To many it may appear that there can be no connection between the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp and the claims of the Ignatian Epistles. All conversant with the history of this controversy must, however, be aware that the question of chronology has entered largely into the discussion. If we defer to the authority of the earliest and best witnesses to whom we can appeal for guidance, it is impossible to remove the cloud of suspicion which at once settles down on these letters. Their advocates are aware of the chronological objection, and they have accordingly expended immense pains in trying to prove that Eusebius, Jerome, and other writers of the highest repute have been mistaken. In his recent work, the Bishop of Durham has exhausted the resources of his ability and erudition in attempting to demonstrate that the only parties from whom we can fairly expect anything like evidence have all been misinformed. He has secured a verdict in his favour from a number of reviewers, who have apparently at once given way before the formidable array of learned lore brought together in these volumes; [34:1] but, withal, the intelligent reader who cautiously peruses and ponders the elaborate chapter in which he deals with this question, will feel rather mystified than enlightened by his argumentation. It may therefore be proper to state the testimony of the ancient Christian writers, and to describe the line of reasoning pursued by Dr. Lightfoot.
"The main source of opinion," says the bishop, "respecting the year of Polycarp's death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been theChroniconof Eusebius ... After the seventh year of M. Aurelius, he appends the notice, 'A persecution overtaking the Church, Polycarp underwent martyrdom.' ... Eusebius is here assumed to date Polycarp's martyrdom in the seventh year of M. Aurelius,i.e.A.D. 167." [34:2] Dr. Lightfoot then proceeds to observe that "this inference is unwarrantable," inasmuch as "the notice is not placed opposite to, butafter this year." He adds that it "is associated with the persecutions in Vienne and Lyons, which we know to have happened A.D. 177." [34:3] So far the statement of the bishop is unobjectionable, and, according to his own showing, we might conclude that Polycarp suffered some time after the seventh year of M. Aurelius. But this plain logical deduction would be totally ruinous to the system of chronology which he advocates; and he is obliged to resort to a most outlandish assumption that he may get over the difficulty. He contends that Eusebius did not know at what precise period these martyrdoms occurred. "We can," says the bishop, "only infer with safety that EusebiussupposedPolycarp's martyrdom to have happenedduring the reignof M. Aurelius." "As a matter of fact, the Gallican persecutions took place some ten years later [than A.D. 167], and therefore, so far as this notice goes, the martyrdom of Polycarp might have taken placeas many years earlier." [35:1]
These extracts may give the reader some idea of the manner in which Dr. Lightfoot proceeds to build up his chronological edifice. Eusebius places the martyrdom of Polycarp and the martyrdoms of Vienne and Lyons after the seventh year of M. Aurelius; and therefore, argues Dr. Lightfoot, he did not know when they occurred! Because the martyrdoms of Vienne and Lyons took place ten years after A.D. 167, therefore the martyrdom at Smyrna may, for anything that the father of ecclesiastical history could tell, have been consummated in A.D. 157! Dr. Lightfoot himself supplies proof that such an inference is inadmissible; for he acknowledges that, according to Eusebius, the pastor of Smyrna finished his career in the reign of M. Aurelius. But, in A.D. 157, M. Aurelius was not emperor. Such are the contradictions to which this writer commits himself in attempting to change the times and the seasons.
It is quite clear that Eusebius laboured under no such uncertainty, as Dr. Lightfoot would fondly persuade himself, relative to the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He directs attention to the subject in hisHistoryas well as in hisChronicon, and in both his testimony is to the same effect. In both it is alleged that Polycarp was martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. It must be remembered, too, that Eusebius was born only about a century after the event; that from his youth he had devoted himself to ecclesiastical studies; that he enjoyed the privilege of access to the best theological libraries in existence in his day; that, from his position in the Church as bishop of the metropolis of Palestine, and as the confidential counselor of the Emperor Constantine, he had opportunities of coming into personal contact with persons of distinction from all countries, who must have been well acquainted with the traditions of their respective Churches; and that he was a man of rare prudence, intelligence, and discernment. He was certainly not a philosophical historian, and in his great work he has omitted to notice many things of much moment; but it must be conceded that, generally speaking, he is an accurate recorder of facts; and, in the case before us, he was under no temptation whatever to make a misleading statement. We must also recollect that his testimony is corroborated by Jerome, who lived in the same century; who, at least in two places in his writings, reports the martyrdom; and who affirms that it occurred in the seventh year of M. Aurelius. [37:1] Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, asserts that Jerome "derived his knowledge from Eusebius," [37:2] and that, "though well versed in works of Biblical exegesis, ... he was otherwiseextremely ignorantof early Christian literature." [37:3] We have here unhappily another of those rash utterances in which the Bishop of Durham indulges throughout these volumes; for assuredly it is the very extravagance of folly to tax Jerome with "extreme ignorance of early Christian literature." Those who are acquainted with his writings will decline to subscribe any such depreciatory certificate. He was undoubtedly bigoted and narrow-minded, but he had a most capacious memory; he had travelled in various countries; he had gathered a prodigious stock of information; he was the best Christian scholar of his generation; he has preserved for us the knowledge of not a few important facts which Eusebius has not registered; and he at one time contemplated undertaking himself the composition of an ecclesiastical history. [37:4] We cannot, therefore, regard him as the mere copyist of the Bishop of Caesarea. "Every one acquainted with the literature of the primitive Church," says Dr. Döllinger, "knows that it is precisely in Jerome that we finda more exact knowledge of the more ancient teachersof the Church, and that we are indebted to him for more information about their teaching and writings, than to any other of the Latin Fathers." [38:1] Dr. Döllinger is a Church historian whom even the Bishop of Durham cannot afford to ignore,—as, in his own field of study, he has, perhaps, no peer in existence,—and yet he here states explicitly, not certainly that Jerome was extremely ignorant of early Christian literature, but that, in this very department, he was specially well informed. The learned monk of Bethlehem must have felt a deep interest in Polycarp as an apostolic Father: he was quite capable of testing the worth of the evidence relative to the time of the martyrdom; and his endorsement of the statement of Eusebius must be accepted as a testimony entitled to very grave consideration. Some succeeding writers assign even a later period to the death of Polycarp. It is a weighty fact that no Christian author for the first eight centuries of our era places it before the reign of M. Aurelius. The first writer who attaches to it an earlier date is Georgius Hamartolus, who flourished about the middle of the ninth century. Dr. Lightfoot confesses that what he says cannot be received as based on "any historical tradition or critical investigation." [38:2] It is, in fact, utterly worthless.
The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array of evidence opposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does not attempt to show that it is improbable in itself, or that there are any rebutting depositions. He leaves it in its undiminished strength; but he raises such a cloud of learned dust around it, that the reader may well lose his head, and be unable, for a time, to see the old chronological landmarks. [39:1] He rests his case chiefly on a statement to be found in a postscript, of admittedly doubtful authority, appended to the letter of the Smyrnaeans relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He argues as if the authority for this statement were unimpeachable; and, evidently regarding it as the very key of the position, he endeavours, by means of it, to upset the chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, theChronicon Paschale, and other witnesses. As the reader peruses his chapter on "The Date of the Martyrdom," he cannot but feel that the evidence presented to him is bewildering, indecisive, and obscure; and it may occur to him that the author is very like an individual who proposes to determine the value of two or three unknown quantities from one simple algebraic equation. His principal witness, Aristides, were he now living and brought up in presence of a jury, would find himself in rather an odd predicament. He is expected to settle the date of the death of Polycarp, and yet he knows nothing either of the pastor of Smyrna or of his tragic end. It does not appear that he had ever heard of the worthy apostolic Father. Aristides was a rhetorician who has left behind him certain orations, entitledSacred Discourses, written in praise of the god Aesculapius. It might be thought that such a writer is but poorly qualified to decide a disputed question of chronology. Our readers may have heard of Papias,—one of the early Fathers, noted for the imbecility of his intellect. Aristides, it seems, was quite as liable to imposition. "The credulity of a Papias," says Dr. Lightfoot, "is more than matched by the credulity of an Aristides." [40:1] Such is the bishop's leading witness. Aristides was an invalid and a hypochondriac; and, in the discourses he has left behind him, he describes the course of a long illness, with an account of his pains, aches, purgations, dreams, and visions—interspersed, from time to time, with what Dr. Lightfoot estimates as "valuable chronological notices!" [40:2]
The reader may be at a loss to understand how it happens that this eccentric character has been brought forward as a witness to the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He has been introduced under the following circumstances. In the postscript to the Smyrnaean letter—an appendage of very doubtful authority—we are told that the martyrdom occurred when Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia. From certain incidental allusions made by Aristides in his discourses, the bishop labours hard to prove that this Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia somewhere about A.D. 155. The evidence is not very clear or well authenticated; and we have reason to fear that very little reliance can be placed on the declarations of this afflicted rhetorician. His sickness is said to have lasted seventeen years; and it is possible that, meanwhile, his memory as to dates may have been somewhat impaired. Dr. Lightfoot cannot exactly tell when his sickness commenced or when it terminated. But he has ascertained that this Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and, by weighing probabilities as to the length of the interval which may have elapsed before he became proconsul, he has arrived at the conclusion that it might have amounted to twelve or thirteen years. Nothing, however, can be more unsatisfactory than the process by which he has reached this result. According to the usual routine, an individual advanced to the consulate became, in a number of years afterwards, a proconsul; and yet, as everything depended on the will of the emperor, it was impossible to tell how long he might have to wait for the appointment. He might obtain it in five years, or perhaps sooner, if "an exceptionally able man;" [41:1] or he might be kept in expectancy for eighteen or nineteen years. The proconsulship commonly terminated in a year; but an individual might be retained in the office for five or six years. [41:2] He might become consul a second time, and then possibly he might again be made proconsul. Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, has proved that Statius Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and then, by the aid of the dreamer Aristides, he has tried to show that he probably became proconsul of Asia about A.D. 154 or A.D. 155. His calculations are obviously mere guesswork. Even admitting their correctness, it would by no means follow that Polycarp was then consigned to martyrdom. The postscript of the Smyrnaean letter is, as we have seen, justly suspected as no part of the original document. Dr. Lightfoot himself tells us, that it is "generallytreated as a later addition to the letter, and as coming from a different hand;" [42:1] and, whilst disposed to uphold its claims as of high authority, he admits that, when tested as to "external evidence," the supplementary paragraphs, of which this is one, "do not stand on the same ground" [42:2] as the rest of the Epistle. And yet his whole chronology rests on the supposition that the name of the proconsul is correctly given in this probably apocryphal addition to the Smyrnaean letter. Were we even to grant that this postscript belonged originally to the document, it would supply no conclusive evidence that Polycarp was martyred in A.D. 155. It is far more probable that the writer has been slightly inaccurate as to the exact designation of the proconsul of Asia about the time of the martyrdom. [43:1] He was called Quadratus—not perhapsStatius, but possiblyUmmidius Quadratus. [43:2] There is nothing more common among ourselves than to make such a mistake as to a name. How often may we find John put for James, or Robert for Andrew? Quadratus was a patrician name, well known all over the empire; and if Statius Quadratus had, not long before, been proconsul of Asia, it is quite possible that the writer of this postscript may have taken it for granted that the proconsul about the time of Polycarp's death was the same individual. The author, whoever he may have been, was probably not very well acquainted with these Roman dignitaries, and may thus have readily fallen into the error. Dr. Lightfoot has himself recorded a case in which a similar mistake has been made—not in an ordinary communication such its this, but in an Imperial ordinance. In a Rescript of the Emperor Hadrian,LiciniusGranianus, the proconsul, is styledSerenusGranianus. [43:3] If such a blunder could be perpetrated in an official State document, need we wonder if the penman of the postscript of the Smyrnaean letter has written Statius Quadratus for Ummidius Quadratus? And yet, if we admit this very likely oversight, the whole chronological edifice which the Bishop of Durham has been at such vast pains to construct, vanishes like the dreams and visions of his leading witness, the hypochondriac Aristides. [44:1]
Archbishop Ussher and others, who have carefully investigated the subject, have placed in A.D. 169 the martyrdom of Polycarp. The following reasons may be assigned why this date is decidedly preferable to that contended for by Dr. Lightfoot.
1. All the surrounding circumstances point to the reign of Marcus Aurelius as the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius has preserved an edict, said to have been issued by Antoninus Pius, in which he announces that he had written to the governors of provinces "not to trouble the Christians at all, unless they appeared to make attempts against the Roman government." [44:2] Doubts—it may be, well founded—have been entertained as to the genuineness of this ordinance; but it has been pretty generally acknowledged that it fairly indicates the policy of Antoninus Pius. "Though certainly spurious," says Dr. Lightfoot, "it represents the conception of him entertained by Christians in the generations next succeeding his own." [45:1] In his reign, the disciples of our Lord, according to the declarations of their own apologists, were treated with special indulgence. Melito, for example, who wrote not long after the middle of the second century, bears this testimony. Capitolinus, an author who flourished about the close of the third century, reports that Antoninus Pius lived "without bloodshed, either of citizen or foe," during his reign of twenty-two years. [45:2] Dr. Lightfoot strives again and again to evade the force of this evidence, and absurdly quotes the sufferings of Polycarp and his companions as furnishing a contradiction; but he thus only takes for granted what he has elsewhere failed to prove. He admits, at the same time, that this case stands alone. "The only recorded martyrdoms," says he, "in Proconsular Asia during his reign [that of Antoninus Pius] are those of Polycarp and his companions." [45:3] It must, however, be obvious that he cannot establish even this exception. We have seen that the chronology supported by the Bishop of Durham is at variance with the express statements of all the early Christian writers; and certain facts mentioned in the letter of the Smyrnaeans concur to demonstrate its inaccuracy. The description there given of the sufferings endured by those of whom it speaks, supplies abundant evidence that the martyrdoms must have happened in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Dr. Lightfoot himself attests that "persecutions extended throughout this reign;" that they were "fierce and deliberate;" and that they were "aggravated by cruel tortures." [46:1] Such precisely were the barbarities reported in this Epistle. It states that the martyrs "were so torn by lashes that the mechanism of their flesh was visible, even as far as the inward veins and arteries;" that, notwithstanding, they were enabled to "endure the fire;" and that those who were finally "condemned to the wild beasts" meanwhile "suffered fearful punishments,being made to lie on sharp shells, and buffeted with other forms of manifold tortures." [46:2] These words attest that, before the Christians were put to death, various expedients were employed to extort from them a recantation. Such was the mode of treatment recommended by Marcus Aurelius. In an edict issued against those who professed the gospel by this emperor, we have the following directions: "Let them be arrested, and unless they offer to the gods,let them be punished with divers tortures." [46:3] "Various means," says Neander, "were employed to constrain them to a renunciation of their faith; and only in the last extremity, when they could not be forced to submit, was the punishment of death to be inflicted." [46:4] This, undoubtedly, was the inauguration of a new system of persecution. In former times, the Christians who refused to apostatize were summarily consigned to execution. Now, they were horribly tormented in various ways, with a view to compel them to abandon their religion. This new policy is characteristic of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Nothing akin to it, sanctioned by Imperial authority, can be found in the time of any preceding emperor. Its employment now in the case of Polycarp and his companions fixes the date of the martyrdom to this reign.
2. We have distinct proof that the visit of Polycarp to Rome took placeafterthe date assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to his martyrdom! Eusebius tells us that, in thefirstyear of the reign of Antoninus Pius, [47:1] Telesphorus of Rome died, and was succeeded in his charge by Hyginus. [47:2] He subsequently informs us that Hyginus dying "after the fourth year of his office," was succeeded by Pius; and he then adds that Pius dying at Rome, "in thefifteenthyear of his episcopate," was succeeded by Anicetus. [47:3] It was in the time of this chief pastor that Polycarp paid his visit to the Imperial city. It is apparent from the foregoing statements that Anicetus could not have entered on his office until at least nineteen, or perhaps twenty years, after Antoninus Pius became emperor, that is, until A.D. 157, or possibly until A.D. 158. This, however, is two or three years after the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for the martyrdom. Surely the Bishop of Durham would not have us to believe that Polycarp reappeared in Rome two or three years after he expired on the funeral pile; and yet it is only by some such desperate supposition that he can make his chronology square with the history of the apostolic Father.
It is not at all probable that Polycarp arrived in Rome immediately after the appointment of Anicetus as chief pastor. The account of his visit, as given by Irenaeus, rather suggests that a considerable time must meanwhile have elapsed before he made his appearance there. It would seem that he had been disturbed by reports which had reached him relative to innovations with which Anicetus was identified; and that, apprehending mischief to the whole Christian community from anything going amiss in a Church of such importance, he was prompted, at his advanced age, to undertake so formidable a journey, in the hope that, by the weight of his personal influence with his brethren in the Imperial city, he might be able to arrest the movement. It is not necessary now to inquire more particularly what led the venerable Asiatic presbyter at this period to travel all the way from Smyrna to the seat of empire. It is enough for us to know, as regards the question before us, that it took place sometime during the pastorate of Anicetus; that Polycarp effected much good by his dealings with errorists when in Rome; and that its chief Christian minister, by his tact and discretion, succeeded in quieting the fears of the aged stranger. That the visit occurred long after the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for his martyrdom, may now be evident; and in a former chapter proof has been adduced to show that it must be dated, not, as the Bishop of Durham argues, about A.D. 154, but in A.D. 161. Neither is there any evidence whatever that Polycarp was put to death immediately after his return to Smyrna. This supposition is absolutely necessary to give even an appearance of plausibility to the bishop's chronology; but he has not been able to furnish so much as a solitary reason for its adoption.
3. We have good grounds for believing that the martyrdom of Polycarp occurred not earlier than A.D. 169. This date fulfils better than any other the conditions enumerated in the letter of the Smyrnaeans. Archbishop Ussher has been at pains to show that the month and day there mentioned precisely correspond to and verify this reckoning. It is unnecessary here to repeat his calculations; but it is right to notice another item spoken of in the Smyrnaean Epistle, supplying an additional confirmatory proof which the Bishop of Durham cannot well ignore. When Polycarp was pressed to apostatize by the officials who had him in custody, they pleaded with him as if anxious to save his life—"Why, what harm is there in sayingCaesar is Lord, and offering incense?" and they urged him to "swear by the genius of Caesar" [50:1] These words suggest that, at the time of this transaction, the Roman world had only one emperor. In January A.D. 169, L. Verus died. After recording this event in hisImperial Fasti, Dr. Lightfoot adds, "M. Aurelius is nowsole emperor." [50:2] When he is contending for A.D. 155 as the date of the martyrdom, he lays much stress on the fact that "throughout this Smyrnaean letterthe singularis used of the emperor." "Polycarp," he says, "is urged to declare 'Caesar is Lord;' he is bidden, and he refuses to swear by the 'genius of Caesar.'" "It is," he adds, "at least a matter of surprise that these forms should be persistently used, if the event had happenedduring a divided sovereignty." [50:3] The bishop cannot, at this stage of the discussion, decently refuse to recognise the potency of his own argument.
The three reasons just enumerated show conclusively that A.D. 155, for which the Bishop of Durham contends so strenuously, cannot be accepted as the date of the martyrdom. For some years after this, Anicetus was not placed at the head of the Church of the Imperial city; and he must have been for a considerable time in that position, when Polycarp paid his visit to Rome. We have seen that the aged pastor of Smyrna suffered in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and that A.D. 169 is the earliest period to which we can refer the martyrdom, inasmuch as that was the first year in which Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor. All the reliable chronological indications point to this as the more correct reckoning.
It has now, we believe, been demonstrated by a series of solid and concurring testimonies, that Archbishop Ussher made no mistake when he fixed on A.D. 169 as the proper date of Polycarp's martyrdom. The bearing of this conclusion on the question of the Ignatian Epistles must at once be apparent. Polycarp was eighty-six years of age at the time of his death; and it follows that in A.D. 107,—or sixty-two years before,—when the Ignatian letters are alleged to have been dictated, he was only four-and-twenty. The absurdity of believing that at such an age he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, or that another apostolic Father would then have addressed him in the style employed in the Ignatian correspondence, must be plain to every reader of ordinary intelligence. No wonder that the advocates of the genuineness of these Epistles have called into requisition such an enormous amount of ingenuity and erudition to pervert the chronology. Pearson, as we have seen, spent six years in this service; and the learned Bishop of Durham has been engaged "off and on" for nearly thirty in the same labour. At the close of his long task he seems to have persuaded himself that he has been quite successful; and speaking of the theory of Dr. Cureton, he adopts a tone of triumph, and exclaims: "I venture to hope that the discussion which follows will extinguish the last sparks of its waning life." [51:1] It remains for the candid reader to ponder the statements submitted to him in this chapter, and to determine how many sparks of life now remain in the bishop's chronology.
1.The Testimony of Irenaeus.
The only two vouchers of the second century produced in support of the claims of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, are the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and a sentence from the treatise of IrenaeusAgainst Heresies. The evidence from Polycarp's Epistle has been discussed in a preceding chapter. When examined, it has completely broken down, as it is based on an entire misconception of the meaning of the writer. The words of Irenaeus can be adduced with still less plausibility to uphold the credit of these letters. The following is the passage in which they are supposed to be authenticated: "One of our people said, when condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony towards God—'As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.'" [53:1] It is worse than a mere begging of the question to assert that Irenaeus here gives us a quotation from one of the letters of Ignatius. In the extensive treatise from which the words are an extract, he never once mentions the name of the pastor of Antioch. Had he been aware of the existence of these Epistles, he would undoubtedly have availed himself of their assistance when contending against the heretics—as they would have furnished him with many passages exactly suited for their refutation. The words of a man taught by the apostles, occupying one of the highest positions in the Christian Church, and finishing his career by a glorious martyrdom in the very beginning of the second century, would have been by far the weightiest evidence he could have produced, next to the teaching of inspiration. But though he brings forward Clemens Romanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, [54:1] and others to confront the errorists, he ignores a witness whose antiquity and weight of character would have imparted peculiar significance to his testimony. To say that though he never names him elsewhere, he points to him in this place as "one of our people," is to make a very bold and improbable statement. Even the Apostle Paul himself would not have ventured to describe the evangelist John in this way. He would have alluded to him more respectfully. Neither would the pastor of a comparatively uninfluential church in the south of Gaul have expressed himself after this fashion when speaking of a minister who had been one of the most famous of the spiritual heroes of the Church. Not many years before, a terrific persecution had raged in his own city of Lyons; many had been put in prison, and some had been thrown to wild beasts; [55:1] and it is obviously to one of these anonymous sufferers that Irenaeus here directs attention. The "one of our people" is not certainly an apostolic Father; but some citizen of Lyons, moving in a different sphere, whose name the author does not deem it necessary to enrol in the record of history. Neither is it to awrittencorrespondence, but to thedying wordsof the unknown martyr, to which he adverts when we read,—"One of our peoplesaid, As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God."
The two witnesses of the second century who are supposed to uphold the claims of the Ignatian Epistles have now been examined, and it must be apparent that their testimony amounts to nothing. Thus far, then, there is no external evidence whatever in favour of these letters. The result of this investigation warrants the suspicion that they are forgeries. [55:2] The internal evidence abundantly confirms this impression. Any one who carefully peruses them, and then reads over the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, the Teaching of the Apostles, the writings of Justin Martyr, and the Epistle of Polycarp, may see that the works just named are the productions of quite another period. The Ignatian letters describe a state of things which they totally ignore. Dr. Lightfoot himself has been at pains to point out the wonderful difference between the Ignatian correspondence and the Epistle of Polycarp. "In whatever way," says he, "we test the documents, the contrast is very striking,—more striking, indeed, than we should have expected to find between two Christian writers who lived at the same time and were personally acquainted with each other." [56:1] He then proceeds to mention some of the points of contrast. Whilst the so-called Ignatius lays stress on Episcopacy "as the key-stone of the ecclesiastical order," Polycarp, in his Epistle, from first to last makes "no mention of the Episcopate," and "the bishop is entirely ignored." In regard to doctrinal statement the same contrariety is apparent. Ignatius speaks of "the blood of God" and "the passion of my God," whilst no such language is used by Polycarp. Again, in the letter of the pastor of Smyrna, there is "an entire absence of that sacramental language which confronts us again and again in the most startling forms in Ignatius." [57:1] "Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous as well as more precise than in the former." In the Ignatian letters, of "quotations from the New Testament, strictly speaking, there is none." [57:2] "Of all the Fathers of the Church, early or later, no one is more incisive or more persistent in advocating the claims of the threefold ministry to allegiance than Ignatius." [57:3] Polycarp, on the other hand, has written a letter "which has proved a stronghold of Presbyterianism." [57:4] And yet Dr. Lightfoot would have us to believe that these various letters were written by two ministers living at the same time, taught by the same instructors, holding the closest intercourse with each other, professing the same doctrines, and adhering to the same ecclesiastical arrangements!
The features of distinction between the teaching of the Ignatian letters and the teaching of Polycarp, which have been pointed out by Dr. Lightfoot himself, are sufficiently striking; but his Lordship has not exhibited nearly the full amount of the contrast. Ignatius is described as offering himself voluntarily that he may suffer as a martyr, and as telling those to whom he writes that his supreme desire is to be devoured by the lions at Rome. "I desire," says he, "to fight with wild beasts." [57:5] "May I have joy of the beasts that have been prepared for me ... I will entice them that they may devour me promptly." [58:1] "Though I desire to suffer, yet I know not whether I am worthy." [58:2] "I delivered myself over to death." [58:3] "I bid all men know that of my own free will I die for God." [58:4] The Church, instructed by Polycarp, condemns this insane ambition for martyrdom. "We praise not those," say the Smyrnaeans, "who deliver themselves up,since the gospel does not so teach us." [58:5] In these letters Ignatius speaks as a vain babbler, drunken with fanaticism; Polycarp, in his Epistle, expresses himself like an humble-minded Presbyterian minister in his sober senses. Ignatius is made to address Polycarp as if he were a full-blown prelate, and tells the people under his care, "He that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doth aught against the knowledge of the bishop, rendereth service to the devil" [58:6] Polycarp, on the other hand, describes himself as one of the elders, and exhorts the Philippians to "submit to the presbyters and deacons," and to be "all subject one to another." [58:7] When their Church had got into a state of confusion, and when they applied to him for advice, he recommended them "to walk in the commandment of the Lord," and admonished their "presbyters to be compassionate and merciful towards all men," [58:8]—never hinting that the appointment of a bishop would help to keep them in order; whereas, when Ignatius addresses various Churches,—that of the Smyrnaeans included,—he assumes a tone of High Churchmanship which Archbishop Laud himself would have been afraid, and perhaps ashamed, to emulate. "As many as are of God and of Jesus Christ," says he, "they are with the bishop." "It is good to recognise God and the bishop!" "Give ye heed to the bishop, that God may also give heed to you." [59:1]
The internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles seals their condemnation. I do not intend, however, at present to pursue this subject. In a work published by me six and twenty years ago, [59:2] I have called attention to various circumstances which betray the imposture; and neither Dr. Lightfoot, Zahn, nor any one else, so far as I am aware, has ever yet ventured to deal with my arguments. I might now add new evidences of their fabrication, but I deem this unnecessary. I cannot, however, pass from this department of the question in debate, without protesting against the view presented by the Bishop of Durham of the origin of Prelacy. "It is shown," says he, referring to hisEssay on the Christian Ministry, [59:3] "that though the New Testament itself contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized episcopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years of the apostolic age, ... and that, in the early years of the second century, the episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more especially in Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its extension in the regions east of the Aegaean at this epoch be resisted,I am at a loss to understand what single fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as established." [60:1]
In this statement, as well as in not a few others already submitted to the reader, Dr. Lightfoot has expressed himself with an amount of confidence which may well excite astonishment. It would not be difficult to show that his speculations as to the development of Episcopacy in Asia Minor and Syria in the early years of the second century, as presented in the Essay to which he refers, are the merest moonshine. On what grounds can he maintain that Timothy exercised what he calls a "moveable episcopate" in Ephesus? Paul besought him to abide there for a time that he might withstand errorists, and he gave him instructions as to how he was to behave himself in the house of God; [60:2] but it did not therefore follow that he was either a bishop or an archbishop. He was an able man, sound in the faith, wise and energetic; and, as he was thus a host in himself, Paul expected that meanwhile he would be eminently useful in helping the less gifted ministers who were in the place to repress error and keep the Church in order. That Paul intended to establish neither a moveable nor an immoveable episcopate in Ephesus, is obvious from his own testimony; for when he addresses its elders,—as he believed for the last time,—he ignored their submission to any ecclesiastical superior, and committed the Church to their own supervision. [61:1] And if he left Titus in Crete to take charge of the organization of the Church there, he certainly did not intend that the evangelist was to act alone. In those days there was no occasion for the services of a diocesan bishop, inasmuch as the Christian community was governed by the common council of the elders, and ordination was performed "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." [61:2] Titus was a master builder, and Paul believed that, proceeding in concert with the ministers in Crete, he would render effectual aid in carrying forward the erection of the ecclesiastical edifice. And what proof has Dr. Lightfoot produced to show that "the episcopate was widely spread in Asia Minor and in Syria" in "the early years of the second century"? If the Ignatian Epistles be discredited, he has none at all. But there is very decisive evidence to the contrary. The Teaching of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Polycarp prove the very reverse. And yet Dr. Lightfoot is at a loss to understand what single fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as established, if we reject his baseless assertion!
2.The Genesis of Prelacy.
Jerome gives us the true explanation of the origin of the episcopate, when he tells us that it was set up with a view to prevent divisions in the Church. [62:1] These divisions were created chiefly by the Gnostics, who swarmed in some of the great cities of the empire towards the middle of the second century. About that time the president of the Presbytery was in a few places armed with additional authority, in the hope that he would thus be the better able to repress schism. The new system was inaugurated in Rome, and its Church has ever since maintained the proud boast that it is the centre of ecclesiastical unity. From the Imperial city Episcopacy gradually radiated over all Christendom. The position assumed by Dr. Lightfoot—that it commenced in Jerusalem—is without any solid foundation. To support it, he is obliged to adopt the fable that James was the first bishop of the mother Church. The New Testament ignores this story, and tells us explicitly that James was only one of the "pillars," or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewish capital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employed to establish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greater plausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges that, about the close of the first century, we cannot find a trace of the episcopate in either of the two great Christian Churches of Rome and Corinth. [63:1] "At the close of the first century," says he, "Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning of the second century Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter Epistle, so in the former, there is no allusion to the episcopal office." [63:2] He might have said that, even after the middle of the second century, it did not exist either in Smyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that "as late as the close of the second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as distinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery." [63:3] "The first bishop of Alexandria," says he, "of whom any distinct incident is recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen," [63:4] who flourished in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the same place, that "at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelve presbyters out of their own number." [63:5] Instead of asserting, as has been done, that no single fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate was widely spread in the early years of the second century in Asia Minor and elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at the date here mentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it was established ANYWHERE.
Irenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy, for he lived throughout the period of its original development; but he has taken care not to lift the veil which covers its mysterious commencement. He could have told what prompted Polycarp to undertake a journey to Rome when burthened with the weight of years; but he has left us to our own surmises. It is, however, significant that the presbyterian system was kept up in Smyrna long after the death of its aged martyr. [64:1] Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that "Irenaeus was probably the most learned Christian of his time;" [64:2] and it is pretty clear that he contributed much to promote the acceptance of the episcopal theory. When arguing with the heretics, he coined the doctrine of the apostolical succession, and maintained that the true faith was propagated to his own age through an unbroken line of bishops from the days of the apostles. To make out his case, he was necessitated to speak of the presidents of the presbyteries as bishops, [64:3] and to ignore the change which had meanwhile taken place in the ecclesiastical Constitution. Subsequent writers followed in his wake, and thus it is that the beginnings of Episcopacy have been enveloped in so much obscurity. Even in Rome, the seat of the most prominent Church in Christendom, it is impossible to settle the order in which its early presiding pastors were arranged. "Come we to Rome," says Stillingfleet, "and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here Tertullian, Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next to Peter. Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus, both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus, with others, make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?" [65:1] The different lists preserved attest that there was no such continuous and homogeneous line of bishops as the doctrine of the apostolical succession implies. When Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp as having "received his appointment in Asia from apostles as bishop in the Church of Smyrna," [65:2] he makes a statement which, literally understood, even Dr. Lightfoot hesitates to endorse. [65:3] The Apostle John may have seen Polycarp in his boyhood, and may have predicted his future eminence as a Christian minister,—just as Timothy was pointed out by prophecy [66:1] as destined to be a champion of the faith. When Episcopacy was introduced, its abettors tried to manufacture a little literary capital out of some such incident; but the allegation that Polycarp was ordained to the episcopal office by the apostles, is a fable that does not require refutation. Almost all of them were dead before he was born. [66:2]
If, as there is every reason to believe, the Ignatian Epistles are forgeries from beginning to end, various questions arise as to the time of their appearance, and the circumstances which prompted their fabrication. Their origin, like that of many other writings of the same description, cannot be satisfactorily explored; and we must in vain attempt a solution of all the objections which may be urged against almost any hypothesis framed to elucidate their history. It is, however, pretty clear that, in their original form, they first saw the light in the early part of the third century. About that time there was evidently something like a mania for the composition of such works,—as various spurious writings, attributed to Clemens Romanus and others, abundantly testify. Their authors do not seem to have been aware of the impropriety of committing these pious frauds, and may even have imagined that they were thus doing God service. [67:1] Several circumstances suggest that Callistus—who became Bishop of Rome about A.D. 219—may, before his advancement to the episcopal chair, have had a hand in the preparation of these Ignatian Epistles. His history is remarkable. He was originally a slave, and in early life he is reported to have been the child of misfortune. He had at one time the care of a bank, in the management of which he did not prosper. He was at length banished to Sardinia, to labour there as a convict in the mines; and when released from servitude in that unhealthy island, he was brought under the notice of Victor, the Roman bishop. To his bounty he was, about this time, indebted for his support. [68:1] On the death of Victor, Callistus became a prime favourite with Zephyrinus, the succeeding bishop. By him he was put in charge of the cemetery of the Christians connected with the Catacombs; and he soon attained the most influential position among the Roman clergy. So great was his popularity, that, on the demise of his patron, he was himself unanimously chosen to the episcopal office in the chief city of the empire. Callistus was no ordinary man. He was a kind of original in his way. He possessed a considerable amount of literary culture. He took a prominent part in the current theological controversies,—and yet, if we are to believe Hippolytus, he could accommodate himself to the views of different schools of doctrine. He had great versatility of talent, restless activity, deep cunning, and much force of character. Hippolytus tells us that he was sadly given to intrigue, and so slippery in his movements that it was no easy matter to entangle him in a dilemma. It may have occurred to him that, in the peculiar position of the Church, the concoction of a series of letters, written in the name of an apostolic Father, and vigorously asserting the claims of the bishops, would help much to strengthen the hands of the hierarchy. He might thus manage at the same time quietly to commend certain favourite views of doctrine, and aid the pretensions of the Roman chief pastor. But the business must be kept a profound secret; and the letters must, if possible, be so framed as not at once to awaken suspicion. If we carefully examine them, we shall find that they were well fitted to escape detection at the time when they were written.
The internal evidence warrants the conclusion that the Epistle to the Romans was the first produced. It came forth alone; and, if it crept into circulation originally in the Imperial city, it was not likely to provoke there any hostile criticism. It is occupied chiefly with giving expression to the personal feelings of the supposed writer in the prospect of martyrdom. It scarcely touches on the question of ecclesiastical regimen; and it closes by soliciting the prayers of the Roman brethren for "the Church which is in Syria." [69:1] "If," says Dr. Lightfoot, "Ignatius had not incidentally mentioned himself as the Bishop 'of' or 'from Syria,' the letter to the Romans would have contained no indication of the existence of the episcopal office" [70:1] Whilst observing this studied silence on the subject which above all others occupied his thoughts, the writer was craftily preparing the way for the more ready reception of the letters which were to follow. The Epistle to the Romans tacitly embodies their credentials. It slyly takes advantage of the connection of the name of Ignatius with Syria in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians; assumes that Syria is the eastern province; and represents Ignatius as a bishop from that part of the empire on his way to die at Rome. It does not venture to say that the Western capital had then a bishop of its own,—for the Epistle of Clemens, which was probably in many hands, and which ignored the episcopal office there—might thus have suggested doubts as to its genuineness; but it tells the sensational story of the journey of Ignatius in chains, from east to west, in the custody of what are called "ten leopards." This tale at the time was likely to be exceedingly popular. Ever since the rise of Montanism—which made its appearance about the time of the death of Polycarp—there had been an increasing tendency all over the Church to exaggerate the merits of martyrdom. This tendency reached its fullest development in the early part of the third century. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans exhibits it in the height of its folly. Ignatius proclaims his most earnest desire to be torn to pieces by the lions, and entreats the Romans not to interfere and deprive him of a privilege which he coveted so ardently. The words reported by Irenaeus as uttered by one of the martyrs of Lyons are adroitly appropriated by the pseudo-Ignatius as if spoken by himself; and, in an uncritical age, when the subject-matter of the communication was otherwise so much to the taste of the reader, the quotation helped to establish the credit of the Ignatian correspondence. Another portion of the letter was sure to be extremely acceptable to the Church of Rome—for here the writer is most lavish in his complimentary acknowledgements. That Church is described as "having the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, filled with the grace of God, without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain."
"The Epistle to the Romans," says Dr. Lightfoot, "had a wider popularity than the other letters of Ignatius, both early and late. It appears to have been circulated apart from them, sometimes alone." [71:1] It was put forth as a feeler, to discover how the public would be disposed to entertain such a correspondence; and, in case of its favourable reception, it was intended to open the way for additional Epistles. It was cleverly contrived. It employed the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians as a kind of voucher for its authenticity, inasmuch as it is there stated that Ignatius had written a number of letters; and it contained little or nothing which any one in that age would have been disposed to controvert. The Christians of Rome had long enjoyed the reputation of a community ennobled by the blood of martyrs, and they would be quite willing to believe that Ignatius had contributed to their celebrity by dying for the faith within their borders. It is very doubtful whether he really finished his career there: some ancient authorities attest that he suffered at Antioch; [72:1] and the fact that, in the fourth century, his grave was pointed out in that locality, apparently supports their testimony. [72:2] The account of his hurried removal as a prisoner from Antioch to Rome, in the custody of ten fierce soldiers—whilst he was permitted, as he passed along, to hold something like a levee of his co-religionists at every stage of his journey—wears very much the appearance of an ill-constructed fiction. But the disciples at Rome about this period were willing to be credulous in such matters; and thus it was that this tale of martyrdom was permitted to pass unchallenged. In due time the author of the letters, as they appeared one after another, accomplished the design of their composition. The question of the constitution of the Church had recently awakened much attention; and the threat of Victor to excommunicate the Christians of Asia Minor, because they ventured to differ from him as to the mode of celebrating the Paschal festival, had, no doubt, led to discussions relative to the claims of episcopal authority which, at Rome especially, were felt to be very inconvenient and uncomfortable. No one could well maintain that it had a scriptural warrant. The few who were acquainted with its history were aware that it was only a human arrangement of comparatively recent introduction; and yet a bishop who threatened with excommunication such as refused to submit to his mandates, could scarcely be expected to make such a confession. Irenaeus had sanctioned its establishment; but, when Victor became so overbearing, he took the alarm, and told him plainly that those who presided over the Church of Rome before him were nothing but presbyters. [73:1] This was rather an awkward disclosure; and it was felt by the friends of the new order that some voucher was required to help it in its hour of need, and to fortify its pretensions. The letters of an apostolic Father strongly asserting its claims could not fail to give it encouragement. We can thus understand how at this crisis these Epistles were forthcoming. They were admirably calculated to quiet the public mind. They were comparatively short, so that they could be easily read; and they were quite to the point, for they taught that we are to "regard the bishop as the Lord Himself," and that "he presides after the likeness of God." [74:1] Who after all this could doubt the claims of Episcopacy? Should not the words of an apostolic Father put an end to all farther questionings?
Hippolytus, who was his contemporary, has given us much information in relation to Callistus. He writes, indeed, in an unfriendly spirit; but he speaks, notwithstanding, as an honest man; and we cannot well reject his statements as destitute of foundation. His account of the general facts in the career of this Roman bishop obviously rest on a substratum of truth. As we read these Ignatian letters, it may occur to us that the real author sometimes betrays his identity. Callistus had been originally a slave, and he here represents Ignatius as saying of himself, "I am a slave." [74:2] Callistus had been a convict, and more than once this Ignatius declares, "I am a convict." [74:3] May he not thus intend to remind his co-religionists at Rome that an illustrious bishop and martyr had once been a slave and a convict like himself? Callistus, when labouring in the mines of Sardinia, must have been well acquainted with ropes and hoists; and here Ignatius describes the Ephesians as "hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ," having faith as their "windlass," and as "using for a rope the Holy Spirit." [74:4] Callistus had at one time been in charge of a bank; and Ignatius, in one of these Epistles, is made to say, "Let your works be yourdeposits, that you may receive yourassetsdue to you." [75:1] Callistus also had charge of the Christian cemetery in the Roman Catacombs; and Ignatius here expresses himself as one familiar with graves and funerals. He speaks of a heretic as "being himself a bearer of a corpse," and of those inclined to Judaism "as tombstones and graves of the dead." [75:2] It is rather singular that, in these few short letters, we find so many expressions which point to Callistus as the writer. There are, however, other matters which warrant equally strong suspicions. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus was a Patripassian. "The Father," said he, "having taken human nature, deified it by uniting it to Himself, ... and so he said that the Father had suffered with the Son." [75:3] Hence Ignatius, in these Epistles, startles us by such expressions as "the blood of God," [75:4] and "the passion of my God." [75:5] Callistus is accused by Hippolytus as a trimmer prepared, as occasion served, to conciliate different parties in the Church by appearing to adopt their views. Sometimes he sided with Hippolytus, and sometimes with those opposed to him; hence it is that the theology taught in these letters is of a very equivocal character. Dr. Lightfoot has seized upon this fact as a reason that they are never quoted by Irenaeus. "The language approaching dangerously near to heresy might," says he, "have led him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal teaching." [76:1] A much better reason was that he had never heard of these letters; and yet their theology is exactly such a piebald production as might have been expected from Callistus.
It is not easy to understand how Dr. Lightfoot has brought himself to believe that these Ignatian Epistles were written in the beginning of the second century. "Throughout the whole range of Christian literature," says he, "no more uncompromising advocacy of the episcopate can be found than appears in these writings ... It is when asserting the claims of the episcopal office to obedience and respect that the language isstrained to the utmost. The bishops establishedin the farthest part of the worldare in the counsels of Jesus Christ." [76:2] It is simply incredible that such a state of things could have existed six or seven years after the death of the Apostle John. All the extant writings for sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom of Ignatius demonstrate the utter falsehood of these letters. It is certain that they employ a terminology, and develop Church principles unknown before the beginning of the third century, and which were not current even then. The forger, whoever he may have been, has displayed no little art and address in their fabrication. From all that we know of Callistus, he was quite equal to the task. Like the false Decretals, these letters exerted much influence on the subsequent history of the Church. Cyprian, though he never mentions them, [77:1] speedily caught their spirit. His assertion of episcopal authority is quite in the same style. Origen visited Rome shortly after they appeared; he is the first writer who recognises them; and it is worthy of note that, of the three quotations from them found in his works, two are from the Epistle to the Romans. It is quite within the range of possibility that evidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that they emanated from one of the early popes. They are worthy of such an origin. They recommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiastical dictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever since inculcated. "It need hardly be remarked," says Dr. Lightfoot, "how subversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negation of individual freedom and the consequent suppression of direct responsibility to God in Christ, is thecrushing despotismwith which" the language of these letters, "if taken literally, would invest the episcopal office." [77:2] And yet, having devoted nearly thirty years off and on to the study of these Epistles, the Bishop of Durham maintains that we have here the genuine writings of an apostolic Father who was instructed by the inspired founders of the Christian Church!!
In this Review no notice is taken of the various forms of these Epistles. If they are all forgeries, it is not worth while to spend time in discussing the merits of the several editions.