignatius, and Polycarp, though not a single writer before 

1 The text, as read by Pearson ( Vind. Credner Zur Gcschichte des Kanons p. 

Ign. p. 128), ran KX^ej/ros X/3; but no 122. 

explanation could be given of these 32 2 Inconsistently with the conjecture 

books. Pearson therefore (p. 130) con- mentioned in the last note, Pearson 

jectured, Quid si pro AB legamus AB... (p. I54sq.) maintains that in the instances 

et duas dementis Epistolas intelliga- of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, not 

mus ? His conjecture has since been the extant Epistles but a Si5ax~n or 

confirmed by manuscript authority; see dioacrKoXia in each case is meant (see 

IG. I. 22 



338 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

him had ever questioned the genuineness of any of these, except the 
Second Epistle ascribed to Clement. Such a phenomenon would be 
astounding ; and, if this were his meaning, the opinion of Nicephorus 
would be irretrievably discredited. But 

(ii) We have direct evidence that Nicephorus did accept writings 
bearing the name of Ignatius as genuine. Pearson (Vind. Ign. p. 126) 
could only infer this indirectly from the fact that Nicephorus elsewhere 
expresses his adhesion to the doctrines and works of all the eminent 
(eKK/aiYctfv) and blessed fathers (Epist. ad Leon. p. 193, ed. Migne); but 
later discovery has furnished us with a passage of Nicephorus, not 
accessible to him, in which this father directly quotes the Ignatian 
Epistle to the Philippians (see above, p. 213) as authoritative against 
his adversaries. It is therefore certain that whatever else he may have 
meant by including Ignatius among the Apocrypha, he cannot have 
intended to condemn the Ignatian letters as spurious. But again, 

(iii) The classification itself shows that apocryphal (aVoVpu^a) 
here is not a synonyme for spurious. The writings under discussion 
are classed either as (i) undoubtedly canonical, (2) doubtfully canoni 
cal, and (3) undoubtedly uncanonical. This last class would include 
all writings which, having at any time put forward pretensions to 
canonicity, were unanimously rejected by the Church when the author 
of this Stichometria wrote. Thus for instance the Epistles of Clement 
were attached to MSS of the New Testament and treated as Scripture 
the First more especially, which was publicly read in many churches as 
late as Eusebius and later (see Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 272). 
Again the Shepherd of Hermas is quoted as in some sense Scripture by 
Irenseus and others, and was treated as such in some churches (see 
Harnack Proleg. p. xlv sq.). So likewise we have it on the authority of 
Jerome (Vir. III. 17), that Polycarp s Epistle was read even in his 
time in conventu Asiae, whatever this may mean. All these writings 

above, p. 250 sq.) He supports this Clement we know; but no record is pre 
view by an appeal to another list of served of any ascribed either to Polycarp 
canonical and uncanonical books found in or to Ignatius. We must therefore sup- 
some MSS (Barocc. 206, Reg. Paris. 1789; pose (what indeed the inversion of its 
see Cotelier Patr. Apost. I. p. 197 (1724), position suggests) that some ill-informed 
Hody de Bibliorum Textibus p. 649, transcriber added the word 5ida&lt;TKa\la. in 
Westcott History of the Canon, p. 550), the two latter cases. 

which includes among the Apocrypha The fact that our author (whether 

KO. . Aida.(TKa\ia KX^U^JTOS Nicephorus or another) separates the 

K/3 . lyvarlov diSa&lt;TKa\ia Shepherd from Hermas betrays his 

Ky . n.o\vi&lt;dpTrov di8affKa\ia. ignorance of some at least of the writings 

Of such a work bearing the name of of which he speaks. 



THE GENUINENESS. 339 

therefore are excluded by name from the Canon in this Stichometria. 
Of Ignatius no similar record is preserved. The only ecclesiastical use 
of his epistles which I have observed is the selection of lessons from 
them for Ignatius own festival and for one particular Sunday, as noted 
above (p. 103). But probably the notice in Nicephorus refers to some 
wider use, known to him either directly or indirectly. It is indeed 
plain that aVoVpi^a here cannot mean spurious ; for in this case the 
classification would not be exhaustive. There would then be no place 
in it for writings which, though written by the authors whose names 
they bore, did not deserve a place in the Scriptural Canon. Nor is any 
violence done by this interpretation to the history and usage of the 
term. For 

(iv) The word ctTroKpv^a does not necessarily imply spuriousness, 
though it frequently connotes this idea. Hence Nicephorus himself in 
the Old Testament list, as quoted already (p. 337), when he wants to 
describe certain writings as forgeries, uses another word, i/ euSeTrtypa^a. 
The term a7roKpv&lt;a, as applied to sacred writings, denotes in the first 
instance secret, esoteric works, which would probably be magical or 
mystical. In this sense it is pre-Christian. Thus Callimachus says 
ypdfJLp.aTa 8 ov^ eiAtcrcraj/ a7roKpu&lt;a (Ammon. S.V. ypa.fji.fia). As referring 
to Christian books, the word passes through the following stages of 
meaning, (i) In its earliest usage it signifies those books which were 
held in reserve and studied privately, as opposed to those which were 
publicly recognized and read in the churches ; Orig. Epist. ad Afric. 9 
{Op. I. p. 19 sq.) d&gt;v TWO. crto^cTcu cV aTTOKpuc^cus ... ev ovSevl rwv &lt;&gt;ave- 
pwi&gt; (3i(3\i&lt;av yeypafjifjicva...&lt;LV TLVL airoKpvffxa TOVTO e^eperai (of Isaiah s 
being sawn asunder), Comm. in Matt. x. 18 (Op. in. p. 465) o crton/p 
eSi Sa^e p.aprvpwv, ws otju.at, ypatfirj fjLrj fapofjitvr) iv TCHS xoiyots KCU 8f8r)- 
/yteu/Atvois /3i/3A.to&lt;.s, CIKOS Se OTL (.v aTroKpv^ois fapofjLevrj (of the murder 
of Zacharias the son of Barachias), Didym. Alex. Fragm. in Act. p. 1669 
(ed. Migne) eTraS?; Se ov/c etp^rai TTOV ev rats SeS^ju.ocrteu/x.evais 
/3t/3Xot9, Iv d.7TOKpv(f)oi&lt;s Xeyerat cm ev TW TrapaSticra) (of the translation 
of Enoch). (2) But, inasmuch as such books were especially affected 
by heretics, by whom they were not unfrequently forged, it came next, 
as used by orthodox writers, to connote the "ideas of spurious and 
heretical, as e.g. in Iren. i. 20. i afivOrjrav ir\i]8os diroKpix^xav /ecu v66&lt;i&gt;v 
ypa^cuv as aurol eTrXao ai , Tert^ill. de Pudic. 10 inter apocrypha et falsa, 
in which passages however the studied juxtaposition of the two words 
shows that they were by no means synonymous. On the other hand the 
term, as used by the heretics themselves, would be an honourable 
designation, seeing that these books contained their esoteric teaching 

22 2 



340 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

and were placed in the hands of the initiated alone ; see Clem. Strom, \. 
15 (p. 357) fii/BXovs a.TroKpv(f&gt;ovs ravSpos rovSc ot rrjv IIpoSiKov jue-nWres 
oLpea-Lv av^ova-t KeKTrjvdcu, ib. iii. 4 (p. 524), Hippol. Haer. v. 7, 22, 23, 
24, 27, etc. But (3) from this association of ideas the word was in 
vested with a still further meaning, non-canonical, whether the writing 
in question was genuine or spurious. It is in this sense that Jerome in 
his Prologus Galeatus classes such books as the Wisdom of Jesus the Son 
of Sirach inter apocrypha, adding in explanation non sunt in Canone ; 
and that in the so-called Decrctum Gelasii (Credner zur Gcschichte dcs 
Kanons p. 221) we find entered Historia Eusebii Pamphili apocrypha , 
and other patristic works of questioned orthodoxy are similarly de 
scribed there, because (as it is explained at the commencement of the 
chapter) a catholicis vetanda sunt. 

It will have appeared from this investigation that the entry in the 
Stichometria has no bearing on the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. 
We may therefore dismiss from our consideration the question whether 
this document is correctly assigned to Nicephorus or not. It may be 
mentioned however in passing that the three-fold classification is not 
likely to have been drawn up after the decree of the Trullan Council 
(A.D. 692), which settled definitively for the Greek Church what books 
were and what were not canonical, and that it contains other indica 
tions also of an earlier date than Nicephorus 1 . If so, Nicephorus must 
have appended to his Chronology this pre-existing document as likely 
to interest his readers. But so far as regards Ignatius, the case is not 
materially altered by this hypothesis ; for the last entry was apparently 
no part of the original document, as the omission of the number of 
verses shows, and might well have been added by Nicephorus himself. 
The author of this last entry, whoever he may have been, seems to have 
swept together under one head any other uncanonical writings of which 
he had heard, besides those already contained in the Stichometria. 



2. 
Internal Evidence. 

Having ascertained that the external testimony is exceptionally 
strong, we turn next to the internal evidence, and proceed to enquire 
whether it yields such results as to oblige the reversal of the judgment 
to which we have been irresistibly led by the previous investigation. 

1 See Credner /. c. p. 100 sq. 



THE GENUINENESS. 341 

Our present enquiry may be conveniently ranged under five heads : 
(i) The Historical and Geographical Circumstances ; (ii) The Theologi 
cal Polemics; (iii) The Ecclesiastical Conditions; (iv) The Literary 
Obligations ; (v) The Personality of the Writer ; and (vi) The Style and 
Diction of the Letters. 

(i) Historical and Geographical Circumstances. 

The condemnation and journey to Rome have furnished much food 
for controversy. The sentence of Ignatius in itself was not indeed open 
to any objection. It is manifest on all hands that from the very first 
the Christians, when condemned, were sentenced to be thrown to the 
wild beasts in the amphitheatre. The allusions to this mode of punish 
ment are both early and frequent. But exception has been taken to 
the long journey to Rome, as improbable in itself and unsupported by 
any analogy. 

It might perhaps be sufficient to urge in reply that this story of 
Ignatius, whether true or false, was certainly believed before the close 
of the second century, as the existence of the Ignatian letters them 
selves shows. To those most competent to form an opinion therefore it 
suggested no improbability. Indeed we may be sure that no forger 
would have selected as the central incident of his forgery a fiction 
which would discredit and stultify his whole work by its inherent im 
possibility. Hence critics like Renan have without hesitation accepted 
the story, quite independently of the genuineness of the letters, which 
they regard as an ulterior question 1 . Indeed, when we reflect on the 
enormous scale of these games in the amphitheatre in imperial times, 
it must be clear that the demand could only be supplied by contribu 
tions from the provinces. The magnitude of these exhibitions culmi 
nated under Trajan, who thus pandered to the passions of the Roman 
populace (see Friedlander Sittengcschichte Roms n. pp. 127, 142, 188, 
22 2) 2 . After his second Dacian triumph in A.D. 106 he celebrated 

1 Les vangiles p. 486 Ce fait [the corporibus amor laudis et cupido victoriae 
existence of these letters] suffit pour cerneretur. Quam deinde in edendo libe- 
prouver la realite du martyre d Ignace ralitatem, quam justitiam exhibuit, omni 
etc. ; see also p. x sq. affectione aut intactus aut major. Im- 

2 The language in which the younger petratum est quod postulabatur ; obla- 
Pliny (Paneg. 33, 34) commends Trajan turn quod non postulabatur . The in- 
for these exhibitions is highly instructive; human savagery of this wholesale blood- 
Visumestspectaculum...quodad pulchra shed does not for a moment trouble the 
vulnera contemptumque mortis accende- panegyrist. The emperor ;s lauded be 
ret, cum in servorum etiam noxiorumquc cause he gave the people more of it than 



342 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



games which lasted a hundred and twenty-three days, and in which 
about 11,000 wild and tame beasts were slaughtered and 10,000 
gladiators fought (Dion Cass. Ixviii. 15). For these murderous con 
tests the provincial governors must have had orders far and wide to 
supply human victims as well as animals. Thus we must picture com 
panies of soldiers, like those who guarded Ignatius, converging from all 
quarters of the empire to Rome, and bringing thither their several con 
tingents of victims, whom they had gathered on their route, just as the 
escort of Ignatius appears to have picked up prisoners at Philippi on 
the way (Polyc. Phil. 9), and probably others elsewhere of whom 
nothing is told us. 

But indeed we are not left to conjecture on this point. There is 
direct evidence that the provinces were requisitioned for this purpose. 
In the Digests passages are quoted from the work of the jurist Modes- 
tinus, who wrote during the reign of Alexander Severus and later, On 
Punishments, as follows : 

The governor ought not, as a favour to the people, to release persons 
condemned to wild-beasts ; but, if they are of such strength or skill that 
they would make a worthy spectacle for the Roman people, he ought to 
consult the emperor 1 . Howbeit it is made unlawful by a rescript of the 
deified Severus and of Antoninus for condemned criminals to be transferred 
from one province to another without the permission of the emperor 11 . 

This passage implies, (i) That persons condemned to wild-beasts, 
like Ignatius, were very commonly sent to Rome, and that the spectacles 
in the metropolis were held paramount in importance, so that the wishes 
of the provincials were sacrificed to them ; (2) That it was not unusual 
to transfer such persons from one province to another where a victim 
was wanted for provincial games, and that even this latter practice was 
only limited by a rescript of the joint emperors Severus and Caracalla, 
which required the permission of the emperor in such cases 3 . 



they asked for. Pliny s panegyric was 
written before the Dacian triumph, and he 
is therefore referring to the earliest years 
of Trajan s reign. 

1 Not for leave to send them to Rome, 
as Hilgenfeld supposes (Zdtschr. f. Wiss. 
Theol. xvu. p. 99), but for leave to release 
them, as the context shows. 

2 Digest, xlviii. 19. 31 Idem [Modesti- 
nus\ libro tertio de Poenis. Ad bestias 
clamnatos favore populi praeses dimittere 
non debet ; sed si ejus roboris vel arti- 
ficii sint ut digne populo Romano ex- 



hiberi possint, principem consulere debet. 
Ex provincia autem in provinciam trans- 
duci damnatos sine permissu principis 
non licere divus Severus et Antoninus 
rescripserunt . 

3 Renan (Les fcvangiles p. 487, note i) 
writes, Si ejus roboris vel artificii sint 
ut digne populo Romano exhiberi possunt, 
Digeste 1. c. Cette coutume ne com- 
men9a d etre abolie que par Antonin . 
Here is a double mistake ; ( i ) The practice 
which was abolished or rather restricted 
by the rescript in question, was the prac- 



THE GENUINENESS. 343 

So far therefore as regards the mere fact of the transportation to 
Rome, we find nothing in this instance which must not have occurred 
in thousands of cases besides. But difficulties have been found like 
wise in the circumstances attending this transportation. Do these 
difficulties rest on any substantial basis ? 

Criticism inevitably goes astray unless it is guided and tempered by 
a historic imagination, which can throw itself into the probabilities of 
the case. In this instance it has been altogether at fault. Ignatius has 
been regarded as accompanied by ten soldiers, who had nothing else to 
do but to watch him, to whom collectively he was chained day and 
night without a moment s intermission, who controlled his every move 
ment, who had directions to suppress every interchange of companion 
ship and every expression of sympathy, and who performed to the 
letter the charge thus laid upon them. 

The picture is absurd. Soldiers were not so numerous even in the 
Roman empire, that ten men could be spared to guard a single pro 
vincial convict of comparatively low rank, a convict moreover from 
whom the State had nothing to fear. Plainly the guardianship of 
Ignatius was not their absorbing care. It was sufficient if one, or at 
most two, were chained to him at any given time. They had manifold 
other duties besides. Probably, as I have already indicated, they had 
in their custody other prisoners, whom they gathered up on their route. 
Nor indeed, provided that they were absolutely certain of his safe 
keeping, would his attachment to a soldier by a chain be rigorously 
enforced. The day and night must be interpreted, as it would be 
interpreted in any other case, with a reasonable regard to the pro 
babilities of the case. 

But his guards are represented as allowing his Christian friends free 
access to him, and permitting him to write letters to distant churches, 
thus giving him opportunities of disseminating the very doctrines for 
which he had been condemned. 

Why should they not? To us, who are wise after the event, 
Ignatius is a highly important personage, a saint and martyr and doctor 
of the Church ; but to his heathen contemporaries he was a mere pro- 

tice of sending these human victims into 198 A.D. 211, during which period they 

another province to meet their death, were joint emperors. Zahn (/. v. A. 

and had nothing to do with sending them p. 65) is correct on the first point, but he 

to Rome. (2) The Antoninus meant is explains the emperors as Antoninus 

not Antoninus Pius or M. Aurelius, as (Pius) and (Septimius or Alexander) Se- 

Renan evidently supposes, but Antoninus verus. Hilgenfeld falls into the first error 

Caracalla, the son and colleague of Seve- (Apost. Vdter p. 216) and into the second 

rus, and therefore dates between A.D. (Zcitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 99). 



344 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

vincial without rank or position, a religious fanatic, whose delusion 
would soon be scattered to the winds like its thousand and one pre 
decessors. The last idea, which would have occurred to any of his 
guards, would be that the sect of the Nazarenes could ever set its foot 
on the neck of imperial Rome. He had been condemned probably to 
gratify some popular caprice. His sole value in their eyes was as 
a victim for the wild beasts in the Flavian Amphitheatre. Provided 
that he did not escape, their end was attained. And meanwhile why 
should they not make a little money out of the folly of these Christians ? 
What harm in accepting a douceur to admit his friends and to allow 
him writing materials ? Their superiors would connive at it. Nay, it 
could hardly be called conniving, when it was the recognized practice 
of themselves and their comrades. 

But he himself complains of their hardness. He says that the more 
benefits they received, the worse they became. Of course they were 
hard. They had him in their grip. They had taken the measure of 
these silly Christians. They had only to ask their own terms; and 
these terms would be complied with, so long as there was any money 
left. So every fresh concession to their demands produced a fresh 
exaction. This, and not more than this, is meant by the expression 
in Rom. 5 ot KOLL cvepyerou/x.evoi ^et pous yivovrai (see II. p. 213) . A 
prisoner smarting under his grievances naturally dwells on the dark side 
of the picture. It does not occur to him to reflect what interpretation 
will be put upon his impulsive utterances by critics in their study some 
centuries afterwards. 

This picture, which I have drawn, is probable in itself; and it is 
fully borne out by the description which Lucian gives of Peregrinus 
the hero of his story, then a Christian, under similar circumstances 
(see above, p. 129 sq.). The chief passage, which has been translated 
already (p. 332 sq.), deserves to be read in its entirety. The zeal and 
attention paid to the imprisoned confessor for he poses as such to 
the Christians is ceaseless. The widows, with the orphan children 
committed to their care z , crowd about the prison doors at early dawn 
for admittance. The officers of the Christian brotherhood bribe the 

1 Perkin Warbeck in captivity writes 2 The fidelity of the picture is shown 

thus to his mother ; Ma mere, jc vous by this touch. The widows in the ancient 

prie, que me voelliez envoier un petit de Church had charge of the orphans and 

argent pour moi aidier, afin que mes would therefore be accompanied by them; 

gardes me soient plus amiables en leur comp. Hermas Vis. ii. 3 TpairTrj 8 vovde- 

donnant quelque chose (Gairdner s Life ryaei rds x^pas KOI TOVS opQ&ravt, and see 

and Reign of Richard (he Third p. 385). the note on Smyrn. 12 (n. p. 322). 



THE GENUINENESS. 345 

keepers and thus are allowed to pass the night with the prisoner. 
Meals are brought in; religious services are held in the prisoner s cell; 
deputies are sent to him from various Christian communities ; he is 
amply supplied with means. 

There is very strong reason for believing, as I have already pointed 
out (p. 332 sq.), that Lucian has drawn his picture at least in part from 
the known circumstances of Ignatius history. But for my present pur 
pose this point may be waived. Nor is it necessary to enquire whether 
the story of Peregrinus is true or not. Even if it be fictitious, the 
satirist plainly relates only what is likely to have occurred under the 
circumstances ; and this is sufficient for the object which we have in 
view. 

Nor does this evidence stand alone. We need not press the earlier 
instance of S. Paul, who during his captivity, though chained to a 
soldier by the wrist, communicated freely with all his friends and 
preached the Gospel without let or hindrance, so that he even regards 
the cause as having gained by his captivity (Acts xxviii. 31, Phil. i. 
12 sq.). But even to the close of the era of persecutions, when the 
rapid growth of the Church had given just ground for the alarm of 
statesmen, the same lenient and liberal treatment of prisoners even 
of condemned prisoners is seen. The humour of the populace was 
indulged, the supremacy of the law was vindicated, by the condem 
nation of the offender. Beyond this the majesty of Rome could afford 
to be magnanimous. In the Apostolic Constitutions (v. i) directions are 
given that, if any Christian is condemned to a gladiatorial combat or 
to wild beasts or to the mines, money is to be sent to him to purchase 
food and to bribe the soldiers (eis ^uo-#a7ro8oo-iav TWV o-TpancoTtav), so that 
his condition maybe alleviated (see n. p. 213). Accordingly we find 
in the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas (about A.D. 202), that two of the 
martyrs, Perpetua and Saturus, were allowed, while in prison, to write 
an account of their sufferings, no regard being paid to the effect which 
their narrative would be likely to have on their readers ( 3 sq., n sq.); 
that the deacons Tertius and Pomponius paid or bribed (constituerunt 
pretio) the gaolers so as to procure the prisoners a few hours relaxa 
tion in some better part of the prison ( 3) ; and that the chief officer 
admitted many brethren to see the prisoners for their mutual refresh 
ment ( 9 ; comp. 16). In the Cyprianic correspondence again we 
have evidence to the same effect. Cyprian writes freely to the martyrs 
and confessors in prison, and the prisoners answer his letters appa 
rently without any obstruction from their keepers. Yet the purport 
of these letters is to inculcate an obstinate, though passive resistance 



34 6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

to Roman law in maintaining a form of religion for which it allowed no 
standing ground.- So it remains to the very last. What lesson does 
the history of Pamphilus teach us ? Pamphilus suffered incarceration 
for two years. Then he was martyred. During his imprisonment he 
was engaged in writing an elaborate work the Defence of Origen 
in company with his friend Eusebius, who apparently was himself at 
liberty. No one seems to have interfered in any way with this or 
kindred labours. 

Unhappily for criticism, but happily for humanity, history is not 
logically consistent. Men are not automata, which move on certain 
rigid mechanical principles, but complex living souls with various 
motives, impulses, passions, reluctances. The keepers of John Hus 
at Constance were far more deeply and personally interested in pre 
venting his disseminating the opinions which had locked the prison 
doors on him and for which he ultimately suffered, than the keepers of 
Ignatius at Smyrna and Troas. Indeed it is not probable that the 
human leopards , who maltreated this early martyr, cared a straw 
whether Ignatius made an additional convert or not. The Bohemian 
prisoner too was guarded far more rigidly and treated far more cruelly 
than the Antiochene. Yet John Hus found means to communicate 
with his friends, enunciating his tenets with absolute freedom and 
denouncing his judges without any reserve of language. Here is a pas 
sage from one of his letters : 

Oh, if the Lord Jesus had said to the Council, "Let him that is with 
out the sin of simony among you condemn Pope John," me seemeth they 
would have gone out one after another.... The great abomination is pride, 
covetousness, and simony.... I hope to God that He will send others more 
worthy after me, who will expose the wickedness of antichrist.... Written 
on the festival of S. John the Baptist, in a dungeon and in fetters, in the 
recollection that John was likewise beheaded in a dungeon and in fetters 
for the sake of Gods truth (Wrati slaw s John Hus p. 370 sq.). 

Or this again : 

Oh, if ye were to see this Council, which calls itself the " most holy " 
Council and asserts that it cannot err, ye would espy abomination exceeding 
great, of which I have heard commonly from the Swabians that Constance 
or Kostnice , their city, will not within thirty years be rid of the sins which 
this Council has committed in their city ; and I say furthermore that all men 
have been offended through this Council, and some have spit, because they 
saw abominable things.... Written on the Wednesday after S. John the 
Baptist, in prison and in fetters, in expectation of death (ib. pp. 371 sq., 
373), 



THE GENUINENESS. 347 

with much more to the same effect. Is John Hus then a myth, or the 
Council of Constance a fiction ? 

Yet this is not a solitary case. There is hardly a single prolonged 
imprisonment of any notable political or religious personage of which 
something similar is not recorded. The story of Mary Stuart s captivity 
is incredible from beginning to end, if tested by the principles of 
historical criticism which are applied to the record of Ignatius. The 
same may be said also of the imprisonment of John Bunyan . 

For what does the literary work of Ignatius amount to? During 
a journey, occupying many months, he succeeded at two of his halting- 
places, Smyrna and Troas, in writing seven letters in all. They were 
in most instances certainly, in all probably, dictated. They bear all 
the marks of having been written under pressure of time and with 
inconvenient surroundings. They are mostly expressed in short sen 
tences. Where a long connected paragraph is attempted, it generally 
fails. The grammar is dislocated and wrecked. There is no attempt 
at avoiding repetitions, which a literary forger with leisure at his com 
mand would almost certainly have shunned. We could imagine that 
the letters, after being dictated, were not even read over to the author. 
The whole seven might have been written at two or three sittings of a 
few hours each. There is throughout not a single word reflecting on 
the prisoner s judges. There is only one sentence which speaks 
disparagingly of his guards (Rom. 5). Is there any difficulty in con 
ceiving this sentence written, during the temporary absence of his 
guard, or when the soldier in charge, being a Syrian or a Roman, 
was ignorant of the Greek language? 2 

1 Froude s Bunyan p. 80 sq. His was again allowed to go abroad through 

gaoler, not certainly without the sanction general connivance. He spent his nights 

of the sheriff, let him go where he pleased; with his family. He even preached now 

once even so far as London Friends, and then in the woods. Offer s Works 

in the first place, had free access to him, of John Bunyan (1862) i. p. xc His 
and strangers were drawn to him by re- Majesty continued to keep him a prisoner 
putation ; while the gaol was considered for preaching more than six months after 
a private place, and he was allowed to he had licensed him to preach ! ! 
preach there, at least occasionally, to his - About a year before he [John Bun- 
fellow-prisoners This was not all. A yan] was set at liberty, he received a very 

fresh and more severe Conventicle Act popular work, written by Edward Fowler, 

was passed in 1670. Attempts were made a Bedfordshire clergyman, who was soon 

to levy fines in the town of Bedford. after elevated to the see of Gloucester... 

There was a riot there. The local officers In the almost incredibly short time of 

refused to assist in quelling it. The shops forty-two days, he, in jail, composed an 

were shut. Bedford was occupied by answer consisting of 118 pages of small 

soldiers. Yet at this very time, Bunyan quarto, closely printed... Of some of Mr 



34 8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

From the circumstances of the condemnation and captivity of Igna 
tius, we turn next in order to his route . 

And here the geographical notices deserve our first consideration. 
By a careful examination and comparison of these notices we discover 
that he did not, as might have been expected, go by sea to Smyrna 
from Seleucia the port-town of Antioch, but that he traversed a great 
part of Asia Minor. They indicate also that having arrived at 
the valley of the Lycus a tributary of the Maeander, he did not con 
tinue along the valley of the Maeander, in which case he would have 
passed in succession through Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus on his 
way to Smyrna, but took the northward branch of the road leading 
to the valleys of the Cogamus and Hermus, and thus he would pass 
through Philadelphia and Sardis before reaching his goal. I have already 
referred to the exegetical and historical bearings of this fact (see 
above i. pp. 2, 33 sq., and below, n. pp. 2, 211, 241, 251, 262, 267), 
and I wish now to call attention to its evidential value. 

The point to be observed is, that though this route which has been 
sketched out, when once apprehended, commends itself, for it explains 
all notices and allusions in these epistles ; yet the fact does not lie on 
the surface so as to be obvious. So far is this from being the case, that 
the author of the Antiochene Acts altogether overlooks the bearing of 
these geographical references, and sends Ignatius by sea from Seleucia 
to Smyrna (Mart. Ign. Ant. 3 ; see esp. n. pp. 383, 480 sq.), though 
he seems certainly to have been acquainted with the epistles. The same 
view of his journey was taken also by Ussher and Pearson and the great 
majority of critics even the ablest until quite recent times, notwithstand 
ing that Eusebius had represented the matter correctly (H. E. iii. 36 T^V Si 
Acrtas avaKo/AiSifv). Only when the spuriousness of the Antiochene Acts 
came to be generally acknowledged, was the journey by land recog- 

Fowler s sentiments he says, "Here are fiance permitted to Bunyan ? 
pure dictates of a brutish, beastly man, 1 The most original and valuable part 

that neither knows himself nor one tittle of Zahn s important work Ignatius von 

of the Word of God"... "I know none Antiochien relates to this point (p. 250 

so wedded thereto as yourselves, even the sq.) ; but so far as I have observed, it has 

whole gang of your rabbling counterfeit been entirely ignored by the opponents 

clergy ; who generally, like the ape you of the genuineness of these Ignatian 

speak of, lie blowing up the applause and letters. Zahn indeed treats the subject 

glory of your trumpery," etc. Offer s chiefly on the negative side, as answering 

Works of John Bunyan p. Ixxx sq. objections ; but it has also the highest 

Is there anything half so incredible in the positive value, as exhibiting a mass of 

attitude and treatment of Ignatius, as imdesigned coincidences which cannot fail 

this liberty of action and license of de- to influence opinion when duly weighed. 



THE GENUINENESS. 349 

nized as the route indicated in the epistles. The fact is gathered from a 
comparison of passages scattered here and there in the letters. Thus in 
Rom. 5, writing from Smyrna, Ignatius speaks of himself as fighting 
with wild beasts , for so he describes the harsh treatment of his guards, 
by land and sea. This expression however would not be decisive 
in itself. If he had come to Smyrna by sea, the mention of the land 
must be prospective ; if on the other hand he had come by land, the 
mention of the sea must be prospective, unless indeed we suppose him 
already to have crossed the water from Seleucia to some Cilician or 
Pamphylian port (see n. p. 211). But a later passage in the same 
epistle (Rom. 9) is more explicit. He speaks of the churches which 
received him, not as a mere passer-by (ou^ ws TrapoScuovru), and adds 
that even those which did not lie on his route (at p.rj irpoo-rjKovo-ai pot 
777 o Sw rrj Kara (rdpKa) went before him from city to city (Kara TTO\LV /xe 
Trporjyov). No natural interpretation can be put on these words which 
is consistent with the continuous voyage from Seleucia to Smyrna. 
The tricks of exegesis to which even the ablest critics have resorted to 
reconcile them with the assumed sea route will be seen in the notes on 
the passage (n. pp. 231, 232). 

But it is not here that the most subtle coincidences are to be sought. 
The main fact of the land journey might have been inferred by a 
careful reader, as it was inferred by Eusebius, notwithstanding the 
expression land and sea , which might put him on the wrong scent. 
It is when we come to trace the particular overland route which he 
took, that the undesigned coincidences reveal themselves. Not a word 
is said directly about this route or about the places which he visited 
on the way. But we infer from his language that he had not visited 
Ephesus or Magnesia or Tralles; for he speaks only of seeing the 
Christian brotherhoods of these towns in or through their several repre 
sentatives (Ephes. i, 2, Magn. 2, 6, Trail, i). Nor is there in his letters 
to these churches any allusion implying his personal presence among 
them. On the other hand the letter to the Philadelphians contains 
notices which imply that he had visited their city. The most explicit of 
these is in 7 ; I cried out when I was present, I spoke with a loud 
voice, etc. (tKpavyao-a /MCTa^i) wv, IXdXovv p.eya.Xr) &lt;f&gt;wvfj K.T.A.). But even 
this language is not quite clear, as the words ftera^O &lt;Zv might be in 
terpreted either when I was among you or when I was among them . 
Indeed some ancient scribes and some modern editors have read the 
passage differently, /xcrai) &lt;Lv ZXaXow in the midst of what I was 
saying (see the note, n. p. 267) . Again in 6 he writes, I thank 

1 Bunsen makes strange havoc of this He translates eKpavyaaa yuera i) uv, Ich 
expression (Ignatius v. Antiochien^.^i}. schricb eincn Brief, als ich unter ihnen 



350 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

my God that I bear a good conscience among you (eucrwa S^To s flfjn 
eV vfiiv), and no man can boast either in secret or openly that I was 
burdensome to any one in small things or in great. But here also his 
visit is rather implied than definitely stated. Again in i he expresses 
his admiration of the character of their bishop, of whom his language 
implies that he has personal knowledge. But as there is no mention 
elsewhere of a visit of the Philadelphian bishop, or indeed of any 
Philadelphian delegate, to Smyrna, their meeting must presumably 
have taken place, if it took place at all, at Philadelphia itself. Again 
in 8 he mentions, apparently with reference to the Philadelphian 
Christians themselves, a conflict of words which he had with certain 
heretical teachers. Again in 1 1 he speaks of Agathopus as following 
him from Syria , and in Smyrn. 10 it is stated of this same person and 
his companion Philo that they followed in his track (eTrrjKoXovO-rjadv 
fjiot). But it appears from the context that these two persons were enter 
tained on their journey at Philadelphia and at Smyrna. Thus after 
carefully weighing all the passages we are forced irresistibly to the 
conclusion that he had passed through Philadelphia on his way to 
Smyrna. Yet there is throughout no single direct statement of the fact 
so clear as to be beyond the reach of questioning. 

We gather then that he did not visit Ephesus, Magnesia, or Tralles, 
and that he did visit Philadelphia. Now the itineraries show that the 
three former places lay on one route to Smyrna, and the last-mentioned 
on another, so that if he had visited any one of the former he could 
not have visited the latter, and conversely. But this route is nowhere 
directly indicated. The notices are all allusive, and the conclusions 
inferential. 

But the congruity of the narrative does not cease here. Critics 
have been perplexed by the presence of delegates from Ephesus, from 
Magnesia, and from Tralles, at Smyrna. It has been objected that if 
sufficient time be allowed for sending messengers to all these churches, 
apprising them of the saint s arrival at Smyrna, and again for the 
journey of the respective delegacies to this last-mentioned city, we 
are obliged to postulate a lengthy sojourn at Smyrna, which under 
the circumstances is most improbable. The difficulty has arisen from 
inattention to the topographical considerations which a close examina 
tion of the epistles reveals. Now that we have ascertained the 

war, and he accordingly suggests that the very words occur ( 6), apparently 

the words which follow, ry eTTWKOTry forgetting that this letter purports to have 

irpo&lt;rtxere K.T.\., may refer to a charge been written from Troas. 
given in the Epistle to Polycarp, where 



THE GENUINENESS. 351 

saint s route, the whole matter becomes clear. At the point where 
the routes bifurcate, and where Ignatius and his guard took the 
northern road, a messenger despatched along the southern would easily 
visit the three cities Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus, in succession, 
or the message might be passed along from Tralles to Magnesia and from 
Magnesia to Ephesus ; so that by one means or another the delegates 
would be prepared, and might easily, if need required, reach Smyrna 
even before Ignatius himself, for he appears to have halted some time 
at Philadelphia, if not elsewhere also. 

Moreover the geographical position of these three cities explains 
other incidents in the narrative. We find that Ephesus sent to Smyrna 
its bishop Onesimus with four other delegates (Ephes. i, 2), and that 
Magnesia was represented by its bishop Damas and three others (Magn. 
2), while Tralles despatched only a single representative, the bishop 
Polybius (Trail, i). The number of the delegates thus decreases with 
the distance of the places from Smyrna, the order of proximity being 
Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles. These several arrangements would be 
dictated by convenience (comp. Philad. 10, Polyc. 8, for similar cases). 
But the facts are ascertained from the three several letters ; they are not 
put into juxtaposition by the author; nor is there any indication of the 
relative positions of the three places. 

The personal relations also in these epistles yield results not less 
striking than the geographical notices. It is very rarely that a forger in 
these ancient times has undertaken a fiction of such magnitude and 
variety without falling into the most violent anachronisms and contra 
dictions. Not only is there nothing of this kind in our Ignatian 
letters, but all the incidental and allusive notices agree in a striking 
way ; and, so far as we are able to apply this test to them, they are in 
entire harmony with the external conditions of time and place. 

The martyr has passed through Philadelphia and Sardis in the 
manner indicated, and so he arrives at Smyrna. Here he receives 
delegacies from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles ; and in recognition 
of this welcome he writes letters to these three churches. In addition 
he writes also to Rome, apprising the Roman Christians that he is on 
his way and may be expected shortly. 

Of the Ephesian delegacy five persons are mentioned by name 
(Ephes. 2), including the bishop Onesimus, who is referred to more 
than once in the letter to the Ephesians (Ephes. i, 5, 6) 1 . Of two 

1 The name Onesimus was not un- which the Christians were chiefly re- 
common in the ranks of society from cruited ; see below, II. p. 32. Daille 



352 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

others likewise, Burrhus and Crocus, he has something to say. Crocus 
is commended as having refreshed him greatly. Accordingly, writing 
to the Romans from Smyrna, he especially mentions among the 
Ephesians who were with him, and whom he used as his amanuenses, 
Crocus that name beloved by me. Probably he was dictating to 
Crocus at the time when these words were penned. Of Burrhus, whom 
he styles his fellow-servant and a deacon, he expresses the hope that he 
may remain (CU^O/AOU Trapa/xetvai avroV) to the honour of the Ephesians 
and their bishop. This expression is so incidental and allusive that we 
hardly see the force of it. But turning to two epistles written from 
Troas (Philad. IT., Smyrn. 12), we learn that Burrhus had continued in 
his company and journeyed with him from Smyrna to Troas. He is 
the amanuensis of the letters to the Philadelphians and Smyrngeans ; 
and from the notices in these we find that he had been commissioned 
to accompany the saint to Troas, not only by the Ephesians to whom 
he belonged, but also by the Smyrnseans among whom he had stayed. 
Thus the desire of Ignatius had been fulfilled. There is no indication 
that any other Ephesian was in his company at Troas. Indeed his 
silence suggests the contrary. 

But the mention of Burrhus points to another coincidence of a 
different kind. In the apocryphal Acts of S. John which bear the 
name of Leucius, the Apostle is represented as ordaining one Byrrhus 
or Burrhus deacon, and this same person takes a prominent part in the 
last scene of the Apostle s life (Zahn Ada Joannis pp. 226, 244 sq. ; 
see below, n. p. 34). There is no indication whatever that either the 
writer of these Acts had seen the Ignatian Epistles or the writer of the 
Ignatian Epistles these Acts (see Zahn /. c. p. clii sq.); so that these 
Acts must be regarded as independent traditional testimony (of whatever 
value) to the existence of a person bearing this name and holding the 
office of deacon in the Church of Ephesus at this time. 

The Magnesian delegacy consisted of four persons, whose names 
are given. Of these the bishop Damas bears a name not uncommon 
in these parts, while the names of the presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, 
occur more than once in inscriptions and coins, as borne by Magnesians 
(see n. pp. no, in). The deacon Zotion calls for no special remark. 

Among the persons whom Ignatius met at Smyrna, and whom he 
salutes in letters subsequently written thither, is one Alee (Smyrn. 13, 

(p. 316) assumes that the Onesimus of the Onesimus of Melito, whose existence 

Ignatius is the Onesimus of S. Paul, and shows the frequency of the name and 

accordingly finds an anachronism in these therefore the futility of his argument 

epistles. He seems to have overlooked respecting the Ignatian Onesimus. 



THE GENUINENESS. 353 

Polyc. 8). In both passages he speaks of her as that name beloved by 
me (TO TToOrjrov p.oi OVO/JLO). The name Alee, though rare, is especially 
connected with Smyrna in an inscription, as I have pointed out (n. 
p. 325). But this is not the main coincidence. In the account of the 
martyrdom of Polycarp which took place at Smyrna some forty or 
fifty years after the assumed date of these Ignatian letters, Nicetes 
the father of the magistrate Herodes is mentioned quite incidentally as 
the brother of Alee (Mart. Polyc. 1 7 roV TOU HpcoSov Trarepa, aScA&lt;/&gt;oV 
Se AX/cT;;). Both Herodes and Nicetes are hostile to the Christians. 
Herodes is the magistrate who condemns Polycarp to death ; Nicetes 
takes part in his apprehension ( 8) and interposes, as related in this 
very passage where his sister s name is mentioned ( 17), to prevent his 
body being given up to the Christians. Yet Alee herself must have 
been a Christian and well known as such. Otherwise she would not 
have been mentioned thus incidentally in a letter addressed to the 
somewhat distant Church of the Philomelians. We have therefore 
in this Smyrnsean family a household divided against itself, in accord 
ance with the evangelic prediction (Matt. x. 21, 35, Luke xxi. 16). 
But what forger would have invented such a position? or having 
invented it, would have left his readers to infer it from a vague and 
casual notice like this ? Even Pearson, trusting his memory, can say 
carelessly of Nicetes that, as Alce s brother, he intercesserat pro 
Polycarpo (see n. p. 325) this being the obvious attitude of a 
brother of Alee towards the martyr, prior to any evidence. The notice 
therefore has the highest value as a testimony to the authenticity of 
the account of Polycarp s martyrdom. But my object here is simply 
to call attention to the fact, as showing that there was an Alee well 
known as a Christian in Smyrna in the sub-apostolic ages. Moreover 
the dates altogether agree. The Alee mentioned in the account of 
Polycarp s martyrdom (A.D. 155 or 156), if still living, was probably 
then in advanced age; for her brother Nicetes had a. son influential 
enough to be the chief magistrate of Smyrna and therefore probably in 
middle life at this time. Such a person might well have been known 
to Ignatius forty or fifty years before as a zealous Christian. 

Among others whom Ignatius salutes at Smyrna is the wife, or 
more probably the widow, of Epitropus with her whole household and 
those of her children (Polyc. 8 rrjv TOU ETTITPOTTOU o-vv oAo&gt; TO&gt; OIKU&gt; avrfjs 
Kal TOJV reKvwv). As I have pointed out in the note on the passage (n. 
p. 359), we should not improbably treat TOV 7rn-po7rou as the name of an 
office ; and, if so, we have here again a coincidence, for the inscriptions 
more than once speak of such a steward (eTriVpoTros) in connexion 

IG. I. 23 



354 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

with Smyrna. Moreover the expression itself suggests relations which 
a forger was not likely to invent. Salutations are sent not only to her 
own household but to those of her children also. The whole sentence 
points to some widow, who had children married and with families of 
their own. The person so designated here is not improbably the same 
who is mentioned in the companion Epistle to the Smyrnasans, where 
Ignatius salutes the household of Gavia (Smyrn. 13). 

A third Smyrnnean to whom a salutation is sent (Polyc. S), Attains, 
bears a name common in Smyrnasan inscriptions (see n. p. 359). Of 
a fourth, Daphnus (Smyrn. 13), we can only say that, not being a 
very common name, it appears in at least one inscription (Bullett. dell 
Istit. Archeol. 1867, p. 48, DAPNVS ASIATICVS, quoted in Devit Lexic. 
Forcell. Onomast. s. v. Daphnus) as borne by a native of proconsular 
Asia. 

From Smyrna the martyr is represented in these epistles as going to 
Troas. From Troas three letters purport to have been written to the 
Philadelphians, to the Smyrnoeans, and to Polycarp. The situation of 
affairs at Antioch has entirely changed meanwhile. Whereas in the 
letters from Smyrna he exhorts his correspondents to pray for the Church 
of Antioch, which is left desolate by his departure (Ephes. 21, Magn. 14, 
Trail. 13, Rom. 9), in those sent from Troas he desires that letters and 
delegates may be sent to congratulate this church on the restoration of 
peace, apparently by the cessation of persecution (Philad. 10, Smyrn. 
n, Polyc. 7), and he speaks of this altered state of things as an answer 
to the prayers of the Philadelphians and Smyrnasans. But how did he 
learn that peace had been restored to the Church of Antioch ? In one 
place he says that it had been announced (aTv^yyc X^) to him (Philad. 
10); in another that it had been shown (&r)\&lt;o6r)) to him (Polyc. 7). 
The meaning of these expressions is so far from obvious that some 
Ignatian critics have supposed a miraculous revelation to be implied 
in them (Bunsen Die drei aechten etc. p. 73, Denzinger Ucber die 
Atchtheit etc. p. 45; comp. Cureton C. I. p. 312) defenders of the 
genuineness resorting to this expedient in order to account for his 
possession of this knowledge, and impugners on the other hand con 
demning the letters on the very ground that recourse is had to super 
natural interposition. The true explanation however is found in the 
letters themselves. From these we learn that two deacons, Philo from 
Cilicia and Rhaius Agathopus from Syria, had followed in his wake. 
They evidently took the same route with him, as already mentioned 
(p. 351). Thus we find that they were entertained first at Philadelphia 
(Philad. n) and then at Smyrna (Smyrn. 10, 13). As he had already 



THE GENUINENESS. 355 

left Smyrna when they arrived there, they followed him to Troas, where 
they caught him up. But the inference is built on scattered notices 
pieced together. The facts relating to their journey are gathered from 
different epistles ; and they are not placed in any connexion with the 
tidings respecting the restoration of peace at Antioch. As we have 
seen, many intelligent Ignatian critics have failed to see this connexion. 
Yet, when once pointed out, it is the obvious and natural account of 
the receipt of these tidings. But again ; the movements of these two 
persons involve another coincidence. We have seen that the saint 
himself had a conflict with certain false teachers at Philadelphia (see 
above, p. 350 sq.). It appears also that, though Philo and Agathopus 
were kindly received by the Philadelphians generally, yet certain persons 
treated them contumeliously (aVi/MatravTes). The party which showed 
its hostility to Ignatius himself was not likely to entertain any cordial 
feelings towards his followers. Of the coincidence in the name of 
Agathopus with the surroundings of Ignatius, as they appear in other 
passages, I shall have occasion to speak elsewhere (see below p. 375, 
and ii p. 280 sq.). 

But the injunctions respecting the delegates whom the martyr 
desires to be sent to Syria suggest another coincidence also. This 
desire is expressed to the Smyrnaeans, both in the epistle addressed to 
the Smyrnaean Church as a body and in the epistle addressed to their 
bishop Polycarp specially, though obviously intended to be read to the 
church at large, as it appeals in the latter part ( 6, 7, 8) to the 
Smyrnsean Christians generally and reminds them of their duty to 
their bishop and to one another. What is the relation of the injunctions 
regarding these delegates in the two epistles respectively ? 

At first sight they seem to be mere duplicates ; but this superficial 
view is soon corrected. The injunction in the Epistle to Polycarp 
presupposes the injunction in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. In the 
Epistle to the Smyrnseans the object in sending a delegate is distinctly 
stated (Smyrn. n (ruyxP V val cwrois K.T.A.), but nothing is said about 
the qualifications of the person to be sent. In the Epistle to Polycarp 
on the other hand the object of the mission is mentioned in such vague 
terms (Polyc. 7 &lt;W...Soacri7 v^v T-rjv U.OKVOV dydinqv) as would have 
been quite unintelligible, if nothing had gone before ; whereas great 
stress is laid on the character necessary in the person to be chosen as 
delegate. The comparison of the two tnerefore suggests the priority of 
the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. How does this agree with the more 
direct notices of time in the two epistles ? Here again there is entire 
harmony. The Epistle to Polycarp is represented as written on the eve 

23 2 



356 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

of his hurried departure from Troas ( 8). On the other hand in the 
case of the Smyrnaean letter, likewise written from Troas, there is no 
indication that his sojourn there was drawing to a close. Again, in the 
Smyrnsean letter there is mention of the Ephesian Burrhus as still 
remaining with him and acting as his amanuensis (Smyrn. 12). In the 
letter to Polycarp there is no such mention. Burrhus seems to have 
left him meanwhile 1 . 

We have hitherto been concerned mainly with his relations to the 
churches on his route ; but something must now be said about the 
church of his destination. The Roman Church occupies an exceptional 
position among the communities addressed in the Ignatian Epistles; 
and the notices in the Roman letter therefore demand special attention. 
It will be seen hereafter (p. 383 sq.) how the absence of any appeal to 
episcopal authority in this letter, and in this alone, harmonizes with 
the conditions of the Roman Church as indicated by other nearly 
contemporary documents. But this is not the only coincidence with 
external history. It is clear, as I have stated elsewhere (p. 32), that Igna 
tius is here represented as a condemned man, sent to Rome, not like 
S. Paul, to be tried on appeal, but to be executed as a criminal 2 . It is 
equally plain that he is apprehensive lest the interference of the Roman 
Christians should procure a mitigation or a reversal of his sentence, so 
that he will be robbed of the crown of martyrdom. How was this 
possible ? Who were these powerful friends who might be expected to 
rescue him from his fate ? Twenty years earlier, or twenty years later, 
than the assumed date of Ignatius, it is not probable that any persons 
possessing sufficient influence would have been found in the Roman 
Church. At least we have no evidence of their existence at either 
date. But just at this moment Christianity occupied a position of 
exceptional influence at Rome. During the last years of Domitian s 
reign the new religion had effected a lodgment in the imperial family 
itself. The emperor s cousin-german Flavius Clemens is stated to 
have been converted to the Gospel ; the same also is recorded of his 
wife Flavia Domitilla who, besides her relationship by marriage, was 

1 See Zahn, /. v. A. p. 282. /caraKptros, but 5oOXos, is illustrated by 

2 Kraus (77ieolog. Quartalschr. 1873, Digest, xlviii. 19. 29 Qui ultimo sup- 
p. 131) attempts to controvert the correct plicio damnantur, statim et civitatem et 
view maintained by Uhlhorn, that Igna libertatem pcrdunt ; itaque praeoccupat 
tius was sent to Rome for punishment as hie casus mortem et nonnunquam longum 
a condemned criminal. He is fully an- tempus occupat, quod accidit in pcrsoni\ 
swered by Wieseler Christ enverfolgungen eorum qui ad bestias damnantur (quoted 
p. I2osq. The language of Ignatius in by Wieseler p. 133). 

Rom. 4, where he calls himself not only 



THE GENUINENESS. 357 

herself also own niece of Domitian 1 . The evidence of the catacombs in 
the Coemeterium Domitillae suggests that other members of the imperial 
family likewise became Christians. These facts betoken a more or less 
widely spread movement among the upper classes in the direction of 
Christianity. In his last year Domitian stretched out his hand to 
vex the Church. Flavius Clemens was executed; others, including 
Domitilla, suffered banishment for their faith. Further persecutions 
were prevented by his death. On the accession of Nerva (A. D. 96) 
the victims of Domitian s cruelty were restored and their penalties 
remitted. Nerva himself only reigned sixteen months, and was suc 
ceeded by Trajan (A. D. 98). Thus in the early years of Trajan s reign 
there was a certain number of Christians moving in the highest circles 
of society at Rome ; and, if they chose to bestir themselves, it would 
not be a very difficult matter to rescue one poor victim from the tortures 
of the arena. We do not again hear of Christians in such high places 
till the reign of Commodus (A. D. 180 192), when the influence of 
Marcia with the emperor was exerted to alleviate the sufferings of 
certain Christian confessors (Hippol. Haer. ix. 12). 

But this is not the only point. There are also incidental allusions 
to the previous history of the Roman Church, which deserve notice. 
When our author writes I do not command you like Peter and Paul 
( 4), the words become full of meaning, if we suppose him to be 
alluding to personal relations of the two Apostles with the Roman 
Church. In fact the back-ground of this language is the recognition 
of the visit of S. Peter as well as S. Paul to Rome, which is persistently 
maintained in early tradition ; and thus it is a parallel to the joint 
mention of the two Apostles in Clement of Rome ( 5), as the chief 
examples among the worthies of his time. The point to be observed 
however is not that the writer believed in the personal connexion of 
S. Peter and S. Paul with the Roman Church (this he might do, whether 
a genuine writer or not), but that in a perfectly natural way this belief 
is made the basis of an appeal, being indirectly assumed but not 
definitely stated. 

Again ; he writes to the Romans (3), Ye never grudged any one, 
ye instructed others; where the context shows that the grudging and 
the instruction refer to their attitude towards Christian athletes 

1 On the subject of Flavius Clemens dix p. 257 sq. This is the subject also 
and Flavia Domitilla, and generally on the of two recent articles by Hasenclever, 
spread of Christianity among persons of Christliche Proselyten der hbheren Stdnde 
rank in Rome at this time, see Philip- im ersten Jahrhundert, in Jahrb. f. Pro- 
plans p. 21 sq., Clement of Rome, Appen- test. Theol. 1882, p. 34 sq., p. 230 sq. 



358 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

striving for the crown of martyrdom. The bearing of .the passage how 
ever is at first sight obscure, and certainly does not explain itself. But 
a clear light is thrown upon it by the Epistle of Clement, written in the 
name of the Roman Church, which appears to have been in the writer s 
mind when he speaks of the Romans as instructors of others. More 
will be found on this subject in the note on the passage (n. p. 203). 

Again ; the writer evidently assumes throughout that the Roman 
Christians are aware of his present condition, and might already be 
taking steps to obtain his pardon, or at least to procure a mitigation of 
his sentence. How is this to be explained? Quite incidentally, and 
therefore quite artlessly, at the close of the letter he mentions certain 
persons who had gone before him from Syria to Rome ( 10), and 
he sends a message to them. These persons then were the bearers of 
the news of his condemnation and journey to Rome. Thus there is an 
undesigned harmony between the general substance and the particular 
notices in the letter. 

Lastly ; the Epistle to the Romans alone of all the letters is dated ; 
and appropriately enough the Latin mode of dating is adopted, the pth 
before the Kalends of September ( 10), i.e. August 24. Appropriate 
in itself, this date also agrees well with the day of Ignatius martyrdom, 
as given by the earliest tradition, October 17 (see n. p. 416 sq.). This 
interval of 54 days would be long enough, and yet not too long, for the 
incidents which must find a place in it. The Epistle to the Romans 
was written from Smyrna, and presumably towards the close of the 
martyr s sojourn there. From Smyrna he proceeds to Troas. Three 
or four days would be a fair allowance for the voyage from Smyrna to 
Troas. If he travelled by land, it would occupy a somewhat longer time. 
It is not probable that he stayed many days at Troas. He himself 
tells us that his departure was hurried, so that he was unable to write 
certain letters as he had intended (Polyc. 8). What the cause of this 
hastened departure may have been, we can only conjecture. Not im 
probably his guards now found that, if they were to arrive in Rome in 
time for the festival at which their prisoners were destined to fight with 
wild beasts, they must avoid all unnecessary delays. From Troas they 
sailed to Neapolis (Polyc. 8). The voyage between these two places 
took S. Paul the best part of two days with a good wind (Acts xvi. n), 
but under less favourable circumstances it occupied five days (Acts 
xx. 6). The distance from Neapolis to Philippi is ten or twelve miles. 
Here there appears to have been a short halt (Polyc. Phil, i, 9, 13) 
before setting out for Rome. Elsewhere (Philippians p. 38) data are 
given from which it appears that the journey from Philippi to Rome 



THE GENUINENESS. 359 

would occupy somewhere about a month, if there was no unnecessary 
halting and no inconvenient hurrying. In this case however the soldiers 
would probably have commissions to discharge on the way, which 
might occupy a little time. Thus the interval of between seven and 
eight weeks would be exhausted and not more than exhausted. On 
what authority this earliest tradition of the martyr s day, as October 17, 
may rest we cannot say ; but not improbably it is authentic. In 
October A. D. 97 Trajan was adopted by Nerva, was nominated Caesar, 
was proclaimed imperator, and was associated in the tribunician power 
(see below n. p. 397). The exact day is not known; for we are only 
told that all this happened three months before Nerva s death, which 
took place on Jan. 25 or Jan. 27, A. D. 98 (see n. p. 473). May we 
not conjecture that the festival, at which Ignatius perished, was the 
anniversary of this elevation of Trajan ? Inscriptions yet undiscovered 
may perhaps throw some light upon this point. 



(ii) Theological Polemics. 

A highly valuable test of date will be found in the theological 
polemics of the author of these epistles. The personal theology of a 
writer is a very vague and uncertain criterion of date ; but his polemics, 
being connected with his historical surroundings, afford a more solid 
basis for an inference. The test will be two-fold, positive and negative. 
We shall have to consider alike what the author says and what he leaves 
unsaid. In the present case, as we shall see presently, the writer s silence 
is not less eloquent than his speech. 

(i) The positive side of the investigation yields results of real 
importance. The author has before him a particular heresy or heresies 
which he attacks relentlessly from all sides. Anticipating the issue, we 
may say that the heresy is one, and that it is a type of Gnostic Judaism, 
the Gnostic element manifesting itself in a sharp form of Docetism. 

(a) This Gnostic or Docetic element is the chief object of attack, 
and gives their predominant doctrinal colouring to these epistles. The 
Docetism which is here assailed was thorough-going. For the man 
Christ Jesus it substituted a mere phantom. The human descent, the 
human birth, the baptism, the trial, the judgment, the crucifixion, the 
passion, the resurrection, all alike were unreal, were phantasmal. Hence 
our author s emphatic repetition of the word truly (dX.rjOw?) ; He was 
truly born , He truly died , He truly ate and drank , and the like 
(Trail. 9, Smyrn. i, 2, 3, Magn. u). More especially he points to the 



360 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

fact that Christ Himself after the resurrection invited the disciples to feel 
and handle Him, so as to convince them that He was not an unsubstan 
tial ghost (Smyrn. 3). These persons therefore denied the flesh and 
blood of Christ ; they evacuated the passion ; they found a stumbling- 
block in the cross (Ephes. 18, Magn. 9, Philad. 3, Smyrn. i, 5, 6). 
The true believers are they who accept the reality of Christ s humanity, 
who take refuge in His flesh, who rejoice in His passion, who are nailed 
to His cross (Ephes. inscr. lv iraOti dXrjOwi!), Magn. n, Trail. 2, 8, 
Philad. inscr., 5, Smyrn. i). Even impalpable, spiritual beings, like 
the angels, cannot be saved unless they believe in Christ s blood 
(Smyrn. 6). If Christ is mere semblance (TO 8oKf.lv), then everything is 
semblance ; the martyr s own sufferings are semblance ; they themselves, 
the heretics, are semblance (Trail. 10, Smyrn. 2, 4). Whosoever denies 
Christ s flesh, denies Him altogether. Such persons are corpse-bearers. 
Having no belief in the passion, they have no part in the resurrection 
(Smyrn. 5). Hence the stress laid elsewhere on Christ s humanity, even 
when there seems to be no obvious reason for such stress (see the notes 
on Ephes. 18, 20, Rom. 7, Smyrn. 4). 

(ft) On the other hand he denounces in hardly less severe language 
Judaizing tendencies in the false teachers. He bids his readers put away 
the old and sour leaven. He declares that it is inconsistent (O.TOTTOV) to 
profess Jesus Christ and to live as Jews (Magn. 10). He warns them 
(herein treading in the footsteps of S. Paul) that if they so live they 
forfeit all claims to grace (Magn. 8). He points out that even men who 
are brought up in Judaism (meaning doubtless the Apostles and early 
disciples) had discarded the Jewish sabbath and adopted in its stead 
the freedom, the spirituality, the hopes and associations, of the Lord s 
day. Nay, the very prophets themselves looked forward to Christ ; and 
so, when He came, He raised them from Hades. It would therefore be 
a retrogression and a reversal of the true order, if they who had not 
been so brought up were to submit to the slavery of the law (Magn. 9). 
Elsewhere again, he forbids his readers to listen to those who propound 
Judaism . It is better, he adds, to listen to Christianity from one 
circumcised than to Judaism from one uncircumcised (Philad. 6). He 
describes his conflict with those who refused to accept in the Gospel 
anything which they did not find in the ancient Scriptures. He declares 
the superiority of the High-priest of the New Covenant over the priests 
of the Old. He asserts that Jesus Christ is the door of the Father, 
through whom patriarchs and prophets, not less than apostles, enter in. 
The Gospel, he concludes, is the completion of immortality (Philad. 
8,9). 



THE^SE&UINENESS. 361 

Is our author then denouncing two distinct heresies, a Judaic or 
Ebionite, and a Gnostic or Docetic, in these respective passages ? Or 
is he concerned only with a single though complex form of false doc 
trine ? A careful examination of the main passages will enable us to 
answer this question decisively. Though in the Trallian and Smyrnaean 
letters he deals chiefly with Docetism, while in the Magnesian and 
Philadelphian letters he seems to be attacking Judaism (see n. p. 173), 
yet a nearer examination shows the two to be so closely interwoven 
that they can only be regarded as different sides of one and the same 
heresy. 

In the first place, it is a significant fact that our author uses the 
same general terms when speaking of the one and of the other. Of the 
Judaism and the Docetism alike he says that they are not the planting 
of the Father (Trail, u, Philad. 3); both alike are rank and noxious 
weeds which his readers must avoid (Trail. 6, Philad. 3). The teachers 
of the one and of the other are described as speaking apart from, 
speaking otherwise than of, Jesus Christ (Trail. 9, Philad. 6); both 
alike are warned to repent unto unity , to repent unto God (Philad. 
8, Smyrn. 9). The Judaism and the Docetism equally are called 
heterodoxy (Magn. 8, Smyrn. 6). In both cases equally he bids his 
readers Be not deceived (Magn. 8, Smyrn. 6, Philad. 3 ; comp. 
Ephcs. 1 6) ; he charges them to flee division (Philad. 2, 7, Smyrn. 8) ; 
and he tells them in identical language that he does not speak because 
he accuses them of complicity in these errors (Magn. u, Trail. 8), 
but because he wishes to forewarn them (Magn. n, Trail. 8, Smyrn. 
4). And generally it may be said that there is no perceptible difference 
in his language when describing the position of the false-teachers in the 
two cases with regard to the true believer and to the Church. These 
facts furnish a strong presumption that he is describing the same thing 
in the two sets of passages. 

And this presumption becomes a certainty when we examine more 
closely the passages in which Judaism is directly attacked. 

In the passage in the letter to the Magnesians ( 8, 9, 10) the 
author begins by warning his readers not to be led astray by hete 
rodoxies nor by antiquated fables (/j.v6ev/ji.a&lt;riv rots TraXaiois) which are 
unprofitable ; for , he continues, if to the present hour (/xe xpt 
vvv) we live in the observance of Judaic rites (/cara IovSaioy*oV), we 
confess that we have not received grace, i. e. that the merits of Christ s 
death do not appertain to us, for we have chosen another way of 
working out our salvation. By the expression antiquated fables or 
myths we are reminded of the language in the Pastoral Epistles ; 






362 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

endless fables (/X.U&HS) and genealogies (i Tim. i. 4), profane and 
old wives fables (i Tim. iv. 7), turning aside to fables (2 Tim. iv. 4), 
Judaic fables and commandments of men that turn away from the 
truth (Tit. i. 1 4). Thus a closely allied form of Gnostic Judaism is 
suggested, which taught by myths or fables the main subject of these 
myths being (as in the later systems of Valentinus and others) the 
genealogy of angelic beings or emanations, which were intended to 
bridge over the chasm between God and the World. Accordingly our 
author goes on to convict these false teachers by the prophets whose 
authority they themselves would accept. These very prophets antici 
pated the dispensation of redemption and grace, and for this they 
suffered persecution. They were inspired with this foreknowledge to 
the end that unbelievers in these days might be convinced that there is 
one God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, His 
Word who issued forth from Silence and fulfilled His Father s good- 
pleasure in all things. Thus here, as in the Epistle to the Colossians 
(i. 15 sq., ii. 8 sq.), and again in the Pastoral Letters of S. Paul (i Tim. 
ii. 5), the true doctrine of the Logos Incarnate, as the one only link be 
tween the Creator and the creature, the one only Mediator between God 
and man, is tacitly contrasted with these many mediators whom the 
angelologies and emanation-theories of these false teachers interposed 
to span the gulf between the finite and the Infinite. Our author next 
adverts to the fact that persons brought up in the practices of the law 
had abandoned the observance of the sabbaths, and that even the 
prophets had looked forward to Christ as their teacher. Incidentally 
he mentions that Christ s death was denied by certain persons, obviously 
meaning these Docetic teachers, as his language elsewhere clearly shows. 
Then, after further charging his readers to put away the old and sour 
leaven, and denouncing the inconsistency of Judaizing practices, he goes 
on to inform them that he does not say these things, because he supposes 
them to have gone astray in this way; but he wishes to forewarn them 
against the snares of false opinion. They must be fully convinced of the 
birth and passion and resurrection of Christ, for these things truly and 
certainly came to pass. Clearly therefore the false teachers, who 
inculcated Judaism, inculcated Docetism likewise. Thus, though he 
speaks only of one heresy, yet, having begun by denouncing Judaizing 
practices, he ends by denouncing Docetic opinions. There is no 
escape from this conclusion. The one cannot be disentangled from the 
other without the whole falling to pieces. They are web and woof of 
the same fabric 1 . 

1 See also the notes on the passage, II. p. 124 sq. 



THE GENUINENESS. 363 

In the other letter which deals directly with Judaism, the Epistle 
to the Philadelphians, the inference is the same. In the opening he 
congratulates his readers, because they rejoice in the passion and 
resurrection of Christ without wavering, being fully convinced of it. 
He urges them to be united with their bishop and presbyters. Then, 
after eulogising their bishop ( i), he warns them to avoid division and 
false doctrine, and to abstain from baneful weeds not that he accuses 
them of heresy, for hitherto they have kept themselves clear. They 
must preserve the unity of the Church. The follower of heretical 
teachers has no part in the passion ( 2, 3). Therefore let them all 
partake of one eucharist, as there is one flesh of Christ ( 4). For 
himself, he takes refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of Christ and in the 
Apostles as the presbytery of the Church, though at the same time he 
loves the prophets who believed on Christ by faith and so have been 
saved ( 5). But if/ he continues, any one propound Judaism to 
you, listen not to him. Then after denouncing Judaism and condemn 
ing the arts of the false-teachers as a breach of unity, he goes on to 
describe a conflict which he had with these people at Philadelphia. 
They had appealed to the archives, that is, the Old Testament 
writings ; and, when he adduced these scriptures on his own side, they 
questioned the interpretation. For himself, he says, his archives are 
the cross, the death, the resurrection, of Christ. The priests of the 
old dispensation are good; but the High-priest of the new is better. 
The Gospel has this pre-eminence the advent, the passion, the resur 
rection of Christ 1 . 

Here the stress laid on the flesh of Christ, on the cross and passion 
of Christ which again and again break in upon his denunciations of 
the Judaizing teachers coupled with the opening congratulation to the 
Philadelphians on their firm conviction on these points, shows that the 
false teachers, whom he is denouncing, impugned the reality of these 
facts. In other words their Judaism was Docetic or Gnostic*. 

1 See also the notes on the passage, n. p. 356 sq.). All these writers are agreed 
p. 256 sq. in regarding the heresy attacked in the 

2 The Judao-Gnostic character of this Ignatian letters as one. On the other 
heresy was discerned by Bull, who how- hand Hilgenfeld (Apost. Vater p. 231 
ever wrongly connected it with Cerinthi- sq., Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 112 
anism (see below p. 372, note 4). Among sq., 1874) supposes that the Judaism is a 
the more important investigations of this distinct heresy from the Docetism, thus 
question in recent times are those of treating the Ignatian letters in the same 
Uhlhorn (Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol. 1851, way in which he treats S. Paul s Epistle 
p. 283 sq.), Lipsius (Ueber die Aechtheit to the Colossians. Zahn s investigation of 
etc. p. 31 sq.), and Zahn (7. v. A. the Docetic element is the best. 



364 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

In the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 8 23) we have a description 
of certain heretical teachers. There is both a Judaic and a Gnostic 
side to their teaching the distinction of meats and the observance of 
days on the one hand, the philosophy, the angelolatry, and the asceti 
cism on the other. Critics have attempted by violent and arbitrary 
dealing to separate the one element from the other, and thus have 
found two distinct heresies in this one passage. But the sequence of 
thought and language is decisive against such treatment . This epistle 
probably belongs to the year 63 or 64. 

In the Pastoral Epistles again we have another type of Judaeo- 
Gnostic heresy, somewhat more advanced than the last. The false 
teaching there is described as gnosis (or knowledge) falsely so called 
(i Tim. vi. 20). It is a logomachy, it is disputatious, it is empty 
talking (i Tim. i. 6, vi. 4, 20, 2 Tim. ii. 14, 16, 23, Tit. i. 10). It deals 
in myths and genealogies (i Tim. i. 4, Tit. i. 14, iii. 9). It inculcates 
asceticism (i Tim. iv. 3, 8, Tit. i. 15). Here is the Gnostic side. On 
the other hand it is distinctly Judaic. Its champions profess to be 
teachers of the law (i Tim. i. 7, 8). The disputes are described as 
battles over the law (Tit. iii. 9). Its myths are called Jewish 
(Tit. i. 14). Its adherents, at least a portion of them, are described 
as they of the circumcision (Tit. i. 10). Here again critics have 
been found who would split up this heresy into two, thus separating 
the two elements which the Apostle s language will not allow us to 
separate. 

Again, the same treatment is tried for a third time on the Ignatian 
letters. The necessity of this violent operation, thrice repeated, tells 
its own tale. In all three cases, if we interpret our texts naturally, we 
are confronted with forms of Judaic Gnosticism or Gnostic Judaism. 
Thus they all alike illustrate the truth, which is sufficiently confirmed 
from other quarters, that the earliest forms of Christian Gnosticism were 
Judaic. I need not stop to investigate the reason of this fact, as the 
subject has been fully discussed elsewhere 2 . 

But accepting the Judaic character of this heresy, as an indication 
of an early date, we have yet to deal with its trenchant Docetism. 
What are we to say to this startling phenomenon ? Is it at all in 
consistent with the Ignatian authorship ? 

Impressed by the materialistic tendencies of our own time, we find 
it difficult to realize the force and prevalence of the bias which in 
the earliest ages of the Gospel led to Docetism. Yet it is a historical 

1 See Colossians p. 73 sq. , where the 2 See Colossians^. 81 sq. 

question is discussed. 



THE GENUINENESS. 365 

fact that for those first generations of Christians the true humanity of 
Christ was a greater stumbling-block even than the true divinity. The 
Oriental mind in its most serious moods was prone to regard matter as 
the source of evil. Contact with matter therefore was a thing to be 
shunned. The moral and spiritual supremacy of Jesus Christ was a 
matter of history. This carried with it His claim to divinity in some 
sense or other. But it was inconceivable that such a Divine being 
should have been born as a man, should have eaten and drunk as a 
man, should have suffered and died as a man. This gross admixture 
with material things in this Divine personage was intolerable. The 
only escape from the dilemma lay in Docctism. Christ s human life 
was not real, but apparent or putative. 

This Docetic view of Christ s humanity would appeal to popular 
Judaism the Judaism of the Scribes and Pharisees only so far as it 
related to the passion. A suffering Christ was a stumbling-block in 
the way of popular Messianic conceptions. But the human birth and 
human life of the promised King of the Jews presented no difficulty 
here. Its affinities were rather with Essenism than with Pharisaism. 

Docetism manifested itself in several forms. Irenaeus in one passage 
(Haer. iii. 16. i) enumerates three types of this heresy : (i) The man 
Jesus was the mere receptacle of the Christ, who entered him at the 
baptism and left him before the crucifixion. (2) The birth and the 
death of Christ alike His whole human life from beginning to end 
were apparitional, not real. In the passage before us indeed he speaks 
only of the passion; but from other passages (iii. 18. 6, 7, iv. 33. 5, 
v. i. 2) it is clear that the Docetism of the persons here mentioned 
extended to the whole life of Christ. (3) The Valentinian doctrine, 
which conceded to Jesus Christ a body visible and capable of suffering. 
This body however was not material. It was not of the substance of 
the Virgin, but was only conveyed through her, as water through a 
channel. To these three we may add (4) another type of Docetism 
mentioned elsewhere by Irenaeus (i. 24. 4), and ascribed by him to 
Basilides. According to this view Simon the Cyrenian was crucified 
instead of Jesus. Jesus exchanged external shapes and appearances 
with Simon, and stood by the cross deriding while the crucifixion 
took place. 

We may confine our attention to the two former and purer types of 
Docetism. The remaining two, which are connected with the names 
of Basilides (c. A.D. 130) and Valentinus (c. A.D. 150) respectively, are 
modifications of Docetism properly so called and are later in point of 
date. In the view ascribed to Basilides the Docetism resolves itself 



366 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

into a trick of magic; while that of Valentinus or the Valentinians 
betrays itself to be an after-thought by its highly artificial character, as 
indeed the comparatively late epoch of Valentinus suggests. 

(1) The first of the two earlier forms is especially connected with the 
name of Cerinthus. Its characteristic is the separation of Jesus from Christ. 
Cerinthus maintained that Christ descended on Jesus in the form of a 
dove at His baptism. Jesus was truly born, truly lived the life in the 
flesh, truly died. The Docetism therefore does not affect Jesus, 
but is confined to Christ. Cerinthus flourished at the close of the 
Apostolic age. A personal conflict of S. John with this heresiarch is 
mentioned by Irenaeus. It is even thought that S. John wrote his 
Gospel as an antidote to this heresy. 

(2) The second type of Docetism is clearly the same which is 
attacked in the Ignatian letters. This type also appears on the confines 
of the Apostolic age, if not actually contemporary with the Apostles 
themselves. It is attributed to several heresiarchs by name. 

(i) SIMON MAGUS, we are told, maintained that the redeemer had 
appeared a man among men, when he was not a man, and seemed 
to have suffered in Judoea, when he had not suffered (Iren. i. 23. 3). 
He asserted moreover that he himself was this redeemer; and the 
stress laid on the unreality of the passion is accordingly explained by 
the further statement that Simon professed to have appeared as Son 
to the Jews and as Father in Samaria and as Holy Ghost to the other 
Gentiles (Iren. i. 23. i, Hippol. Hacr. vi. 19). Thus he identified him 
self with Jesus, to whom he assigned a purely Docetic humanity. 

(ii) SATURNINUS, we are informed, taught that the Saviour was 
without birth and without body and without figure, but that in semblance 
he appeared a man (Iren. i. 24. 2, Hippol. Haer. vii. 28). 

(iii) MARCION again was a pure Docetic. He too postulated a 
phantom body of Christ. With the human birth of the Saviour he did 
not concern himself at all. Mutilating the beginning of the evangelical 
narrative, he commenced his Gospel with the fifteenth year of Tiberius 
Caesar (Luke iii. i), as if Jesus had appeared suddenly from heaven a 
full-grown man. But with regard to the passion, with which he was 
obliged to deal, he was explicit (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 42). He was 
ready with an expedient to explain away the words in which the Saviour 
challenges attention to the reality of His human body after the resur 
rection ; Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as 
ye see me having (Luke xxiv. 39). Having , as he interpreted the 
passage, here signifies having only as a spirit has, that is not having. 
Quae ratio tortuositatis istius ? exclaims Tertullian (ib. c. 43). What 



THE GENUINENESS. 367 

reason was there for such tortuous language as on this showing the 
evangelist s words would be ? 

Our author however, whether Ignatius or another, cannot have 
intended any of these particular heresies ; for they do not satisfy the 
condition of being Judaic. Saturninus and Marcion are distinguished 
by their direct opposition to Judaism ; while Simonianism lies alto 
gether in another sphere. But the two earlier are sufficient evidence 
for the fact that in the age of Ignatius this strongest and purest form of 
Docetism was rife. Even if the doctrine here attributed to Simon 
belong rather to the disciples than to the master himself, it will still 
fall within our limits of time. So again Saturninus must have been a 
contemporary of Ignatius. He is represented as a pupil of Menander, 
and he is placed before Basilides in the sequence of heresiarchs. Thus 
he must have flourished about A.D. 100 120. Simon was a Samaritan, 
and Saturninus was a native of Ignatius own city Antioch. Thus the 
theological atmosphere, more especially in Syria and Palestine, was 
charged with Docetism at this time. 

But we have evidence also from another quarter. The Epistles of 
S. John are obviously directed against some strong form of Docetism. 
This heresy is distinctly attacked in the words of the First Epistle; Every 
spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, 
and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God, and this is 
the spirit of the antichrist whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and 
now it is in the world already (i Joh. iv. 3, 4). So again in the Second 
Epistle ; Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that 
confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver 
and the antichrist (2 Joh. 7). This explains the otherwise strange 
asseveration in the opening of the First Epistle; That which our hands 
handled (ei/^Aa ^o-av)... declare we unto you, with which passage we 
may compare the words already quoted (p. 366), Handle me (i/^Xa^?/- 
a-are /ue) and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones etc. (Luke xxiv. 
39). The following passages also bear on this heresy; Whosoever 
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him (iv. 15) ; 
Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God 
(v. i); This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ 
(v. 5). We may waive for the moment the question of the Apostolic 
authorship of these epistles. The First is quoted by Papias (Eus. 
H.E. iii. 39) and by Polycarp (Phil. 7). Its testimony therefore is 
sufficiently early for our purpose, whoever may have been the author. 

It may be a question however which type of Docetism the Cerin- 
tiilan or the Ignatian is here assailed. Tradition points to Cerinthus ; 



305 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

and the stress laid on the confession of Jesus as the Christ seems to 
indicate the severance which this heresiarch made between Jesus and 
Christ. If we could accept the very ancient Western reading in i Joh. 
iv. 3, Every spirit which dissolveth (o A-Jei) Jesus, for Every spirit 
which confesseth not (pr} d/x,oAoyei) Jesus, this would be decisive ; 
and, though this may not be the original reading, it perhaps represents 
an early tradition. On the other hand the stress laid on the flesh, 
and on the testimony of the water and the blood (comp. Joh. xix. 34, 
35), indicates rather the Ignatian type of Docetism ; for Cerinthus did 
not deny the reality of the body or the passion of Jesus, but only the 
participation of the Christ in this fleshly passion. When Polycarp (1. c.) 
quotes the words of i Joh. iv. 2, 3, Whosoever confesseth not that 
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist, he doubtless applies it to 
the type of Docetism which appears in the Ignatian letters, but this is 
not decisive as to its original reference, since he would naturally apply 
the words to the form with which he himself was familiar. On the 
whole it is perhaps slightly more probable that Cerinthian Docetism is 
attacked in S. John s Epistles; and if so, the evidence only holds so 
far as to show the strength of Docetic speculation generally at a very 
early age. 

From the foregoing discussion it will have appeared that the strongly 
marked type of Docetism assailed in these letters, so far from being a 
difficulty, is rather an indication of an early date \ since the tendency of 
Docetism was to mitigation, as time went on. 

(ii) The negative side of the subject remains to be considered. 
The author s direct statements have been examined ; and it is time now 
to cross-question his silence. He is obviously a polemical writer. He 
takes a keen interest in the theological and ecclesiastical questions of 
his day. Such a man has no power of deliberate, sustained self-repres 
sion. Of him it may be said, as he himself says of others (Ephes. 15), 
Si c5v o-iya yivwo-Kcrai He is revealed by his silence. If he betrays no 
interest in the controversies which agitated the Church in the middle 
and latter half of the secpnd century, it may be inferred that he felt no 
interest in them. 

Now one main controversy which troubled the Church from the 
middle of the second century onward, so as from time to time to 
threaten its disruption, was the proper day and mode of celebrating 
the Paschal festival. The main arenas of this struggle were the 
Churches of Asia and the Church of Rome the very churches 

1 This point is justly insisted upon by Zahn I. v. A. p. 399. 



THE GENUINENESS. 369 

with which Ignatius is represented as in close communication. The 
principal personage who figures in the first stage of this dispute is 
none other than Polycarp, the chief friend and correspondent of Igna 
tius. How irresistible must have been the impulse of our author to 
declare himself on this burning question. Was the festival to be kept 
always on the i4th Nisan or always on the same day of the week ? 
Was the precedent of S. John and S. Philip to be followed with the 
Churches of Asia (Euseb. H. E. v. 24), or the precedent of S. Peter 
and S. Paul with the Church of Rome ? He has much to say against 
Judaism. The Quartodecimans were taunted by their opponents with 
Judaizing. Must he not have exculpated himself, if a Quartode- 
ciman? And would he not have assailed the opposite party, if not 
a Quartodeciman ? Two centuries later the writer of the spurious 
Life of Polycarp, bearing the name of Pionius, must needs represent 
S. Paul as condemning by anticipation the practice of the Quarto 
decimans ( 2). Nay even in the latter half of the fourth century, when 
the fury of the storm was altogether spent and the question had 
been set at rest by the Council of Nicaea, the Ignatian forger of 
the Long Recension cannot altogether hold his hands off this sub 
ject (Philipp. 14). Yet here not a word, not a hint, which could be 
turned to any use on either side. Is not the natural inference that 
the writer lived before the controversy arose ? 

Again ; another controversy which concentrated upon itself the 
interest of the Church in the latter half of the second century was 
the Montanist. The theatre of this controversy was the very region 
with which these epistles are concerned. The Churches of Procon 
sular Asia and Phrygia were alive with synods and counter-synods 
discussing the question. Philadelphia more especially, with which our 
author corresponds, is mentioned in connexion with the Montanist 
disputes, as the residence of Ammia a reputed forerunner of the Mon 
tanist prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla (Anon, in Euseb. H. E. 
v. 1 7). Has our author then no interest in these disputes ? Does he 
say nothing which betokens either approval or disapproval of this 
new dispensation ? Is there not a word which betrays his opinion 
of these prophetesses? Is there no mention at all of the Paraclete, 
no reference whatever to the New Jerusalem ? How is it that we 
cannot put our finger on a single expression which decides his posi 
tion respecting the two opposing views of the prophet s inspiration ? Yet 
writing to the Philadelphians, he claims for himself that he was moved 
to speak by the Spirit ( 7). Why did he not seize with avidity the 
opportunity of declaring himself on this leading question of the day? 

IG. I. 24 



370 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

But again ; when we turn to the region of speculative theology, the 
result is the same. Three great heresiarchs tower above the rest during 
the last three quarters of the second century. If our author had written 
during that period, we should have expected to find in a man of such 
rigid and outspoken orthodoxy some reference or at least some hint 
bearing on one or other of these more flagrant forms of heresy. But 
there is nothing of the kind. 

BASILIDES flourished during the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117 138), 
but his sect maintained a somewhat vigorous life for some generations 
after. He taught indeed in Alexandria, but he seems to have been 
educated in Syria and the East. How is it that there is no allusion in 
these letters to the Non-existent Being, to the World-seed, to the 
Great Archon, to the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad, to the Threefold 
Sonship, to the Abrasax, to the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, 
to the prophets Barcabbas and Barcoph, to the Expositions , to the 
depreciation of martyrdom, to the compromise with idolatrous sacrifices, 
to any book or any tenet of Basilides and the Basilideans ? 

Again ; some years before the middle of the century MARCION 
appears on the scene. Marcion was a native of Asia Minor, and he 
taught in Rome. At Rome he came in contact with Ignatius friend 
and correspondent Polycarp, who then and there denounced him as 
the first-born of Satan (Iren. iii. 3. 4). Thus he trod the very same 
ground, as it were, with the author of these epistles. His reputation 
was world-wide for good or for evil. His adherents were found in 
most parts where Christianity had spread. For some generations later 
the Marcionites were sufficiently powerful to call forth elaborate 
polemical treatises from champions of orthodox Christianity. It must 
therefore be regarded as a significant fact, that here too our author 
betrays not the faintest sign of any knowledge of his doctrine or his 
existence. There is no allusion whatever to his trenchant dualism, 
to his antitheses , to his views of the conflict between the work of the 
Creator and the work of Christ, between the Just God and the Good 
God, between the Old Testament and the New, between the Apostles 
of the Circumcision and the Apostle of the Gentiles; none to his 
mutilated Gospel, to his tortuous exegesis, to his rigid asceticism. Yet 
this silence is not explicable on the ground that our author s polemics 
are concentrated on subjects alien to Marcion s theology. More than 
once he discusses the relations of the Old Testament to the New, of 
the prophets and patriarchs to the Gospel (Magn, 8, 9, Philad. 5, 9, 
Stnyrn. 5, 7). More than once he aims his blows at a Docetism 
identical in its main lines with the Docetism of Marcion (see above, 



THE GENUINENESS. 371 

p. 366 sq.). But in both cases the only antagonists whom he sees 
before him are Judaizers, whereas Marcion was markedly Anti-Judaic. 
Yet his theological position leaves no doubt that on such questions 
Marcion s views would have been even more intolerable to him than 
those of his Judaic antagonists. How then is this silence to be ex 
plained, except on the ground that Marcion was excluded from his 
range of vision by the impervious barrier of chronology ? 

Lastly; coeval with, and even prior to Marcion, VALENTINUS 
emerges into prominence, as a heresiarch. Though a native of Alex 
andria, he too taught at Rome (c. A.D. 140 160). Valentinus was the 
parent of many teachers and many schools of Gnostic theology. The 
Valentinian doctrine called forth refutations from all the ablest theo 
logians of the time, notably Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and 
Tertullian. It was quite the most prominent among the heretical 
systems of the early ages, which challenged the supremacy of the 
Catholic Church. It was popular alike in the East and in the 
West. It had an extensive literature of its own. Here at all events 
we might expect some side thrust, even if there were no direct blow, 
at a rank and wide spread heresy. Yet there is not a word about the 
primal Bythos the Unutterable, about the successively generated pairs 
of aeons, about the Ogdoad and the Decad and the Dodecad, about 
the sorrows and vicissitudes of Sophia Achamoth cast out of the pleroma 
and stranded in the world of shadow, about the story of creation and 
redemption, about the triple division of mankind into the spiritual, the 
psychical, and the material, about any of the fantastical myths of this 
highly imaginative system of speculative theology. 

One passage however has been alleged by impugners of the 
genuineness of these letters, as containing a direct attack on Valentinian 
doctrine and therefore betraying a gross anachronism. No student of 
the Ignatian controversy will need to be reminded of the passage 
Magn. 8 o &lt;avepojcras eavrdv Sid Irjvov Xptorou rov viov avrov, os ICTTLV 
avrov Xoyos dtSto? OVK d-rro o-iy^s irpoeXOwv, Who manifested Himself 
through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Eternal Word not having 
proceeded from Silence ; for so it is read in the common editions. 

This passage furnished assailants, such as Blondel and Daille, with 
their strongest argument. The writer, it was urged, is clearly referring 
to the Valentinian doctrine of emanations which was not propounded 
till after the death of Ignatius. Pearson, replying to this objection 
( Vind. Ign. ii, 5), laid stress on the fact that in the earliest accounts of 
the Valentinian doctrine Logos is not said to be generated immediately 
from Sige, another aeon being interposed. Bythos and Sige are there 

24 2 



37 2 



EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 



represented as begetting Nous and Aletheia, who in turn beget Logos 
and Zoe. This answer however was far from decisive. Irenseus 
(i. ii. 5) and Hippolytus (Haer. vi. 29) state that the Valentinians 
disputed among themselves about the place which Bythos and Sige 
should occupy in their system. Moreover Cyril of Jerusalem 1 and 
Didymus of Alexandria 2 report Valentinus as making Sige the imme 
diate parent of Logos ; while the Valentinian Theodotus, as quoted by 
Clement of Alexandria 3 , speaks of Sige as the mother of all the 
emanations (TWI/ TrpoftXrjOevT^v) from Bythos , probably however meaning 
nothing more than that she was the first parent of the whole race of 
aeons. Still less happy was the solution adopted by Pearson (p. 384 sq.) 
and Cotelier (adloc.) and by other more recent writers, that the passage 
is directed against the Ebionites, the procession from silence being 
thus regarded as equivalent to the denial of the pre-existence of the 
Son * ; though this solution had one slender foot-hold of truth in the 
fact that our author in the context is plainly seen to be attacking 
Judaizers. Nor was Pearson successful in his attempt to show (ii. 7) 



1 Catech. vi. 17 (p. 98, Touttee) 6 Oua- 
XeirtJ os... &lt;pi}ffiv ori o Bi/0os...e7eV 77&lt;re 
Si yiyi KCU OTTO TT)S 21777$ ^TfKvoirolfi Aoyov 
rov vap "E\\rjffi.v Ai6s euros ^tipuv rov 
r fj d8f\(prj fiiyvv/J^vov r^Kvov ydp cleat 
rov "BvOov A^yero TJ 24717. In the text 
which Pearson had before him, the words 
were read treKvoiroiei \6yov rov Trap "EX- 
\7}&lt;nv AtoV ovros xflpwv rov x.r.X., and 
he conjectured \6ytfi ad modum vel simi- 
litudinem Jovis (Vind. Ign. p. 402 sq.), 
though he mentions the reading \6yov in 
an Oxford MS. See the next note. 

2 De Trin. iii. 42 (p. 992, Migne) Oua- 
\evrlvov. . ./J.v0oi&gt; . . . dvair\affafj.tvov roiovoe, 
on 6 BuOos eyvvr)ffev ri)v 2iyrji&gt;, ex dt 
TavTrjs rexvoTronjo a/j.tvov \6yov riva. rov 
irap "EXXijo-i AIOJ K.r.\., quoted by Chur- 
ton (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 403, note), 
who remarks Quo sensu intelligendus 
sit iste Xo7os ns rov Trap "EXX^crt Aios ne- 
scire me non diffiteor , and then offers a 
tentative explanation. It is clear however 
from the whole context that the passage 
of Didymus is not independent of the 
passage of Cyril. He must therefore 
have misread or misheard (for he was 



blind) the words of Cyril or Cyril s au 
thority, as the substitution of rexvoTron)- 
&lt;Ta(j.ti&gt;ov having artificially invented for 
ereKvoTrotrja-e shows, and his text must 
have wrongly connected the words. 

3 Exc. Theod. 29 (Op. n. p. 976, Pot 
ter) H ffiyij, &lt;f&gt;a&lt;rli&gt;, fJ.rjrr]p ovaa TravTui 
ru5c Trpoft\-r)6irTuv viro rov fiaOovs (fivBov?) 
/c.r.X. The same is probably the meaning 
of the authority quoted by Epiphanius 
Haer. xxxi. 5 (p. 169) avr-ij 52 17 ex rov 
Trarpos Kal rfjs ffiyris rerpds avOpwTros, 
KK\ijaia, Xo7os, fw^. Pearson suspects 
a lacuna in this passage of Epiphanius, 
Vind. Ign. p. 402. 

4 This same interpretation had been 
suggested by Petau (de Theol. Dogm. iv. 
p. 163, Antwerp. 1700); but he says 
nothing of a polemical reference to the 
Ebionites. Pearson s view is controvert 
ed by Bull Defens. Fid. Nic. iii. i ( Works 
V. p. 476 sq.), who supposes the Cerin- 
thians to be intended. The Docetism of 
Cerinthus however was, as I have pointed 
out, different in character from that of 
these heretics. 



THE GENUINENESS. 



that, even if Valentinus were intended, the statement could not be 
regarded as an anachronism, since the errors of this heresiarch might 
have been known even to Ignatius. With greater effect he and others 
after him maintained that this Sige was by no means a creation of 
Valentinus ; that it was borrowed from heathen cosmogonies ; that it 
was found in a cosmical genealogy as early as the Comic poet Anti- 
phanes ; and lastly that Gregory Nazianzen (in a very loose and highly 
oratorical passage, it must be confessed) gives Sige a place in the 
systems of Simon, Cerinthus, and others (Orat. xxv. 8, i. p. 460), 
while Irenseus himself (Haer. i. n. i) states that Valentinus borrowed 
his theory with modifications from earlier Gnostics. The discovery of 
the treatise of Hippolytus has confirmed the justice of this reply. In 
one passage (vi. 22) this scourge of heretics speaks of that Silence on 
which the Greeks are always harping (17 v/xvov/xeV^ ejceiVr; -n-apa rots 
"EXX^o-i (riyTj) ; in another (vi. 21) he states that Valentinus founded 
his system on that of Simon ; and in a third (vi. 18) he quotes a passage 
from the Great Announcement, attributed to Simon himself but probably 
written by one of his followers, in which his primary power or emanation 
is styled Sige 2 . 



1 Iren. Haer. ii. 14. i Antiphanes in 
Theogonia . From the context we may 
infer that the passage to which Irenaeus 
refers under the name Theogonia was taken 
from the A^poSfrijs yoval of this poet, 
as Grabe suggested. Meineke (Fragm. 
Com. I. p. 3i8sq.) begs the question, 
when he impugns the explicit and de 
tailed statement of Irenaeus on the ground 
that Sige or Silence was first introduced 
by the Neoplatonists and Gnostics. 

2 Card. Newman (Essays I. p. 249) 
writes of this supposed reference to the 
Valentinian Sige ; This was the only 
point discoverable in the text of the 
shorter Epistles which really had to be 
reconciled with the maintenance of their 
genuineness. Illud non negaverim, says 
Voss, si locus hie sit sanus et haec desumpta 
sint ex haeresi Valentiniana, actum vi- 
deri de Epistolis Ignalianis. Accordingly 
Pearson devotes as many as forty-six 
folio columns of his great work to solve 
the apparent difficulty, at the end of 
which he says, Quatitor assertiones attuli, 



omnes exploratae veritatis, ita tamen com- 
paratae, ut si vel una eartim vera sit, ea 
unica omnem argiimenti adversariomm 
vim elidat (p. 390). And after Pearson, 
Bull devotes another series of twenty 
columns to complete the explanation . [I 
might add that Matt, de Larroque (see 
above, p. 321) occupies a hundred pages 
or more of his work in refuting Pearson 
on this point.] In our time the difficulty 
has solved itself; and consistently with 
the arguments of those Anglican divines. 
From the newly discovered work on 
Heresies, commonly attributed to Hip 
polytus, etc. 

Card. Newman correctly regards this as 
the one real point of difficulty ; but the 
solution is different from and much more 
satisfactory than that which he adopts. 

Hi motus animorum atque haec cer- 
tamina tanta 

Pulveris exigui jactu compressa qui- 

escunt. 

A handful of critical small dust has 
quieted this conflict of giants. 



374 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

At all events it ought to have been clear from the context that, if 
there be any polemical reference in the words, the heresy assailed cannot 
be the Valentinian, for the whole argument is directed, as I have 
already shown, against Jiidaizing Gnostics, and Valentin us was the 
very opposite of this. But the whole objection collapses, now that the 
true reading of the text is discovered. The words cuSio? OVK must be 
struck out, as I have shown elsewhere (n. p. 125 sq.), alike on grounds 
of external authority and of intrinsic probability. Venema (H. E. Saec. 
ii. 12, quoted by Jacobson on the passage) with a true appreciation 
felt that the sense required the negative to be omitted, even when there 
was no known authority for the omission. I pointed out as early as 
1868 (see below, n. p. 127) that this was the true reading, as being the 
best supported, and it has been since adopted by both the recent 
editors of Ignatius, Zahn (1876) and Funk (1878). 

But so corrected, the passage wears a very different aspect. No 
longer a polemic against Valentinus, it employs language closely resem 
bling the terminology of Valentinianism and other Gnostic systems of 
the second century. Thus it points to a pre- Valentinian epoch ; for no 
writer, careful for his orthodoxy as our author plainly is, would allow 
himself the use of such suspicious language, which seemed to favour the 
false systems then rife. Nor does this expression stand alone. Else 
where the language of the writer is coloured with a Gnostic and more 
especially a Valentinian tinge. Thus the pleroma was a very favourite 
Gnostic term ; and in the Valentinian system more especially it had a 
prominent place. Yet our author addresses the Ephesian Church as 
blessed through the pleroma of God the Father (see n. p. 23), and in 
similar language he salutes the Trallian Christians in the pleroma 
(see n. p. 152). So too, when he tells the Trallians ( i ; comp. Ephes. 
i) that they possess a right mind not by habit but by nature , he 
makes a distinction constantly heard on the lips of Valentinians and 
other Gnostics, who thus distinguished themselves as superior to other 
professed Christians (n. p. 153). Again, when he uses the word 
straining or filtering of the advanced Christian (Rom. inscr., 
Philad, 3), he adopts a significant and favourite term of the Valentinian 
vocabulary (see n. p. 193). And lastly, when he speaks of matter 
(Rom. 6 ; comp. ib. 7 &lt;tAouAov) as the source of temptation and so of 
evil, he is trenching upon Gnostic ground. All these expressions point 
in the same direction. He could use this language and indulge these 
thoughts, because they had not yet, at least in any marked way, been 
abused to heretical ends. And we may perhaps even go a step further. 
Will not the suspicion cross our minds that Ignatius may have moved 



THE GENUINENESS. 375 

more or less in the same circles, out of which Valentinianism after 
wards sprung ? This suspicion is somewhat strengthened by another 
incidental fact. Among his companions was a much younger man, 
Agathopus by name, apparently a deacon of his own Church of Antioch. 
Now we find Valentinus writing to one Agathopus. Was he the same 
man, as many have supposed? For more on this subject, see the note, 
n. p. 280. 

(iii) Ecclesiastical Conditions. 

Under the head of ecclesiastical arrangements our first consideration 
will be the form of government which is revealed in these epistles. This 
is the ground which has been most fiercely contested by the combatants 
in the Ignatian controversy, at least in its earlier stages. 

The name of Ignatius is inseparably connected with the champion 
ship of episcopacy. Every one , he writes, whom the Master of the 
house sendeth to govern His own household we ought to receive as 
Him that sent him; clearly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as 
the Lord Himself (Ephes. 6). Those live a life after Christ , who 
obey the bishop as Jesus Christ (Trail. 2). It is good to know God 
and the bishop; he that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he 
that doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop serve th the 
devil (Smyrn. 9). He that obeys his bishop obeys not him, but the 
Father of Jesus Christ the Bishop of all ; while on the other hand he 
that practises hypocrisy towards his bishop not only deceiveth the 
visible one but cheateth the Invisible (Magn. 3). Vindicate thine 
office , he writes to Polycarp, in things temporal as well as spiritual 
(Pofyc. 3). Let nothing be done without thy consent, and do thou 
nothing without the consent of God (Polyc. 4). Then turning from 
Polycarp to the Smyrna;ans he charges them, Give heed to your bishop, 
that God also may give heed to you (Polyc. 6). Writing again to these 
same Smyrnaeans he enjoins, Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus 
Christ followed the Father (Smyrn. 8). As many as are of God and 
of Jesus Christ , he writes to another church, are with the bishop 
(Philad. 3). The members of a third church again are bidden to be 
inseparate from [God,] Jesus Christ, and the bishop, and the ordinances 
of the Apostles (Trail. 7). The Ephesians again are commended, 
because they are so united with their bishop, as the Church with 
Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ with the Father . If, he adds, the 
prayer of one or two hath so much power, how much more the prayer of 
the bishop and of all the Church (Ephes. 5). Wherever the bishop 
may appear, there let the people (TTA^OS) be, just as where Jesus Christ 



376 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

may be, there is the universal Church (Smyrn. 8). Consequently Let 
no man do anything pertaining to the Church without the bishop (ib.; 
comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 7). It is not lawful either to baptize or to 
hold a love-feast without the bishop ; but whatsoever he may approve, 
this also is well-pleasing to God, that everything which is done may be 
safe and valid (Smyrn. 8). Those who decide on a life of virginity must 
disclose their intention to the bishop only; and those who purpose 
marrying must obtain his consent to their union, that their marriage 
may be according to the Lord and not according to concupiscence 
(Polyc. 5). In giving such commands he is not speaking from human 
suggestion, but the Spirit preached saying, Do nothing without the 
bishop (Philad. 7). 

The prominence and authority of the office are sufficiently clear 
from these passages. Its extension may be inferred from others. He 
plainly regards himself as bishop of Antioch, for he describes himself as 
the bishop belonging to Syria (TOV emcr/coTi-ov Svptas Rom. 2) ; and he 
speaks of the Antiochene Church, when deprived of his presence, as 
having no other pastor but God, no other bishop but Jesus Christ (Rom. 
9). He mentions by name the bishops of Ephesus (Ephes. i), of 
Magnesia (Magn. 2), and of Tralles (Trail, i) ; and he refers anony 
mously to the bishop of Philadelphia (Philad. inscr., i). Not only in 
the letters addressed to the Smyrnoeans ( 8, 12) and to himself, but 
elsewhere also (Magn. 15), Polycarp is spoken of as bishop. Writing to 
the Philadelphians likewise, he says that the churches nearest to Antioch 
have sent thither bishops to congratulate the Antiochenes on the restora 
tion of peace. It is plain therefore that in those parts of Syria and Asia 
Minor at all events, with which Ignatius is brought in contact, the 
episcopate, properly so called, is an established and recognised institu 
tion. In one passage moreover he seems to claim for it a much 
wider diffusion : The bishops established in the farthest parts (ot CTTI- 
crKOTroi 01 KOTO ra Trepara d/no-fleWes) are in the counsels of Jesus Christ 
(Ephes. 3). 

In all such language however there is no real difficulty. The strange 
audacity of writers like Daille, who placed the establishment of episco 
pacy as late as the beginning of the third century, need not detain us ; 
for no critic of the Ignatian Epistles, however adverse, would venture 
now to take up this extreme position. The whole subject has been 
investigated by me in an Essay on The Christian Ministry 1 ; and 

1 See Philippiaus p. 181 sq. The Old count of the origin of episcopacy precisely 
Catholic Larigen, Geschichte dcr Romi- similar to my own, as set forth in this 
sc/ieji Kirclie i88i,p. 95 sq. , gives an ac- Essay. I do not know how far Card. 



THE GENUINENESS. 377 

to this I venture to refer my readers for fuller information. It is there 
shown, if I mistake not, that though the New Testament itself con 
tains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized episco 
pate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable 
episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet 
there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years of the 
Apostolic age ; that this development was not simultaneous and equal 
in all parts of Christendom; that it is more especially connected with the 
name of S. John; and that in the early years of the second century the 
episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more especially in 
Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its extension in the 
regions east of the ^gaean at this epoch be resisted, I am at a loss to 
understand what single fact relating to the history of the Christian 
Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as 
established; for the testimony in favour of this spread of the episcopate 
is more abundant and more varied than for any other institution or event 
during this period, so far as I recollect. Referring to the Essay before 
mentioned for details, I will content myself here with dwelling on some 
main points of the evidence. 

Irenseus was a scholar of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a scholar of S. 
John. Irenaeus remembered well the discourses of his own master, as 
Polycarp did those of the Apostle. Both these fathers delighted to 
recall such reminiscences of their respective teachers. Irenasus was 
probably the most learned Christian of his time. He certainly had an 
acquaintance with heathen, as well as with sacred literature. He had 
travelled far and wide. He was born and schooled in Asia Minor; he 
resided some time during middle life in Rome ; he spent his later years 
in Gaul. He was in constant communication with foreign churches on 
various subjects of ecclesiastical and theological interest. The inter 
course between Gaul and Asia Minor more especially was close and 
constant. An appreciation of the position of the man is a first requisite 
to the estimate of his evidence. Historic insight is the realization of 
the relations of persons and events. 

The view of Irena;us respecting the subject before us is unmistake- 
able. The episcopate, as distinct from the presbyterate, is the only 

Newman would agree with me in my myself responsible for the interpretations 

historical investigation ; but he uses Ian- which others (whether friends or oppo- 

guage (Essays I. p. 251 sq.) which has nents) have put upon my language or 

many points of contact with mine. I for the inferences which they have drawn 

need hardly say here, what I have said from my views. 
on other occasions, that I do not hold 



378 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

episcopate which comes within the range, not only of his personal 
acquaintance, but even of his intellectual and historical cognisance. 
This is so far the case that he entirely overlooks the identity of the 
terms bishop and presbyter in the New Testament 1 , which later 
fathers discerned. This appears from his mode of handling the interview 
with the Ephesian elders at Miletus, who are called presbyters in one 
place and bishops in another (Acts xx. 17 Tre/xi^as as "E^ecrov /xeTeKaXc- 
craro TOVS Trpecr/JuTtpovs T^S tKKX^o-ias, ver. 28 TO&gt; Trot/xvtw v w vfj.a&lt;s TO 
Trvtv/xa TO aytov Wtro tTrio-KoVovs). Ignorant of the New Testament 
usage, he regards S. Paul as summoning the bishops and presbyters 
who were from Ephesus and the other neighbouring cities (Ifaer. iii. 14. 
2 convocatis episcopis et presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis 
proximis civitatibus ). To this father accordingly it is an undisputed 
fact that the bishops of his own age traced their succession back in 
an unbroken line to men appointed to the episcopate by the Apostles 
themselves. To this succession of bishops he appeals again and again, 
as the depositaries of the Apostolic tradition, against the Gnostic and 
other false teachers. We can enumerate those , he writes, who were 
appointed bishops by the Apostles themselves in the several churches, 
and their successors even to our own day, who neither taught nor recog 
nised any such madness as these men maintain . Since it would be a 
tedious business, he continues, to enumerate the successions of all the 
churches, he singles out the Church of Rome founded by the Apostles 
Peter and Paul. Accordingly he gives the sequence of the Roman 
bishops from the Apostolic age to Eleutherus who occupied the see when 
he wrote. From Rome he turns to Smyrna, and singles out Polycarp 
who had not only been instructed by Apostles and conversed with 
many that had seen Christ, but had also been appointed by Apostles 
in Asia as bishop in the Church of Smyrna (dXXa KCU VTTO aTro- 
o-ro Xa&gt;v Karaora^eis cis TTJV Ao"i av ei&gt; T~fj ev 2/Avpv^ eKKXTjcrta. CTTIO-KOTTOS), 
whom he adds, we ourselves have seen in our early years (lv rrj 
7T/3WT77 7?ju.d5v ijXiKia). To this Apostolic tradition all the churches in 
Asia bear witness, and [especially] the successors of Polycarp to the 

1 On this identity of the terms in the old age, as well as of office. In this wider 

New Testament see Philippians p. 95 sq. sense the irpea-fivTepoi, the elders, are 

After the establishment of the episcopate the primitive fathers (irrespective of office), 

proper the designation iirla-Koiros is con- whose views of Christian doctrine and 

fined to it. A bishop may still be called practice are especially valuable by reason 

n-pffffivrfpos, but a presbyter is not now of their proximity to the Apostles; e.g. iii. 

called conversely ^TUOTCOTTOJ. In Irenasus 2. 2,iv. 26. 2, 5,v. 5. r, v. 36. i, 2. On the 

for instance Trpeafiurepos has a very wide other hand he always employs ^Trtcr/coTros 

significance, being used of antiquity or of with precision of the episcopal office alone. 



THE GENUINENESS. 379 



present day (KCU ol p-^xP 1 v ^ v SiaSeSey/ievoi TOV IIoXwapTTov) . So also the 
Church of Ephesus, where John survived to the time of Trajan, is a 
trustworthy witness of the Apostolic tradition (Hacr. iii. 3. i sq.). Later 
on again he writes, We ought to listen to those elders in the Church 
who have their succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who 
together with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure 
gift of the truth according to the good pleasure of the Father (iv. 26. 
2). In a third passage also, speaking of the heretical teachers, he 
writes, All these are much later (valde posteriores) than the bishops to 
whom the Apostles committed the churches, and this we have shown 
with all diligence in our third book (v. 20. i). After every reasonable 
allowance made for the possibility of mistakes in details, such language 
from a man standing in the position of Irenaeus with respect to the 
previous and contemporary history of the Church leaves no room for 
doubt as to the early and general diffusion of episcopacy in the regions 
with which he was acquainted. 

The notices in Irenaeus are further confirmed by the language of his 
contemporary Polycrates. Polycrates was himself bishop of Ephesus, 
and the letter of which fragments are preserved (Euseb. H. E. v. 24) 
was written by him to Victor bishop of Rome, consequently between 
the years A.D. 189 and A.D. 198 or 199. He there mentions his hoar 
head (TroXias) and speaks of himself as numbering sixty-five years in the 
Lord (f^Kovra. TTfVTf try e^wj/ ci&gt; Kvpiw). Even if this period dates from 
his birth and not from his conversion, he must have been born within 
about a quarter of a century after the death of the last surviving Apostle, 
who passed his later years in the Church of Ephesus where Polycrates 
ruled. He appeals to the tradition of his relatives with some of whom, 
he says, he associated on intimate terms (TrapaSoo-iv TWV cruyycvwv /*ov, 
015 Kal Trapt]Ko\ovOr](ra. TUTIV avraJi ). He adds that he had had seven 
relatives bishops, so that he himself was the eighth bishop of his kindred 
(eTTTct jitei/ ijcrav cruyyeveTs fj,ov CTUCTKOTTOI, eyw Se oySoos) . In an earlier part 
of the same fragment he mentions Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna, 
Thraseas as bishop of Eumenia, Sagaris as bishop apparently of Lao- 
dicea (^ayaptv e7rt(TK07roi ...os ef AaoSiKtia KCKOI/A^TCU), and inferentially 
also MelitO as bishop of Sardis (eV SapSecri Trept/xeVwv rrjv euro TWV ovpavuv 
eTrio-KOTT^V) . Altogether this fragment, not occupying more than an 
octavo page in all, is charged with notices testifying to the early and 
wide spread of the episcopate in these regions of Asia Minor. 

A passage in Clement of Alexandria also points in the same direc 
tion. In the well-known story of S. John and the young robber, for 
1 See the note on Polyc. inscr (n. p. 332). 



380 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

the truth of which he vouches, Clement represents the Apostle during 
his later life, when he resided at Ephesus, as going about on invitation to 
the neighbouring nations (tVt rd TrX^ato xwpa TWV lOvwv) to appoint 
bishops in some places, to establish whole churches in others, and to 
ordain certain clergy in others (Quis Div. Salv. 42, p. 959 Potter). 
This Clement had travelled far and wide, and had received instruction 
from six or more different Christian teachers in Greece, in Italy, in 
Egypt, in Palestine and Syria and the farther East; among whom was 
one called by him an Ionian , that is, a native of these very parts of 
Asia Minor (Strom, i. i, p. 322). In accordance with this statement 
also the author of the Muratorian Canon (about A.D. 170 or later) 
speaks of the aged Apostle as writing his Gospel at the urgent 
entreaty of his fellow-disciples and bishops (Canon Muratorianus p. 17, 
cohortantibus condescipulis et episcopis suis , ed. Tregelles). 

It will be sufficient here to have called attention to these passages of 
more general reference. Notices of particular bishops in early times 
will be found collected together in the Essay to which I have already 
referred. One such person alone deserves special mention here. Poly- 
carp, as we have seen, is more than once designated bishop of Smyrna 
in these Ignatian Epistles. So also he is described both by Irenaeus and 
by Polycrates in the passages already referred to. But we have 
more direct testimony to his episcopate even than these witnesses. 
Only a few months at the outside, probably only a few weeks, after 
these Ignatian Epistles purport to have been written, he himself 
addresses a letter to the Philippians. The heading of the letter, indi 
rectly indeed, but plainly enough, indicates his monarchical position. He 
does not write Polycarp and the other presbyters , but Polycarp and the 
presbyters with him (see n. p. 905), though even the former mode of 
address would not have been inconsistent with his episcopal rank. As 
it is, the position assigned to him in this passage corresponds exactly 
with the representations in the Ignatian Epistles, as for instance in 
Philad. 8, where the council of the bishop (trweSptov TOU CTTIO-KOTTOV) 
is equivalent to the bishop together with his presbyters as assessors 
and counsellors . 

Nor again is there any real difficulty in the extended area over 
which the Ignatian letters assume the episcopal constitution to prevail. 
I have given reasons in my Essay for believing that the spread of the 
episcopate was not uniform throughout Christendom, and that some 
churches, as for instance Philippi, had not yet adopted it. But through 
out Asia Minor and Syria, so far as we know, it was universal. Probably 
also this was the case in the farther East. So likewise, if the Gospel 



THE GENUINENESS. 381 

had already been carried into Gaul , as seems fairly probable, the 
Galilean Churches would naturally adopt the organization which pre 
vailed in the communities of Asia Minor from which they were spi 
ritually descended. Again, though there are grounds for surmising that 
the bishops of Rome were not at the time raised so far above their 
presbyters as in the Churches of the East, yet it would be an excess of 
scepticism, with the evidence before us, to question the existence of the 
episcopate as a distinct office from the presbyterate in the Roman 
Church. With these facts before us, we shall cease to regard the 
expression, Ephes. 3, the bishops established in the farthest parts (/cara 
TO. Trepara) , as a stumblingblock. At the most it is a natural hyperbole, 
not more violent than the language of S. Paul when, writing to the 
Thessalonians only a few months after their conversion, he declares that 
their faith is spread abroad in every place , so that it is superfluous for 
him to speak of it (i Thess. i. 8) 2 . 

It should be observed also that the conception of the episcopal 
office itself is wholly different from the ideas which prevailed in the 
later years of the second century. There is not throughout these letters 
the slightest tinge of sacerdotal language in reference to the Christian 
ministry 3 . The only passage in which a priest or a high-priest is men 
tioned at all is Philad. 9 ; The priests likewise are good, but the 
High-priest is better, even He to whom is entrusted the holy of holies, 
who alone hath been entrusted with the hidden things of God, being 
Himself the door of the Father, etc. Here a careless exegesis has 
referred the priests to the Christian ministry; but the whole context 
resists this reference. The writer is contrasting the Old dispensation 
with the New. He allows the worth of the former, but he claims a 



1 See Galatians p. 31 on the proba- ayy^\\erai iv $\&lt;p T&lt;$ Koff/j.^ : comp. 

bility that European Gaul is meant by xvi. 19 ?? yap vfj.uv UTTOKOTJ et j iravras a&lt;f&gt;L- 

Galatia in i Tim. iv. 10. Moreover, KCTO. 

if S. Paul himself went to Spain, as there 3 Nothing can be farther from the 

is good reason to believe he did, it is not truth than the view of Heumann who, as 

likely that a country lying intermediate represented by Fabricius (BibL Graec.vn. 

between Italy and Spain would remain p. 36, ed. Harles), argues that these 

long without the Gospel. Irenseus, writing epistles must have been written after the 

soon after A.D. 1 75, speaks of the churches age of Cyprian, probatque judicium 

established in the provinces of Germany Dodwelli (Diss. Cyprian, vii. 13 et 33) 

(IYp/taWcus) and Iberia ( I/STjp/cus) and non esse ovum ovo similius quam Igna- 

among the Celts (i. 10. 2), thus bearing tianae totam Cypriani de episcoporum 

witness to the wide spread of the Gospel auctoritate ratiocinationem. The essen- 

north of the Alps and west of Italy in his tial difference between the two views is 

time. pointed out in my Essay, pp. 250 sq., 

1 So too Rom. i. 8 17 TrtVrts vfj.ui&gt; KO.T- 258 sq. 



382 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

superiority for the latter (e^cupcrov 8e TI e^ei TO vayye Atov...TO Be euayye- 
XLOV aTrapTtoyxa COTIV a&lt;0apo-ias). Plainly therefore by the priests 
here is meant the Levitical priesthood, the mediators of the Old Cove 
nant; while the High-priest is Christ, the mediator of the New 1 . Nor 
again is there any approach even to the language of Irenseus, who, 
regarding the episcopate as the depositary of the doctrinal tradition of 
the Apostles, lays stress on the Apostolical succession as a security for 
its faithful transmission. In these Ignatian Epistles the episcopate, or 
rather the threefold ministry, is the centre of order, the guarantee of 
unity, in the Church. Have a care for union is the writer s charge to 
Polycarp (Polyc, i); and this idea runs throughout the notices (Ephes, 
2 5, 20, Magn. 6, 13, Trail. 7, Philad. inscr., 3, 4, 7, 8, Smyrn. 8, 9). 
Heresies are rife ; schisms are imminent. To avert these dangers, 
loyalty to Church rulers is necessary. There is no indication that he is 
upholding the episcopal against any other form of Church government, 
as for instance the presbyteral. The alternative which he contemplates 
is lawless isolation and self-will. No definite theory is propounded as 
to the principle on which the episcopate claims allegiance. It is as the 
recognised authority of the churches which the writer addresses, that 
he maintains it. Almost simultaneously with Ignatius, Polycarp ad 
dresses the Philippian Church, which appears not yet to have had a 
bishop, requiring its submission to the presbyters and deacons (Phil. 
5). If Ignatius had been writing to this church, he would doubtless 
have done the same. As it is, he is dealing with communities where 
episcopacy had been already matured, and therefore he demands obe 
dience to their bishops. 

It is worthy of notice likewise that, though the form of government 
in these Asiatic Churches is in some sense monarchical, yet it is very 
far from being autocratic. We have seen already that in one passage 
the writer in the term the council of the bishop {Philad. 8) includes 
the bishop himself as well as his presbyters. This expression tells its 
own tale. Elsewhere submission is required to the presbyters as well as 
to the bishop (Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 2, 7, Trail. 13). Nay sometimes 
the writer enjoins obedience to the deacons as well as to the bishop and 
presbyters (Polyc. 6; comp. Magn. 6, Trail. 3, Philad. 7, Smyrn. 8). 
The presbytery is a worthy spiritual coronal (a^ioTrXoxov TrvevprrtKov 
o-Te&lt;avou) round the bishop (Magn. 13). It is the duty of every one, but 
especially of the presbyters, to refresh the bishop unto the honour of 

1 See below, II. p. 274. Daille (p. sq.). The right view is also taken by Bull 
383) goes wrong on this point. He is (Works ix. p. 575) and by Baur (Ur- 
corrected by Pearson (Vind. Ign. p. 532 sprung d. Episcopats p. 173). 



THE GENUINENESS. 383 

the Father [and] of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles (Trail. 12). They 
stand in the same relation to him as the chords to the lyre (Ephes. 4). 
If obedience is due to the bishop as to the grace of God, it is due to 
the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ (Magn. 2). If the bishop 
occupies the place of God or of Jesus Christ, the presbyters are as the 
Apostles, as the council of God (Magn. 6, Trail. 2, 3, Smyrn. 8). This 
last comparison alone would show how widely the idea of the episcopate 
differed from the later conception, when it had been formulated in the 
doctrine of the Apostolical succession. The presbyters, not the bishops, 
are here the representatives of the Apostles. 

There is yet another feature in the notices of the episcopate in the 
Ignatian letters which deserves remark. Of a diocese, properly so called, 
there is no trace. It is quite a mistake to suppose that Ignatius is called 
bishop of Syria in Rom. 2 (see the note n. p. 201). Episcopacy has 
not passed beyond its primitive stage. The bishop and presbyters are 
the ministry of a city, not of a diocese. What provision may have been 
made for the rural districts we are not told. The country folk about 
Ephesus or Smyrna were probably still pagans, not only in the original 
sense of the word, but also in its later theological meaning. This fact 
however can hardly be used as a criterion of date, as it would hold 
throughout the second century, and no critic would now think of 
assigning a later date than this to the Ignatian letters. 

One point especially calls for a notice when we are considering the 
unequal development of the episcopate in different parts of Christendom. 
Of the seven letters bearing the name of Ignatius, six are addressed to 
Asia Minor, the remaining one to Rome. The six are full of exhorta 
tions urging obedience to the bishops ; the letter to Rome is entirely 
free from any such command. Indeed, if Ignatius had not incidentally 
mentioned himself as the bishop of or from Syria , the letter to the 
Romans would have contained no indication of the existence of the 
episcopal office. It is addressed to the Church of Rome. It assigns 
to this church a preeminence of rank as well as of love (inscr.). There 
are obviously in Rome persons in high quarters so influential that the 
saint fears lest their intervention should rob him of the crown of mar 
tyrdom. With all this importance attributed to the Roman Church, it 
is the more remarkable that not a word is said about the Roman bishop. 
Indeed there is not even the faintest hint that a bishop of Rome existed 
at this time. To ourselves the Church of Rome has been so entirely 
merged in the Bishop of Rome, that this silence is the more surprising. 
Yet startling as this omission is, it entirely accords with the information 
derived from other trustworthy sources. All the ancient notices point 



384 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

to the mature development of episcopacy in Asia Minor at this time. 
On the other hand, all the earliest notices of the Church in Rome point 
in the opposite direction. In the Epistle of Clement, which was written 
a few years before these Ignatian letters purport to be penned, there is 
no mention of the bishop. The letter is written in the name of the 
Church ; it speaks with the authority of the Church. It is strenuous, 
even peremptory, in the authoritative tone which it assumes ; but it 
pleads the authority not of the chief minister, but of the whole body 1 . 
The next document emanating from the Roman Church after the as 
sumed date of the Ignatian Epistles is the Shepherd of Hermas. Here 
again we are met with similar phenomena. If we had no other infor 
mation, we should be at a loss to say what was the form of Church 
government at Rome when the Shepherd was written 2 . Thus the con 
trast between Asia Minor and Rome in the Ignatian letters exactly 
reproduces the contrast to be found elsewhere in the earliest and most 
authentic sources of information. This contrast moreover admits of 
an easy and natural explanation. As S. Jerome said long ago, the 
episcopal government was matured as a safeguard against heresy and 
schism. As such it appears in the Ignatian letters. But Asia Minor 
was in the earliest ages the hot-bed of false doctrine and schismatical 
teachers. Hence the early and rapid adoption of episcopacy there. 
On the other hand, Rome was at this time remarkably free from such 
troubles. It was not till the middle of the second century that heresi- 
archs found it worth their while to make Rome their centre of opera 
tions. The Roman Church is described in the Ignatian letter as 
strained clear from any foreign colour of doctrine. Hence the epis 
copate, though doubtless it existed in some form or other in Rome, 
had not yet (it would seem) assumed the same sharp and well-defined 
monarchical character with which we are confronted in the Eastern 
churches. But what explanation could be given of this reticence, if the 
Ignatian letters were a forgery ? What writer, even a generation later 
than the date assigned to Ignatius, would have exercised this self- 
restraint ? The Church of Rome is singled out by Hegesippus and 
Irenseus in the latter half of the second century for emphatic mention 
in this very connexion. The succession of the bishops of Rome is with 
them the chief guarantee of the transmission of the orthodox doctrine. 
Much mention of the Church of Rome and yet no mention of the 
Bishop of Rome this would be an inexplicable anomaly, a stark ana 
chronism, in their age 3 . 

1 See S. Clement of Rome, Appendix, 2 See Philippians p. 219 sq. 

p. 752 sq. 3 Yet with a bold disregard of all his- 



THE GENUINENESS. 3 8 5 

Renan has remarked that apocryphal writings betray themselves by 
the prominence of a tendency. 1 Applying this test to the Ignatian 
Epistles he pronounces them spurious, always excepting the Epistle to 
the Romans. The author wishes to make a great stroke in favour of 
the episcopal hierarchy 1 . This touchstone is altogether fallacious. In 
all great crises of the Church, ecclesiastical leaders manifest, cannot 
help manifesting, some tendency. The utterances of Luther or of Pio 
Nono are marked by this feature as strongly as the False Decretals, and 
even more strongly than the Ignatian Epistles. Moreover Renan s test 
is condemned by his exception ; for it is demonstrable, I believe, that 
the Epistle to the Romans issued from the same pen as the other six 
letters (see pp. 301, 410 sq., 413). 

From the ministry of men we turn to the ministry of women; 
and here a notice in these letters, as commonly interpreted, seems to 
point to a later date than the age of Ignatius. In Smyrn. 13 the saint 
sends a salutation to the virgins that are called widows (ras irapOtvovs 
ras Xeyo/xevas x^P a&lt;: )- This is generally supposed to imply that at the 
time when the letter was written the order of so-called widows was 
composed chiefly or solely of virgins. I have pointed out however in 
the notes on the passage (n. p. 322) that the language of ancient 
writers elsewhere suggests a wholly different interpretation ; that it was 
customary to speak of those widows who maintained a chaste widow 
hood as virgins a second time, virgins in God s sight, and the like ; 
and that therefore the expression in Smyrn. 13 implies nothing more 
than that these persons, though widows in common designation and in 
outward condition, were virgins in heart and spirit. This is indeed the 
only explanation of the passage unattended by serious historical diffi 
culties, whatever date be assigned to the Ignatian letters. In no age, 
however late, in the history of the Church was the viduatus 
composed solely or chiefly of virgins. Even in Tertullian s time 
(de Virg. Vel. 9) only one virgin here and there had been admitted into 
the order, so that he regards a virgo vidua as a monstrous irregularity; 
and no one now would place the Ignatian Epistles as late as Tertullian. 

From the ministry of the Church we turn to its liturgy. And 
here our evidence is chiefly negative. The absence of any references 
to a developed ritual in the public services of the Church is an argument 

toric probability Baur unhesitatingly af- ( Ur sprung d. Episcopats p. 184). So too 
firms that these Ignatian letters were Schwegler Nachapost. Zeitalter n. p. 178. 
forged in Rome itself about this time 1 Les vangiles p. xix. 

IG. I. 25 



386 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. 

in favour of the early date, though not a strong argument, since the 
omission might be accidental. 

One notice however has a more direct and positive bearing as an 
indication of the writer s age and deserves special attention. In S. Paul s 
time (A.D. 57, 58) the eucharist was plainly part of the agape (i Cor. 
xi. 17 sq.; comp. Acts xx. 7). The Christian festival, both in the hour 
of the clay and in the arrangement of the meal, was substantially a 
reproduction of Christ s last night with His Apostles. Hence it was 
called the Lord s Supper a name originally applied to the combined 
eucharist and agape, but afterwards applied to the former when the 
latter had been separated or even abolished. On the other hand in 
Justin Martyr s time (about A.D. 140) the two were no less plainly 
separate (Apol. i. 65, 67), the eucharistic celebration apparently taking 
place in the early morning. When was the change brought about ? 

The notice in the letter of the younger Pliny (Plin. etTraj. Epist. 96) 
throws some light on the subject. It is plain from his language that 
these festivals of the Christians had begun to provoke unfavourable 
comments. The stigma of Thyestean banquets and CEdipodean 
pollutions was already fastened or fastening upon them. What was to 
be done in order to disarm criticism ? The eucharist was the cor