summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/8908-h/8908-h.htm
blob: 0cf38d69f20c44afe7e59f7fbf27b94c295d53ce (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<!DOCTYPE html
   PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" >

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>
      The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious., by W. D. Killen, D.d. Professor
      of Ecclesiastical History, and Principal
    </title>
    <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve">

    body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify}
    P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; }
    H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; }
    hr  { width: 50%; text-align: center;}
    .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; }
    blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
    .mynote    {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;}
    .toc       { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;}
    .toc2      { margin-left: 20%;}
    div.fig    { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; }
    div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; }
    .figleft   {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;}
    .figright  {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;}
    .pagenum   {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal;
               margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%;
               text-align: right;}
    pre        { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;}

</style>
  </head>
  <body>


<pre>

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious, by
William Dool Killen

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious

Author: William Dool Killen


Release Date: September, 2005  [EBook #8908]
[This file was first posted on August 23, 2003]
Last Updated: May 8, 2013

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ***




Text file produced by Freethought Archives

HTML file produced by David Widger



</pre>

    <div style="height: 8em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h1>
      THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.
    </h1>
    <h2>
      A Reply to The Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham.
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <h2>
      By W. D. Killen, D.D.
    </h2>
    <h4>
      Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Principal<br /> of the
      Presbyterian Theological Faculty, Ireland.
    </h4>
    <p>
      <br /> <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <div class="middle">
      <p>
        "As the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius may be justly suspected,
        so, too, the letters which presuppose the correctness of this suspicious
        legend do not wear at all a stamp of a distinct individuality of
        character, and of a man of these times addressing his last words to the
        Churches." &mdash;AUGUSTUS NEANDER.
      </p>
    </div>
    <p>
      <br /> <br /> <br />
    </p>
    <h4>
      EDINBURGH <br /> <br /> 1886.
    </h4>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_PREF"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      PREFACE.
    </h2>
    <p>
      This little volume is respectfully submitted to the candid consideration
      of all who take an interest in theological inquiries, under the impression
      that it will throw some additional light on a subject which has long
      created much discussion. It has been called forth by the appearance of a
      treatise entitled, "<i>The Apostolic Fathers</i>, Part II. S. Ignatius, S.
      Polycarp. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and
      Translations, by J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D, Bishop of Durham."
      In this voluminous production the Right Reverend Author has maintained,
      not only that all the seven letters attributed by Eusebius to Ignatius are
      genuine, but also that "no Christian writings of the second century, and
      very few writings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well
      authenticated." These positions, advocated with the utmost confidence by
      the learned prelate, are sure to be received with implicit confidence by a
      wide circle of readers; and I have felt impelled here openly to protest
      against them, inasmuch as I am satisfied that they cannot be accepted
      without overturning all the legitimate landmarks of historical criticism.
      I freely acknowledge the eminent services which Dr. Lightfoot has rendered
      to the Christian Church by his labours as a Commentator on Scripture, and
      it is therefore all the more important that the serious errors of a writer
      so distinguished should not be permitted to pass unchallenged. All who
      love the faith once delivered to the saints, may be expected to regard
      with deference the letters of a martyr who lived on the borders of the
      apostolic age; but these Ignatian Epistles betray indications of a very
      different original, for they reveal a spirit of which no enlightened
      Christian can approve, and promulgate principles which would sanction the
      boldest assumptions of ecclesiastical despotism. In a work published by me
      many years ago, I have pointed out the marks of their imposture; and I
      have since seen no cause to change my views. Regarding all these letters
      as forgeries from beginning to end, I have endeavoured, in the following
      pages, to expose the fallacy of the arguments by which Dr. Lightfoot has
      attempted their vindication.
    </p>
    <p>
      ASSEMBLY COLLEGE, BELFAST,
    </p>
    <p>
      July 1886.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <p>
      <b>CONTENTS</b>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_PREF"> PREFACE. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_TOC"> DETAILED CONTENTS. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_4_0002"> THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0001"> CHAPTER I. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0002"> CHAPTER II. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0003"> CHAPTER III. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0004"> CHAPTER IV. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0005"> CHAPTER V. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_APPE"> APPENDICES. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_4_0009"> I. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_4_0010"> II. </a>
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2H_4_0011"> [ENDNOTES] </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_TOC"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      DETAILED CONTENTS.
    </h2>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0001"> CHAPTER I. </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      CHAPTER I. <br /> PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. <br /> The critical spirit
      stimulated by the Reformation&mdash;The Ignatian Epistles <br /> as
      regarded by Calvin, Ussher, Vossius, Daillé, Pearson, Wake, and <br />
      Cureton&mdash;Dr. Lightfoot as a scholar and a commentator&mdash;The
      valuable <br /> information supplied in his recent work&mdash;His estimate
      of the parties who <br /> have pronounced judgment on the question of the
      Ignatian Epistles&mdash;His <br /> verdict unfair&mdash;His introduction of
      Lucian as a witness in his <br /> favour&mdash;The story of Peregrinus&mdash;Dr.
      Lightfoot's cardinal mistake in his <br /> treatment of this question.
      <br />
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0002"> CHAPTER II. </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      CHAPTER II. <br /> THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES
      EXAMINED. <br /> Dr. Lightfoot makes a most unguarded statement as to the
      Ignatian <br /> Epistles&mdash;The letter of Polycarp better authenticated&mdash;The
      date assigned <br /> for the martyrdom of Ignatius&mdash;The date of
      Polycarp's Epistle&mdash;Written <br /> in the reign of Marcus Aurelius&mdash;Not
      written in the reign of Trajan&mdash;The <br /> Epistle of Polycarp has no
      reference to Ignatius of Antioch&mdash;It refers <br /> to another Ignatius
      of another age and country&mdash;It was written at a <br /> time of
      persecution&mdash;The postscript to the letter of Polycarp quite <br />
      misunderstood&mdash;What is meant by letters being carried to Syria&mdash;Psyria
      <br /> and Syria, two islands in the Aegaean Sea&mdash;The errors of
      transcribers of <br /> the postscript&mdash;The true meaning of the
      postscript&mdash;What has led to <br /> the mistake as to the claims of the
      Ignatian Epistles&mdash;The continued <br /> popularity of these Epistles
      among High Churchmen. <br />
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0003"> CHAPTER III. </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      CHAPTER III. <br /> THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. <br /> Dr.
      Lightfoot's strange reasoning on this subject&mdash;The testimony of <br />
      Eusebius, Jerome, and others&mdash;Eusebius and Jerome highly competent
      <br /> witnesses&mdash;Dr. Döllinger's estimate of Jerome&mdash;The basis
      on which <br /> Dr. Lightfoot rests the whole weight of his chronological
      <br /> argument&mdash;Aristides and his <i>Sacred Discourses</i>&mdash;Statius
      Quadratus, the <br /> consuls and proconsuls&mdash;Ummidius Quadratus&mdash;Polycarp
      martyred in the <br /> reign of Marcus Aurelius&mdash;His visit to Rome in
      the time of Anicetus&mdash;Put <br /> to death when there was only one
      emperor&mdash;Age of Polycarp at the time of <br /> his martyrdom&mdash;The
      importance of the chronological argument. <br />
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0004"> CHAPTER IV. </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      CHAPTER IV. <br /> THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.
      <br /> The testimony of Irenaeus quite misunderstood&mdash;Refers to the
      dying <br /> words of one of the martyrs of Lyons&mdash;The internal
      evidence against the <br /> genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles&mdash;The
      contrast between the Epistle <br /> of Polycarp and the Ignatian Epistles
      as exhibited by Dr. Lightfoot <br /> himself&mdash;Additional points of
      contrast&mdash;Dr. Lightfoot quite mistaken <br /> as to the origin of
      Prelacy&mdash;It did not originate in the East, or Asia <br /> Minor, but
      in Rome&mdash;The argument from the cases of Timothy and Titus <br />
      untenable&mdash;Jerome's account of the origin of Prelacy&mdash;James not
      the <br /> first bishop of Jerusalem&mdash;In the early part of the second
      century <br /> the Churches of Rome, Corinth, and Smyrna were Presbyterian&mdash;Irenaeus
      <br /> conceals the origin of Prelacy&mdash;Coins the doctrine of the
      apostolical <br /> succession&mdash;The succession cannot be determined
      even in Rome&mdash;Testimony <br /> of Stillingfleet&mdash;In what sense
      Polycarp may have been constituted a <br /> bishop by the apostles. <br />
    </p>
    <p class="toc">
      <a href="#2HCH0005"> CHAPTER V. </a>
    </p>
    <p>
      CHAPTER V. <br /> THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. <br /> We have no
      positive historical information as to the origin of the <br /> Ignatian
      Epistles&mdash;First saw the light in the early part of the third <br />
      century&mdash;Such forgeries then common&mdash;What was then thought by
      many as to <br /> pious frauds&mdash;Callistus of Rome probably concerned
      in the fabrication of <br /> the Ignatian Epistles&mdash;His remarkable
      history&mdash;The Epistle to the <br /> Romans first forged&mdash;It
      embodies the credentials of the rest&mdash;Montanism <br /> stimulated the
      desire for martyrdom&mdash;The prevalence of this mania early <br /> in the
      third century&mdash;The Ignatian Epistles present it in its most <br />
      outrageous form&mdash;The Epistle to the Romans must have been very
      popular <br /> at Rome&mdash;Doubtful whether Ignatius was martyred at Rome&mdash;The
      Ignatian <br /> Epistles intended to advance the claims of Prelacy&mdash;Well
      fitted to do <br /> so at the time of their appearance&mdash;The account of
      Callistus given <br /> by Hippolytus&mdash;The Ignatian letters point to
      Callistus as their <br /> author&mdash;Cannot have been written in the
      beginning of the second <br /> century&mdash;Their doctrine that of the
      Papacy. <br /> APPENDIX <br /> I.&mdash;Letter of Dr. Cureton. <br /> II.&mdash;The
      Ignatian Epistle to the Romans. <br /> ENDNOTES <br /> <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_4_0002"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h1>
      THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.
    </h1>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2HCH0001"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER I.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
    </h3>
    <p>
      The question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of
      Antioch has continued to awaken interest ever since the period of the
      Reformation. That great religious revolution gave an immense impetus to
      the critical spirit; and when brought under the light of its examination,
      not a few documents, the claims of which had long passed unchallenged,
      were summarily pronounced spurious. Eusebius, writing in the fourth
      century, names only seven letters as attributed to Ignatius; but long
      before the days of Luther, more than double that number were in
      circulation. Many of these were speedily condemned by the critics of the
      sixteenth century. Even the seven recognised by Eusebius were regarded
      with grave suspicion; and Calvin&mdash;who then stood at the head of
      Protestant theologians&mdash;did not hesitate to denounce the whole of
      them as forgeries. The work, long employed as a text-book in Cambridge and
      Oxford, was the <i>Institutes</i> of the Reformer of Geneva; [Endnote 2:1]
      and as his views on this subject are there proclaimed very emphatically,
      [2:2] we may presume that the entire body of the Ignatian literature was
      at that time viewed with distrust by the leaders of thought in the English
      universities. But when the doctrine of the Divine Right of Episcopacy
      began to be promulgated, the seven letters rose in the estimation of the
      advocates of the hierarchy; and an extreme desire was manifested to
      establish their pretensions. So great was the importance attached to their
      evidence, that in 1644&mdash;in the very midst of the din and confusion of
      the civil war between Charles I. and his Parliament&mdash;the pious and
      erudite Archbishop Ussher presented the literary world with a new edition
      of these memorials. Two years later the renowned Isaac Vossius produced a
      kindred publication. Some time afterwards, Daillé, a learned French
      Protestant minister, attacked them with great ability; and proved, to the
      satisfaction of many readers, that they are utterly unworthy of credit.
      Pearson, subsequently Bishop of Chester, now entered the arena, and in a
      work of much talent and research&mdash;the fruit of six years' labour&mdash;attempted
      to restore their reputation. This vindication was not permitted to pass
      without an answer; but, meanwhile, the dark prospects of the Reformed
      faith in England and the Continent directed attention to matters of more
      absorbing interest, and the controversy was discontinued. From time to
      time, however, these Epistles were kept before the eyes of the public by
      Archbishop Wake and other editors; and more recently the appearance of a
      Syriac copy of three of them&mdash;printed under the supervision of the
      late Rev. Dr. Cureton&mdash;reopened the discussion. Dr. Cureton
      maintained that his three Epistles are the only genuine remains of the
      pastor of Antioch. In a still later publication, [3:1] Bishop Lightfoot
      controverts the views of Dr. Cureton, and makes a vigorous effort to
      uphold the credit of the seven letters quoted by Eusebius and supported by
      Pearson. Dr. Lightfoot has already acquired a high and deserved reputation
      as a scholar and a commentator, and the present work furnishes abundant
      evidence of his linguistic attainments and his perseverance; but it is
      somewhat doubtful whether it will add to his fame as a critic and a
      theologian. In these three portly octavo volumes&mdash;extending to
      upwards of 1800 pages of closely printed matter&mdash;he tries to convince
      his readers that a number of the silliest productions to be found among
      the records of antiquity, are the remains of an apostolic Father. He tells
      us, in his preface, that the subject has been before him "for nearly
      thirty years;" and that, during this period, it has "engaged his attention
      off and on in the intervals of other literary pursuits and official
      duties." Many, we apprehend, will feel that the result is not equal to
      such a vast expenditure of time and labour; and will concur with friends
      who, as he informs us, have complained to him that he has thus "allowed
      himself to be diverted from the more congenial task of commenting on S.
      Paul's Epistles." There is not, we presume, an evangelical minister in
      Christendom who would not protest against the folly exhibited in these
      Ignatian letters; and yet it appears that the good Bishop of Durham has
      spent a large portion of his life in an attempt to accomplish their
      vindication.
    </p>
    <p>
      To Dr. Lightfoot may be justly awarded the praise of having here made the
      reading public acquainted with the various manuscripts and versions of
      these Ignatian letters, as well as with the arguments which may be urged
      in their favour; and he has thus rendered good service to the cause of
      historical criticism. Professor Harnack, in a late number of the <i>Expositor</i>
      [4:1], states no more than the truth when he affirms that "this work is
      the most learned and careful Patristic Monograph which has appeared in the
      nineteenth century." To any one who wishes to study the Ignatian
      controversy, it supplies a large amount of valuable evidence, not
      otherwise easily accessible. Some, indeed, may think that, without any
      detriment to ecclesiastical literature, some of the matter which has
      helped to swell the dimensions of these volumes might have been omitted.
      Everything in any way associated with the name of Ignatius seems to have a
      wonderful fascination for the learned prelate. Not content with publishing
      and commending what he considers the genuine productions of the apostolic
      Father, he here edits and annotates letters which have long since been
      discredited by scholars of all classes, and which he himself confesses to
      be apocryphal. The <i>Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius</i>&mdash;which he
      also acknowledges to be a mere bundle of fables&mdash;he treats with the
      same tender regard. Nor is this all. He gives these acts, or large
      portions of them, in Latin and Greek, as well as in Coptic and Syriac; and
      annotates them in addition. He supplies, likewise, English translations.
      It may be argued, that the publication of such a mass of legendary rubbish
      is necessary to enable the student to form a correct judgment on the
      merits of the subject in debate; but surely the question might be settled
      without the aid of some of these auxiliaries.
    </p>
    <p>
      Dr. Lightfoot has long been known as one of the most candid and
      painstaking of scriptural commentators; but it must always be remembered
      that he is an Episcopalian, and the ruler of an English diocese. He would
      be something almost more than human, were he to hold up the scales of
      testimony with strict impartiality when weighing the claims of his own
      order. It strikes us that, in the work before us, his prejudices and
      predilections reveal their influence more conspicuously than in any of his
      other publications. He can see support for his views in words and phrases
      where an ordinary observer can discover nothing of the kind; and he can
      close his eyes against evidence which others may deem very satisfactory.
      Even when appraising the writers who have taken part in this controversy,
      he has presented a very one-sided estimate. He speaks of those who reject
      the claims of these Epistles as forming "a considerable list of <i>second
      and third rate</i> names;" [6:1] and he mentions Ussher and Bentley among
      those who espouse his sentiments. According to our author, there cannot be
      a "shadow of doubt" that the seven Vossian Epistles "represent the genuine
      Ignatius." [6:2] "No Christian writings of the second century," says he,
      "and very few writings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so
      well authenticated." [6:3] He surely cannot imagine that Ussher would have
      endorsed such statements; for he knows well that the Primate of Armagh
      condemned the Epistle to Polycarp as a forgery. He has still less reason
      to claim Bentley as on his side. On authority which Bishop Monk, the
      biographer of Bentley, deemed well worthy of acceptance, it is stated that
      in 1718, "on occasion of a Divinity Act," the Master of Trinity College,
      Cambridge, "made a speech <i>condemning</i> the Epistles of S. Ignatius."
      His address created a "great ferment" in the university. [7:1] It is
      further reported that Bentley "refused to hear the Respondent who
      attempted to reply." We might have expected such a deliverance from the
      prince of British critics; for, with the intuition of genius, he saw the
      absurdity of recognising these productions as proceeding from a Christian
      minister who had been carefully instructed by the apostles. Bentley's
      refusal to hear the Respondent who attempted to reply to him, was exactly
      in keeping with his well-known dictatorial temper. Does Dr. Lightfoot
      bring forward any evidence to contradict this piece of collegiate history?
      None whatever. He merely treats us to a few of his own <i>conjectures</i>,
      which simply prove his anxiety to depreciate its significance. And yet he
      ventures to parade the name of Bentley among those of the scholars who
      contend for the genuineness of these letters! He deals after the same
      fashion with the celebrated Porson. In a letter to the author of this
      review [7:2], Dr. Cureton states that Porson "rejected" these letters "in
      the form in which they were put forth by Ussher and Vossius;" and declares
      that this piece of information was conveyed to himself by no less
      competent an authority than Bishop Kaye. Dr. Lightfoot meets this evidence
      by saying that "the <i>obiter dictum</i> even of a Porson," in the
      circumstances in which it was given, might be "of little value." [7:3] It
      was given, however, exactly in the circumstances in which the speaker was
      best prepared to deliver a sound verdict, for it was pronounced after the
      great critic had read the <i>Vindiciae</i> of Pearson.
    </p>
    <p>
      It would be hopeless to attempt to settle a disputed question of criticism
      by enumerating authorities on different sides, as, after all, the value of
      these authorities would be variously discounted. We must seek to arrive at
      truth, not by quoting names, but by weighing arguments. Not a few,
      however, whose opinion may be entitled to some respect, will not be
      prepared to agree with Bishop Lightfoot when he affirms that those who
      reject these Ignatian letters are, with few exceptions, only to be found
      in the "list of second and third rate names" in literature. [8:1] We have
      seen that Bentley and Porson disagree with him&mdash;and he can point to
      no more eminent critics in the whole range of modern scholarship. If
      Daillé must be placed in the second rank, surely Pearson may well be
      relegated to the same position; for there is most respectable proof that
      his <i>Vindiciae</i>, in reply to the treatise of the French divine, was
      pronounced by Porson to be a "very unsatisfactory" performance. [8:2] "The
      most elaborate and ingenious portion of the work" is, as Bishop Lightfoot
      himself confesses, "the least satisfactory." [8:3] Dr. Lightfoot, we
      believe, will hardly pretend to say that Vossius, Bull, and Waterland
      stand higher in the literary world than Salmasius, John Milton, and
      Augustus Neander; and he will greatly astonish those who are acquainted
      with the history and writings of one of the fathers of the Reformation, if
      he will contend that John Calvin must be placed only in the second or
      third class of Protestant theologians. In the presence of the great doctor
      of Geneva, Hammond, Grotius, Zahn, and others whom Dr. Lightfoot has named
      as his supporters, may well hide their diminished heads.
    </p>
    <p>
      In the work before us the Bishop of Durham has pretty closely followed
      Pearson, quoting his explanations and repeating his arguments. Some of
      these are sufficiently nebulous. Professor Harnack&mdash;who has already
      reviewed his pages in the <i>Expositor</i>, and who, to a great extent,
      adheres to the views which they propound&mdash;admits, notwithstanding,
      that he has "overstrained" his case, and has adduced as witnesses writers
      of the second and third centuries of whom it is impossible to prove that
      they knew anything of the letters attributed to Ignatius. [9:1] As a
      specimen of the depositions which Dr. Lightfoot has pressed into his
      service, we may refer to the case of Lucian. That author wrote about sixty
      years after the alleged date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and his
      Lordship imagines that in one of his works he can trace allusions to the
      pastor of Antioch under the fictitious name of Peregrinus. "Writing," says
      he "soon after A.D. 165," Lucian "caricatures the progress of Ignatius
      through Asia Minor in his death of Peregrinus." [9:2] This Peregrinus was
      certainly an odd character. Early in life he had murdered his own father,
      and for this he was obliged to make his escape from his country. Wandering
      about from place to place, he identified himself with the Christians,
      gained their confidence, and became, as is alleged, a distinguished member
      of their community. His zeal in their cause soon exposed him to
      persecution, and he was thrown into prison. His incarceration added
      greatly to his fame. His co-religionists, including women and children,
      were seen from morning to night lingering about the place of his
      confinement; he was abundantly supplied with food; and the large sums of
      money, given to him as presents, provided him with an ample revenue. After
      his release he forfeited the favour of his Christian friends, and became a
      Cynic philosopher; but he could not be at peace. He at length resolved to
      immortalize himself by voluntary martyrdom. Meanwhile he despatched
      letters to many famous cities, containing laws and ordinances; and
      appointed certain of his companions&mdash;under the name of
      death-messengers&mdash;to scatter abroad these missives. Finally, at the
      close of the Olympian games he erected a funeral pile; and when it was all
      ablaze, he threw himself into it, and perished in the flames. "There is
      very strong reason for believing" says Dr. Lightfoot, "that Lucian has
      drawn his picture, at least in part, from the known circumstances of
      Ignatius' history." [10:1] The bishop returns again and again to the
      parallelism between Ignatius and Peregrinus, and appears to think it
      furnishes an argument of singular potency in favour of the disputed
      Epistles. "Second only," says he, to certain other vouchers, which he
      produces, "stands this testimony." [11:1] From such a sample the judicious
      reader may form some idea of the conclusiveness of the bishop's reasoning.
      Peregrinus begins life as a parricide, and dies like a madman; and yet we
      are asked to believe that Lucian has thus sketched the history of an
      apostolic Father! When Lucian wrote, Ignatius had been dead about sixty
      years; but the pagan satirist sought to amuse the public by sketching the
      career of an individual whom he had himself heard and seen, [11:2] and who
      must have been well known to many of his readers. About the middle of the
      second century the Church was sorely troubled by false teachers,
      especially of the Gnostic type; and it may have been that some adventurer,
      of popular gifts and professing great zeal in the Christian cause,
      contrived to gather around him a number of deluded followers, who, for a
      time, adhered to him with wonderful enthusiasm. It may be that it is this
      charlatan to whom Lucian points, and whose history he perhaps exaggerates.
      But there is nothing in the life of Peregrinus which can fairly be
      recognised even as a caricature of the career of one of the most
      distinguished of the early Christian martyrs. Were we to maintain that the
      pagan satirist was referring to the Apostle John, we might be able to show
      almost as many points of resemblance. The beloved disciple travelled about
      through various countries; acquired a high reputation among the
      Christians; was imprisoned in the Isle of Patmos; wrote letters to the
      seven Churches of Asia; and was visited in his place of exile by angels or
      messengers, who probably did not repair to him empty-handed. John died
      only a few years before Ignatius, and was connected with the same quarter
      of the globe. We have, however, never yet heard that Lucian was suspected
      of alluding to the author of the Apocalypse. If Bishop Lightfoot thinks
      that he can convince sensible men of the genuineness of the Ignatian
      Epistles by bringing forward such witnesses as Lucian and his hero
      Peregrinus, we believe he is very much mistaken. The argument is not
      original, for it is pressed with great confidence by his predecessor
      Pearson, and by others more recently. But its weakness is transparent.
      Professor Harnack, whilst admitting the weight of much of the evidence
      adduced in these volumes, scornfully refuses to acknowledge its relevancy.
      "Above all," says he, "Lucian should be struck out. I confess I cannot
      imagine how writers go on citing Lucian as a witness for the Epistles."
      [12:1] There is, however, an old adage, "Any port in a storm:" and before
      the close of this discussion it may perhaps be found that Lucian is as
      good a harbour of refuge as can be furnished for the credit of the
      Ignatian Epistles in the whole of the second century.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is obvious that, even according to his own account of the history of
      his present work, Dr. Lightfoot has not entered on its preparation under
      circumstances likely to result in a safe and unprejudiced verdict. "<i>I
      never once doubted</i>," says he in the preface, [13:1] "that we possessed
      in one form or another the genuine letters of Ignatius." This is, however,
      the very first point to be proved; and the bishop has been labouring
      throughout to make good a foregone conclusion. No wonder that the result
      should be unsatisfactory. If he has built on a false foundation, nothing
      else could be expected. There is not, we are satisfied, a particle of
      solid evidence to show that Ignatius of Antioch left behind him any
      writings whatever. This may be deemed a very bold statement, but it is
      deliberately advanced. I hope, in a subsequent chapter, to demonstrate
      that it is not made without due consideration.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2HCH0002"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER II.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.
    </h3>
    <p>
      The Bishop of Durham affirms, in a passage already quoted, that "no
      Christian writings of the second century, and very few writings of
      antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so <i>well authenticated</i>"
      as the Epistles attributed to Ignatius. This assuredly is an astounding
      announcement, made deliberately by a distinguished author, whose
      attention, for nearly thirty years, has been directed to the subject. The
      letter of Polycarp to the Philippians is a writing of the second century,
      and it is by far the most important witness in support of the Ignatian
      letters; but we must infer, from the words just quoted, that it is not "so
      well authenticated" as they are. It is difficult to understand by what
      process of logic his Lordship has arrived at this conclusion. In an
      ordinary court of law, the witness who deposes to character is expected to
      stand on at least as high a moral platform in public estimation as the
      individual in whose favour he bears testimony; but if the letter of
      Polycarp is not "so well authenticated" as these Ignatian letters, how can
      it be brought forward to establish their reputation? Nor is this the only
      perplexing circumstance connected with this discussion. There was a time
      when, according to his own statement in the present work, Dr. Lightfoot
      "accepted the Curetonian letters as representing the genuine Ignatius;"
      [15:1] and, of course, when he regarded as forgeries the four others which
      he now acknowledges. In the volumes before us, as if to make compensation
      for the unfavourable opinion which he once cherished, he advances the
      whole seven of the larger edition to a position of especial honour. The
      letter of Polycarp, the works of Justin Martyr, the treatise of Irenaeus
      <i>Against Heresies</i>, and other writings of the second century, have
      long sustained an honest character; but now they must all take rank below
      the Ignatian Epistles. According to the Bishop of Durham, they are not "so
      well authenticated."
    </p>
    <p>
      In his eagerness to exalt the credit of these Ignatian letters, Dr.
      Lightfoot, in his present publication, has obviously expressed himself
      most incautiously. In point of fact, the letter of Polycarp, as a genuine
      production of the second century, occupies an incomparably higher position
      than the Ignatian Epistles. The internal evidence in its favour is most
      satisfactory. It is exactly such a piece of correspondence as we might
      expect from a pious and sensible Christian minister, well acquainted with
      the Scriptures, and living on the confines of the apostolic age. It has,
      besides, all the external confirmation we could desire. Irenaeus, who was
      personally well known to the author, and who has left behind him the
      treatise <i>Against Heresies</i> already mentioned, speaks therein of this
      letter in terms of high approval. "There is," says he, "a very sufficient
      Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who
      desire it, and who care for their own salvation, can learn both the
      character of his faith and the message of the truth." [16:1] Could such a
      voucher as this be produced for the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and
      were the external evidence equally satisfactory, it would be absurd to
      doubt their genuineness. But whilst the internal evidence testifies
      against them, they are not noticed by any writer for considerably more
      than a century after they are said to have appeared.
    </p>
    <p>
      The date commonly assigned for the martyrdom of Ignatius, and consequently
      for the writing of the letters ascribed to him, is the ninth year of
      Trajan, corresponding to A.D. 107. This date, Dr. Lightfoot tells us, is
      "the one fixed element in the common tradition." [16:2] It is to be found
      in the <i>Chronicon Paschale</i>, and in the Antiochene and the Roman
      "Acts," as well as elsewhere. [16:3] This same date is assigned by the
      advocates of the Ignatian Epistles for the writing of Polycarp's letter.
      "Only a few months at the outside," says Dr. Lightfoot, "probably only a
      few weeks, after these Ignatian Epistles purport to have been written, the
      Bishop of Smyrna himself addresses a letter to the Philippians." [17:1] In
      due course it will be shown that Polycarp was at this time only about
      four-and-twenty years of age; and any intelligent reader who pursues his
      Epistle can judge for himself whether it can be reasonably accepted as the
      production of so very youthful an author. It appears that it was dictated
      in answer to a communication from the Church at Philippi, in which he was
      requested to interpose his influence with a view to the settlement of some
      grave scandals which disturbed that ancient Christian community. Is it
      likely that a minister of so little experience would have been invited to
      undertake such a service? The communication is rather such an outpouring
      of friendly counsel as befitted an aged patriarch. In a fatherly style he
      here addresses himself to wives and widows, to young men and maidens, to
      parents and children, to deacons and presbyters. [17:2]
    </p>
    <p>
      There are other indications in this letter that it cannot have been
      written at the date ascribed to it by the advocates of the Ignatian
      Epistles. It contains an admonition to "pray for <i>kings</i> (or <i>the</i>
      kings), <i>authorities</i>, and <i>princes</i>." [18:1] We are not at
      liberty to assume that these three names are precisely synonymous. By
      kings, or <i>the</i> kings, we may apparently understand the imperial
      rulers; by authorities, consuls, proconsuls, praetors, and other
      magistrates; and by princes, those petty sovereigns and others of royal
      rank to be found here and there throughout the Roman dominions. [18:2] Dr.
      Lightfoot, indeed, argues that the translation adopted by some&mdash;"<i>the</i>
      kings"&mdash;is inadmissible, as, according to his ideas, "we have very
      good ground for believing that the definite article had no place in the
      original." [18:3] He has, however, assigned no adequate reason why the
      article may not be prefixed. His contention, that the expression "pray for
      kings" has not "anything more than a general reference," [18:4] cannot be
      well maintained. In a case such as this, we must be, to a great extent,
      guided in our interpretation by the context; and if so, we may fairly
      admit the article, for immediately afterwards Polycarp exhorts the
      Philippians to pray for their persecutors and their enemies,&mdash;an
      admonition which obviously has something more than "a general reference."
      Such an advice would be inappropriate when persecution was asleep, and
      when no enemy was giving disturbance. But, at the date when Ignatius is
      alleged to have been martyred, Polycarp could not have exhorted the
      Philippians to pray for "the kings," as there was then only <i>one</i>
      sovereign ruling over the empire.
    </p>
    <p>
      That this letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written at a time when
      persecution was rife, is apparent from its tenor throughout. If we except
      the case of Ignatius of Antioch&mdash;many of the tales relating to which
      Dr. Lightfoot himself rejects as fabulous [19:1]&mdash;we have no evidence
      that in A.D. 107 the Christians were treated with severity. The Roman
      world was then under the mild government of Trajan, and the troubles which
      afflicted the disciples in Bithynia, under Pliny, had not yet commenced.
      The emperor, so far as we have trustworthy information, had hitherto in no
      way interfered with the infant Church. But in A.D. 161 two sovereigns were
      in power, and a reign of terror was inaugurated. We can therefore well
      understand why Polycarp, after exhorting his correspondents to pray for
      "the kings," immediately follows up this advice by urging them to pray for
      their persecutors and their enemies. If by "kings" we here understand
      emperors, as distinguished from "princes" or inferior potentates, it must
      be obvious that Polycarp here refers to the two reigning sovereigns. It so
      happened that, when two kings began to reign, persecution at once
      commenced; and the language of the Epistle exactly befits such a crisis.
    </p>
    <p>
      The whole strain of this letter points, not to the reign of Trajan, but to
      that of Marcus Aurelius. Polycarp exhorts the Philippians "to practise all
      endurance" (§ 9) in the service of Christ. "If," says he, "we should
      suffer for His name's sake, let us glorify Him" (§ 8). He speaks of men
      "encircled in saintly bonds;" (§ 1) and praises the Philippians for the
      courage which they had manifested in sympathizing with these confessors.
      He reminds them how, "with their own eyes," they had seen their sufferings
      (§ 9). All these statements suggest times of tribulation. A careful
      examination of this letter may convince us that it contains no reference
      to the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. Of the seven letters
      mentioned by Eusebius, four are said to have been written from <i>Smyrna</i>
      and three from <i>Troas</i>. But the letters of which Polycarp speaks were
      written from neither of these places, but from <i>Philippi</i>. In the
      letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the martyr describes himself as
      a solitary sufferer, hurried along by ten rough soldiers from city to city
      on his way to Rome; in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ignatius
      is only one among a crowd of victims, of whose ultimate destination the
      writer was ignorant. A considerable time after the party had left
      Philippi, Polycarp begs the brethren there to tell him what had become of
      them. "Concerning Ignatius himself, and those <i>who are with him</i>,
      if," says he, "ye have any sure tidings, certify us." [21:1] In the
      Ignatian Epistle addressed to Polycarp, he is directed to "write to the
      Churches," to "call together a godly council," and "to elect" a messenger
      to be sent to Syria (§7). Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians,
      takes no notice of these instructions. He had obviously never heard of
      them. It is indeed plain that the letter of the Philippians to Polycarp
      had only a partial reference to the case of Ignatius and his companions.
      It was largely occupied with other matters; and to these Polycarp
      addresses himself in his reply.
    </p>
    <p>
      The simple solution of all these difficulties is to be found in the fact
      that the Ignatius mentioned by Polycarp was a totally different person
      from the pastor of Antioch. He lived in another age and in another
      country. Ignatius or Egnatius&mdash;for the name is thus variously written&mdash;was
      not a very rare designation; [21:3] and in the neighbourhood of Philippi
      it seems to have been common. The famous <i>Egnatian</i> road, [21:4]
      which passed through the place, probably derived its title originally from
      some distinguished member of the family. We learn from the letter of
      Polycarp that <i>his</i> Ignatius was a man of Philippi. Addressing his
      brethren there, he says, "I exhort you all, therefore, to be obedient unto
      the word of righteousness, and to practise all endurance, which also ye
      saw with your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus,
      and IN OTHERS ALSO AMONG YOURSELVES" (Sec. 9). These words surely mean
      that the individuals here named were men of Philippi. It is admitted that
      two of them, viz. Zosimus and Rufus, answered to this description; and in
      the Latin Martyrologies, as Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges, [22:2]
      they are said to have been natives of the town. It will require the
      introduction of some novel canon of criticism to enable us to avoid the
      conclusion that Ignatius, their companion, is not to be classed in the
      same category.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is well known that when Marcus Aurelius became emperor he inaugurated a
      new system of persecution. Instead of at once consigning to death those
      who boldly made a profession of Christianity, as had heretofore been
      customary in times of trial, he employed various expedients to extort from
      them a recantation. He threw them into confinement, bound them with
      chains, kept them in lingering suspense, and subjected them to sufferings
      of different kinds, in the hope of overcoming their constancy. It would
      seem that Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, and their companions were dealt with
      after this fashion. They were made prisoners, put in bonds, plied with
      torture under the eyes of the Philippians, and taken away from the city,
      they knew not whither. It may be that they were removed to Thessalonica,
      the residence of the Roman governor, that they might be immured in a
      dungeon, to await there the Imperial pleasure. It is pretty clear that
      they did not expect instant execution. When Polycarp wrote, he speaks of
      them as still living; and he is anxious to know what may yet betide them.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us now call attention to another passage in this letter of Polycarp to
      the Philippians. Towards its close the following sentence appears somewhat
      in the form of a postscript. "Ye wrote to me, both ye yourselves and
      Ignatius, asking that if any one should go to Syria, he <i>might</i> carry
      thither the letters <i>from you</i>." We have here the reading, and
      translation adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but it so happens that there is
      another reading perhaps, on the whole, quite as well supported by the
      authority of versions and manuscripts. It may be thus rendered: "Ye wrote
      to me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, suggesting that if any one is
      going to Syria, he might carry thither <i>my letters to you</i>." [23:1]
      The sentence, as interpreted by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles,
      wears a strange and suspicious aspect. If Ignatius and the Philippians
      wished their letters to be carried to <i>Antioch</i>, why did they not say
      so? Syria was an extensive province,&mdash;much larger than all Ireland,&mdash;and
      many a traveller might have been going there who would have found it quite
      impracticable to deliver letters in its metropolis. When there was no
      penny postage, and when letters of friendship were often carried by
      private hands, if an individual residing in the north or south of the
      Emerald Isle had requested a correspondent in Bristol to send his letters
      by "any one" going over to Ireland, it would not have been extraordinary
      if the Englishman had received the message with amazement. Could "any one"
      passing over to Ireland be expected to deliver letters in Cork or
      Londonderry? There were many places of note in Syria far distant from
      Antioch; and it was preposterous to propose that "any one" travelling to
      that province should carry letters to its capital city. No one can pretend
      to say that the whole, or even any considerable part of Syria, was under
      the ecclesiastical supervision of Ignatius; for, long after this period,
      the jurisdiction of a bishop did not extend beyond the walls of the town
      in which he dwelt. If Ignatius meant to have his letters taken to <i>Antioch</i>,
      why vaguely say that they were to be carried to Syria? [24:1] Why not
      distinctly name the place of their destination? It had long been the scene
      of his pastoral labours; and it might have been expected that its very
      designation would have been repeated by him with peculiar interest. No
      good reason can be given why he should speak of Syria, and not of Antioch,
      as the place to which his letters were to be transmitted. Nor is this the
      only perplexing circumstance associated with the request mentioned in the
      postscript to this letter. If the Philippians, or Ignatius, had sent
      letters to Polycarp addressed to the Church of Antioch, was it necessary
      for them to say to him that they should be forwarded? Would not his own
      common sense have directed him what to do? He was not surely such a dotard
      that he required to be told how to dispose of these Epistles.
    </p>
    <p>
      If we are to be guided by the statements in the Ignatian Epistles, we must
      infer that the letters to be sent to Antioch were to be forwarded with the
      utmost expedition. A council was to be called forthwith, and by it a
      messenger "fit to bear the name of God's courier" [25:1] was to be chosen
      to carry them to the Syrian metropolis. There are no such signs of haste
      or urgency indicated in the postscript to Polycarp's Epistle. The letters
      of which he speaks could afford to wait until some one happened to be
      travelling to Syria; and then, it is suggested, he <i>might</i> take them
      along with him. If we adopt the reading to be found in the Latin version,
      and which, from internal evidence, we may judge to be a true rendering of
      the original, we are, according to the interpretation which must be given
      to it by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles, involved in hopeless
      bewilderment. If by Syria we understand the eastern province, what
      possibly can be the meaning of the words addressed by Polycarp to the
      Philippians, "If any one is going to Syria, he might <i>carry thither my
      letters to you</i>"? [26:1] Any one passing from Smyrna to Philippi turns
      his face to the north-west, but a traveller from Smyrna to Syria proceeds
      south-east, or in the exactly opposite direction. How could Polycarp hope
      to keep up a correspondence with his brethren of Philippi, if he sent his
      letters to the distant East by any one who might be going there?
    </p>
    <p>
      It is pretty evident that the Latin version has preserved the true original
      of this postscript, and that the current reading, adopted by Dr. Lightfoot
      and others, must be traced to the misapprehensions of transcribers.
      Puzzled by the statement that letters from Polycarp to the Philippians
      were to be sent to Syria, they have tried to correct the text by changing
      [Greek: par haemon] into [Greek: par humon]&mdash;implying that the
      letters were to be transmitted, not from Polycarp to the Philippians, but
      from the Philippians to Antioch. A very simple explanation may, however,
      remove this whole difficulty. If by Syria we understand, not the great
      eastern province so called, but a little island of similar name in the
      Aegaean Sea, the real bearing of the request is at once apparent. Psyria
      [27:1]&mdash;in the course of time contracted into Psyra&mdash;lies a few
      miles west of Chios, [27:2] and is almost directly on the way between
      Smyrna and Neapolis, the port-town of Philippi. A letter from Smyrna left
      there would be carried a considerable distance on its journey to Philippi.
      Some friendly hand might convey it from thence to its destination. Psyria
      and Syria are words so akin in sound that a transcriber of Polycarp's
      letter, copying from dictation, might readily mistake the one for the
      other; and thus an error creeping into an early manuscript may have led to
      all this perplexity. Letters in those days could commonly be sent only by
      special messengers, or friends traveling abroad; and the Philippians had
      made a suggestion to Polycarp as to the best mode of keeping up their
      correspondence. They had probably some co-religionists in Psyria; and a
      letter sent there to one or other of them, could, at the earliest
      opportunity, be forwarded. But another explanation, perhaps quite as
      worthy of acceptance, may solve this mystery. Syria was the ancient name
      of another island in the Aegaean Sea, and one of the Cyclades. Though it
      is not so much as Psyria in the direct course between Smyrna and Philippi,
      it is a place of greater celebrity and of more commercial importance. Like
      Psyria, in the course of ages its name has been contracted, and it is now
      known as Syra. Between it and Smyrna there has been much intercourse from
      time immemorial. It has been famous since the days of Homer, [28:1] and it
      was anciently the seat of a bishop, [28:2]&mdash;an evidence that it must
      soon have had a Christian population. It is at the present day the centre
      of an active trade; and a late distinguished traveller has told us how,
      not many years ago, in an afternoon, he and his party "left Syra, and next
      morning anchored in front of the town of Smyrna." [28:3] Syria is not, as
      has been intimated, in the direct route to Philippi; but the shortest way
      is not always either the best or the most convenient. At present this
      place is the principal port of the Greek archipelago; [29:1] and probably,
      in the days of Polycarp, vessels were continually leaving its harbour for
      towns on the opposite coasts of the Aegaean. A Christian merchant resident
      in Syria would thus have facilities for sending letters left with him
      either to Smyrna or Philippi. Ignatius or his friends may have heard of an
      offer from such a quarter to take charge of their correspondence, and may
      have accordingly made the suggestion noticed at the close of Polycarp's
      letter. As the island of Syria was well known to them all, the Smyrnaeans
      could not have misunderstood the intimation.
    </p>
    <p>
      This explanation throws light on another part of this postscript which has
      long been embarrassing to many readers. After adverting to the request of
      Ignatius and the Philippians relative to the conveyance of the letters,
      Polycarp adds, "which request I will attend to if I get a fit opportunity,
      either personally, or by one whom I shall depute to act likewise on your
      behalf." [29:2] According to the current interpretation, Polycarp here
      suggests the probability of a personal visit to the eastern capital, if he
      could find no one else to undertake the service. The occasion evidently
      called for no such piece of self-sacrifice on the part of this apostolic
      Father. The Church of Antioch, after the removal of its pastor Ignatius,
      was, we are assured, delivered from farther trouble, and was now at peace.
      [30:1] The presence of the minister of Smyrna there was utterly
      unnecessary; [30:2] the place was very far distant; and why then should he
      be called on to undertake a wearisome and expensive journey to Antioch and
      back again? Polycarp admits that his visit was not essential, and that a
      messenger might do all that was required quite as well. But if by Syria we
      understand one of the Sporades or Cyclades, we are furnished with a ready
      solution of this enigma. The little island of Psyria was distant from
      Smyrna only a few hours' sail; and as it was perhaps the residence of some
      of his co-religionists, Polycarp might soon require to repair to it in the
      discharge of his ecclesiastical duties. He could then take along with him,
      so far, the letters intended for Philippi. Or if by Syria we here
      understand the little island anciently so called, near the centre of the
      Cyclades, the explanation is equally satisfactory. The letter of Polycarp
      was written, not as Dr. Lightfoot contends, in A.D. 107 but, as we have
      seen, about A.D. 161, when, as the whole strain of the Epistle indicates,
      he was far advanced in life. There is reason to believe that about this
      very juncture he was contemplating a journey to Rome, that he might have a
      personal conference with its chief pastor, Anicetus. His appearance in the
      seat of Empire on that occasion created a great sensation, and seems to
      have produced very important results. If he now went there, any one who
      looks at the map may see that he must pass Syria on the way. He could thus
      take the opportunity of leaving there any letters for Philippi of which he
      might be the bearer. At a subsequent stage of our discussion, this visit
      of Polycarp to Rome must again occupy our attention.
    </p>
    <p>
      The facts brought under the notice of the reader in this chapter may help
      him to understand how it has happened that so many have been befooled by
      the claims of these Ignatian Epistles. A mistake as to two of the names
      mentioned in the letter of Polycarp, created, as will subsequently appear,
      by the crafty contrivance of a manufacturer of spurious documents, has led
      to a vast amount of blundering and misapprehension. Ignatius, a man of
      Philippi, has been supposed to be Ignatius, the pastor of Antioch; and
      Syria, the eastern province of the Roman Empire, has been confounded with
      Psyria or Syria&mdash;either of these names representing an island in the
      Aegean Sea not far from Smyrna. Ignatius, the confessor of Philippi, when
      in bonds wrote, as we find, a number of letters which were deemed worthy
      of preservation, but which have long since perished; and some time
      afterwards an adroit forger, with a view to the advancement of a favourite
      ecclesiastical system, concocted a series of letters which he fathered
      upon Ignatius of Antioch. In an uncritical age the cheat succeeded; the
      letters were quite to the taste of many readers; and ever since they have
      been the delight of High Churchmen. Popes and Protestant prelates alike
      have perused them with devout enthusiasm; and no wonder that Archbishop
      Laud, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Hall, and Archbishop Wake, have quoted
      Ignatius with applause. The letters ascribed to him are the title-deeds of
      their order. Even the worthy Bishop of Durham, who has never permitted
      himself to doubt that we possess in some form the letters of the pastor of
      Antioch, has been the victim of his own credulity; and has been striving
      "off and on" for "nearly thirty years" to establish the credit of Epistles
      which teach, in the most barefaced language the gospel of sacerdotal
      pretension and passive obedience.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2HCH0003"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER III.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.
    </h3>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      "The main source of opinion," says the bishop, "respecting the year of
      Polycarp's death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been the <i>Chronicon</i>
      of Eusebius ... After the seventh year of M. Aurelius, he appends the
      notice, 'A persecution overtaking the Church, Polycarp underwent
      martyrdom.' ... Eusebius is here assumed to date Polycarp's martyrdom in
      the seventh year of M. Aurelius, <i>i.e.</i> A.D. 167." [34:2] Dr.
      Lightfoot then proceeds to observe that "this inference is unwarrantable,"
      inasmuch as "the notice is not placed opposite to, but <i>after this year</i>."
      He adds that it "is associated with the persecutions in Vienne and Lyons,
      which we know to have happened A.D. 177." [34:3] So far the statement of
      the bishop is unobjectionable, and, according to his own showing, we might
      conclude that Polycarp suffered some time after the seventh year of M.
      Aurelius. But this plain logical deduction would be totally ruinous to the
      system of chronology which he advocates; and he is obliged to resort to a
      most outlandish assumption that he may get over the difficulty. He
      contends that Eusebius did not know at what precise period these
      martyrdoms occurred. "We can," says the bishop, "only infer with safety
      that Eusebius <i>supposed</i> Polycarp's martyrdom to have happened <i>during
      the reign</i> of M. Aurelius." "As a matter of fact, the Gallican
      persecutions took place some ten years later [than A.D. 167], and
      therefore, so far as this notice goes, the martyrdom of Polycarp might
      have taken place <i>as many years earlier</i>." [35:1]
    </p>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is quite clear that Eusebius laboured under no such uncertainty, as Dr.
      Lightfoot would fondly persuade himself, relative to the date of the
      martyrdom of Polycarp. He directs attention to the subject in his <i>History</i>
      as well as in his <i>Chronicon</i>, and in both his testimony is to the
      same effect. In both it is alleged that Polycarp was martyred in the reign
      of Marcus Aurelius. It must be remembered, too, that Eusebius was born
      only about a century after the event; that from his youth he had devoted
      himself to ecclesiastical studies; that he enjoyed the privilege of access
      to the best theological libraries in existence in his day; that, from his
      position in the Church as bishop of the metropolis of Palestine, and as
      the confidential counselor of the Emperor Constantine, he had
      opportunities of coming into personal contact with persons of distinction
      from all countries, who must have been well acquainted with the traditions
      of their respective Churches; and that he was a man of rare prudence,
      intelligence, and discernment. He was certainly not a philosophical
      historian, and in his great work he has omitted to notice many things of
      much moment; but it must be conceded that, generally speaking, he is an
      accurate recorder of facts; and, in the case before us, he was under no
      temptation whatever to make a misleading statement. We must also recollect
      that his testimony is corroborated by Jerome, who lived in the same
      century; who, at least in two places in his writings, reports the
      martyrdom; and who affirms that it occurred in the seventh year of M.
      Aurelius. [37:1] Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, asserts that Jerome "derived his
      knowledge from Eusebius," [37:2] and that, "though well versed in works of
      Biblical exegesis, ... he was otherwise <i>extremely ignorant</i> of early
      Christian literature." [37:3] We have here unhappily another of those rash
      utterances in which the Bishop of Durham indulges throughout these
      volumes; for assuredly it is the very extravagance of folly to tax Jerome
      with "extreme ignorance of early Christian literature." Those who are
      acquainted with his writings will decline to subscribe any such
      depreciatory certificate. He was undoubtedly bigoted and narrow-minded,
      but he had a most capacious memory; he had travelled in various countries;
      he had gathered a prodigious stock of information; he was the best
      Christian scholar of his generation; he has preserved for us the knowledge
      of not a few important facts which Eusebius has not registered; and he at
      one time contemplated undertaking himself the composition of an
      ecclesiastical history. [37:4] We cannot, therefore, regard him as the
      mere copyist of the Bishop of Caesarea. "Every one acquainted with the
      literature of the primitive Church," says Dr. Döllinger, "knows that it is
      precisely in Jerome that we find <i>a more exact knowledge of the more
      ancient teachers</i> of the Church, and that we are indebted to him for
      more information about their teaching and writings, than to any other of
      the Latin Fathers." [38:1] Dr. Döllinger is a Church historian whom even
      the Bishop of Durham cannot afford to ignore,&mdash;as, in his own field
      of study, he has, perhaps, no peer in existence,&mdash;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.
    </p>
    <p>
      The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array of evidence
      opposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does not attempt to show that
      it is improbable in itself, or that there are any rebutting depositions.
      He leaves it in its undiminished strength; but he raises such a cloud of
      learned dust around it, that the reader may well lose his head, and be
      unable, for a time, to see the old chronological landmarks. [39:1] He
      rests his case chiefly on a statement to be found in a postscript, of
      admittedly doubtful authority, appended to the letter of the Smyrnaeans
      relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He argues as if the authority for
      this statement were unimpeachable; and, evidently regarding it as the very
      key of the position, he endeavours, by means of it, to upset the
      chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, the <i>Chronicon Paschale</i>, and other
      witnesses. As the reader peruses his chapter on "The Date of the
      Martyrdom," he cannot but feel that the evidence presented to him is
      bewildering, indecisive, and obscure; and it may occur to him that the
      author is very like an individual who proposes to determine the value of
      two or three unknown quantities from one simple algebraic equation. His
      principal witness, Aristides, were he now living and brought up in
      presence of a jury, would find himself in rather an odd predicament. He is
      expected to settle the date of the death of Polycarp, and yet he knows
      nothing either of the pastor of Smyrna or of his tragic end. It does not
      appear that he had ever heard of the worthy apostolic Father. Aristides
      was a rhetorician who has left behind him certain orations, entitled <i>Sacred
      Discourses</i>, 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,&mdash;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&mdash;interspersed, from
      time to time, with what Dr. Lightfoot estimates as "valuable chronological
      notices!" [40:2]
    </p>
    <p>
      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&mdash;an
      appendage of very doubtful authority&mdash;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 "<i>generally</i> treated as a
      later addition to the letter, and as coming from a different hand;" [42:1]
      and, whilst disposed to uphold its claims as of high authority, he admits
      that, when tested as to "external evidence," the supplementary paragraphs,
      of which this is one, "do not stand on the same ground" [42:2] as the rest
      of the Epistle. And yet his whole chronology rests on the supposition that
      the name of the proconsul is correctly given in this probably apocryphal
      addition to the Smyrnaean letter. Were we even to grant that this
      postscript belonged originally to the document, it would supply no
      conclusive evidence that Polycarp was martyred in A.D. 155. It is far more
      probable that the writer has been slightly inaccurate as to the exact
      designation of the proconsul of Asia about the time of the martyrdom.
      [43:1] He was called Quadratus&mdash;not perhaps <i>Statius</i>, but
      possibly <i>Ummidius Quadratus</i>. [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&mdash;not in an ordinary communication such its this, but in an
      Imperial ordinance. In a Rescript of the Emperor Hadrian, <i>Licinius</i>
      Granianus, the proconsul, is styled <i>Serenus</i> Granianus. [43:3] If
      such a blunder could be perpetrated in an official State document, need we
      wonder if the penman of the postscript of the Smyrnaean letter has written
      Statius Quadratus for Ummidius Quadratus? And yet, if we admit this very
      likely oversight, the whole chronological edifice which the Bishop of
      Durham has been at such vast pains to construct, vanishes like the dreams
      and visions of his leading witness, the hypochondriac Aristides. [44:1]
    </p>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      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&mdash;it may be, well founded&mdash;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. "<i>The only
      recorded martyrdoms</i>," 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 "<i>aggravated
      by cruel tortures</i>." [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, <i>being made to lie on
      sharp shells, and buffeted with other forms of manifold tortures.</i>"
      [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, <i>let them be punished with divers tortures.</i>" [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.
    </p>
    <p>
      2. We have distinct proof that the visit of Polycarp to Rome took place <i>after</i>
      the date assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to his martyrdom! Eusebius tells us
      that, in the <i>first</i> year of the reign of Antoninus Pius, [47:1]
      Telesphorus of Rome died, and was succeeded in his charge by Hyginus.
      [47:2] He subsequently informs us that Hyginus dying "<i>after the fourth
      year of his office,</i>" was succeeded by Pius; and he then adds that Pius
      dying at Rome, "in the <i>fifteenth</i> year of his episcopate," was
      succeeded by Anicetus. [47:3] It was in the time of this chief pastor that
      Polycarp paid his visit to the Imperial city. It is apparent from the
      foregoing statements that Anicetus could not have entered on his office
      until at least nineteen, or perhaps twenty years, after Antoninus Pius
      became emperor, that is, until A.D. 157, or possibly until A.D. 158. This,
      however, is two or three years after the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot
      for the martyrdom. Surely the Bishop of Durham would not have us to
      believe that Polycarp reappeared in Rome two or three years after he
      expired on the funeral pile; and yet it is only by some such desperate
      supposition that he can make his chronology square with the history of the
      apostolic Father.
    </p>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      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&mdash;"Why,
      what harm is there in saying <i>Caesar is Lord</i>, and offering incense?"
      and they urged him to "<i>swear by the genius of Caesar</i>" [50:1] These
      words suggest that, at the time of this transaction, the Roman world had
      only one emperor. In January A.D. 169, L. Verus died. After recording this
      event in his <i>Imperial Fasti</i>, Dr. Lightfoot adds, "M. Aurelius is
      now <i>sole emperor</i>." [50:2] When he is contending for A.D. 155 as the
      date of the martyrdom, he lays much stress on the fact that "throughout
      this Smyrnaean letter <i>the singular</i> is used of the emperor."
      "Polycarp," he says, "is urged to declare 'Caesar is Lord;' he is bidden,
      and he refuses to swear by the 'genius of Caesar.'" "It is," he adds, "at
      least a matter of surprise that these forms should be persistently used,
      if the event had happened <i>during a divided sovereignty</i>." [50:3] The
      bishop cannot, at this stage of the discussion, decently refuse to
      recognise the potency of his own argument.
    </p>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      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,&mdash;or sixty-two years before,&mdash;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.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2HCH0004"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER IV.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS, AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.
    </h3>
    <p>
      1. <i>The Testimony of Irenaeus.</i>
    </p>
    <p>
      The only two vouchers of the second century produced in support of the
      claims of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, are the letter of Polycarp
      to the Philippians and a sentence from the treatise of Irenaeus <i>Against
      Heresies</i>. 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: "<i>One of our people said</i>, when
      condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony towards God&mdash;'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&mdash;as they would have furnished him with many passages exactly
      suited for their refutation. The words of a man taught by the apostles,
      occupying one of the highest positions in the Christian Church, and
      finishing his career by a glorious martyrdom in the very beginning of the
      second century, would have been by far the weightiest evidence he could
      have produced, next to the teaching of inspiration. But though he brings
      forward Clemens Romanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, [54:1] and
      others to confront the errorists, he ignores a witness whose antiquity and
      weight of character would have imparted peculiar significance to his
      testimony. To say that though he never names him elsewhere, he points to
      him in this place as "one of our people," is to make a very bold and
      improbable statement. Even the Apostle Paul himself would not have
      ventured to describe the evangelist John in this way. He would have
      alluded to him more respectfully. Neither would the pastor of a
      comparatively uninfluential church in the south of Gaul have expressed
      himself after this fashion when speaking of a minister who had been one of
      the most famous of the spiritual heroes of the Church. Not many years
      before, a terrific persecution had raged in his own city of Lyons; many
      had been put in prison, and some had been thrown to wild beasts; [55:1]
      and it is obviously to one of these anonymous sufferers that Irenaeus here
      directs attention. The "one of our people" is not certainly an apostolic
      Father; but some citizen of Lyons, moving in a different sphere, whose
      name the author does not deem it necessary to enrol in the record of
      history. Neither is it to a <i>written</i> correspondence, but to the <i>dying
      words</i> of the unknown martyr, to which he adverts when we read,&mdash;"One
      of our people <i>said</i>, 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."
    </p>
    <p>
      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,&mdash;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!
    </p>
    <p>
      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, <i>since the gospel does not so teach us</i>."
      [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]&mdash;never hinting that the appointment of a bishop would
      help to keep them in order; whereas, when Ignatius addresses various
      Churches,&mdash;that of the Smyrnaeans included,&mdash;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]
    </p>
    <p>
      The internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles seals their
      condemnation. I do not intend, however, at present to pursue this subject.
      In a work published by me six and twenty years ago, [59:2] I have called
      attention to various circumstances which betray the imposture; and neither
      Dr. Lightfoot, Zahn, nor any one else, so far as I am aware, has ever yet
      ventured to deal with my arguments. I might now add new evidences of their
      fabrication, but I deem this unnecessary. I cannot, however, pass from
      this department of the question in debate, without protesting against the
      view presented by the Bishop of Durham of the origin of Prelacy. "It is
      shown," says he, referring to his <i>Essay on the Christian Ministry</i>,
      [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>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</i>." [60:1]
    </p>
    <p>
      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,&mdash;as he believed for the last time,&mdash;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!
    </p>
    <p>
      2. <i>The Genesis of Prelacy.</i>
    </p>
    <p>
      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&mdash;that it commenced in Jerusalem&mdash;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.
    </p>
    <p>
      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,&mdash;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]
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2HCH0005"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      CHAPTER V.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
    </h3>
    <p>
      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,&mdash;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&mdash;who
      became Bishop of Rome about A.D. 219&mdash;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,&mdash;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.
    </p>
    <p>
      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,&mdash;for
      the Epistle of Clemens, which was probably in many hands, and which
      ignored the episcopal office there&mdash;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&mdash;which made its appearance
      about the time of the death of Polycarp&mdash;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&mdash;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."
    </p>
    <p>
      "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&mdash;whilst he was permitted, as he
      passed along, to hold something like a levee of his co-religionists at
      every stage of his journey&mdash;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?
    </p>
    <p>
      Hippolytus, who was his contemporary, has given us much information in
      relation to Callistus. He writes, indeed, in an unfriendly spirit; but he
      speaks, notwithstanding, as an honest man; and we cannot well reject his
      statements as destitute of foundation. His account of the general facts in
      the career of this Roman bishop obviously rest on a substratum of truth.
      As we read these Ignatian letters, it may occur to us that the real author
      sometimes betrays his identity. Callistus had been originally a slave, and
      he here represents Ignatius as saying of himself, "I am a slave." [74:2]
      Callistus had been a convict, and more than once this Ignatius declares,
      "I am a convict." [74:3] May he not thus intend to remind his
      co-religionists at Rome that an illustrious bishop and martyr had once
      been a slave and a convict like himself? Callistus, when labouring in the
      mines of Sardinia, must have been well acquainted with ropes and hoists;
      and here Ignatius describes the Ephesians as "hoisted up to the heights
      through the engine of Jesus Christ," having faith as their "windlass," and
      as "using for a rope the Holy Spirit." [74:4] Callistus had at one time
      been in charge of a bank; and Ignatius, in one of these Epistles, is made
      to say, "Let your works be your <i>deposits</i>, that you may receive your
      <i>assets</i> due to you." [75:1] Callistus also had charge of the
      Christian cemetery in the Roman Catacombs; and Ignatius here expresses
      himself as one familiar with graves and funerals. He speaks of a heretic
      as "being himself a bearer of a corpse," and of those inclined to Judaism
      "as tombstones and graves of the dead." [75:2] It is rather singular that,
      in these few short letters, we find so many expressions which point to
      Callistus as the writer. There are, however, other matters which warrant
      equally strong suspicions. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus was a
      Patripassian. "The Father," said he, "having taken human nature, deified
      it by uniting it to Himself, ... and so he said that the Father had
      suffered with the Son." [75:3] Hence Ignatius, in these Epistles, startles
      us by such expressions as "the blood of God," [75:4] and "the passion of
      my God." [75:5] Callistus is accused by Hippolytus as a trimmer prepared,
      as occasion served, to conciliate different parties in the Church by
      appearing to adopt their views. Sometimes he sided with Hippolytus, and
      sometimes with those opposed to him; hence it is that the theology taught
      in these letters is of a very equivocal character. Dr. Lightfoot has
      seized upon this fact as a reason that they are never quoted by Irenaeus.
      "The language approaching dangerously near to heresy might," says he,
      "have led him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal teaching." [76:1] A
      much better reason was that he had never heard of these letters; and yet
      their theology is exactly such a piebald production as might have been
      expected from Callistus.
    </p>
    <p>
      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. "<i>Throughout the whole range of Christian literature</i>,"
      says he, "no more uncompromising advocacy of the episcopate can be found
      than appears in these writings ... It is when asserting the claims of the
      episcopal office to obedience and respect that the language is <i>strained
      to the utmost</i>. The bishops established <i>in the farthest part of the
      world</i> are in the counsels of Jesus Christ." [76:2] It is simply
      incredible that such a state of things could have existed six or seven
      years after the death of the Apostle John. All the extant writings for
      sixty years after the alleged date of the martyrdom of Ignatius
      demonstrate the utter falsehood of these letters. It is certain that they
      employ a terminology, and develop Church principles unknown before the
      beginning of the third century, and which were not current even then. The
      forger, whoever he may have been, has displayed no little art and address
      in their fabrication. From all that we know of Callistus, he was quite
      equal to the task. Like the false Decretals, these letters exerted much
      influence on the subsequent history of the Church. Cyprian, though he
      never mentions them, [77:1] speedily caught their spirit. His assertion of
      episcopal authority is quite in the same style. Origen visited Rome
      shortly after they appeared; he is the first writer who recognises them;
      and it is worthy of note that, of the three quotations from them found in
      his works, two are from the Epistle to the Romans. It is quite within the
      range of possibility that evidence may yet be forthcoming to prove that
      they emanated from one of the early popes. They are worthy of such an
      origin. They recommend that blind and slavish submission to ecclesiastical
      dictation which the so-called successors of Peter have ever since
      inculcated. "It need hardly be remarked," says Dr. Lightfoot, "how
      subversive of the true spirit of Christianity, in the negation of
      individual freedom and the consequent suppression of direct responsibility
      to God in Christ, is the <i>crushing despotism</i> with which" the
      language of these letters, "if taken literally, would invest the episcopal
      office." [77:2] And yet, having devoted nearly thirty years off and on to
      the study of these Epistles, the Bishop of Durham maintains that we have
      here the genuine writings of an apostolic Father who was instructed by the
      inspired founders of the Christian Church!!
    </p>
    <p>
      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.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_APPE"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      APPENDICES.
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_4_0009"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      I.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      LETTER OF THE LATE DR. CURETON.
    </h3>
    <p>
      Immediately after the appearance of the second edition of <i>The Ancient
      Church</i>, a copy of it was sent to the late Rev. W. Cureton, D.D., Canon
      of Westminster&mdash;the well-known author of various publications
      relating to the Ignatian Epistles. It was considered only due to that
      distinguished scholar to call his attention to a work in which he was so
      prominently noticed, and in which various arguments were adduced to prove
      that all the letters he had edited are utterly spurious. In a short time
      that gentleman acknowledged the presentation of the volume in a most kind
      and courteous communication, which will be read with special interest by
      all who have studied the Ignatian controversy. I give the letter entire&mdash;just
      as it reached me. It was published several years ago, appended to my <i>Old
      Catholic Church</i>.
    </p>
    <p>
      DEANS YARD, WESTMINSTER, <i>Sept.</i> 24, 1861.
    </p>
    <p>
      DEAR SIR,&mdash;I beg to thank you very much for your kindness in sending
      me a valuable contribution to Ecclesiastical History in your book, <i>The
      Ancient Church</i>, which I found here upon my return to London two or
      three days ago. How much would it contribute to the promotion of charity
      and the advancement of the truth were all who combated the opinions and
      views of another to give him the means of seeing what was written fairly
      and openly, and not to endeavour to overthrow his arguments without his
      knowledge. This will indeed ever be the case when truth is sought for
      itself, and no personal feelings enter into the matter.
    </p>
    <p>
      I have read your chapters on Ignatius, and you will perhaps hardly expect
      that I should subscribe to your views. It is now about twenty years since
      I first undertook this inquiry, and constantly have I been endeavouring to
      add some new light ever since. I once answered an opponent in my present
      brother canon, Dr. Wordsworth, but since that time I have never replied to
      any adverse views&mdash;but have only looked to see if I could find
      anything either to show that I was wrong or to strengthen my convictions
      that I was right. And I have found the wisdom of this, and have had the
      satisfaction of knowing that my ablest opponents, after having had more
      time to inquire and to make greater research, have of their own accord
      conformed to my views and written in their support.
    </p>
    <p>
      I attach no very great importance to the Epistles of Ignatius. I shall not
      draw from them any dogma. I only look upon them as evidence of the time to
      certain facts, which indeed were amply established even without such
      evidence. I think that in such cases, we must look chiefly to the
      historical testimony of facts; and you will forgive me for saying that I
      think your arguments are based upon presumptive evidence, negative
      evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness&mdash;all of which, however
      valuable, must tumble to the ground before one single fact. You notice
      that Archbishop Ussher doubted the Epistle to Polycarp. But why? simply
      because its style (not having been altered by the forger) was different
      from the rest. But you know he says there was more <i>historical</i>
      evidence in its favour than for any of the rest. It thus becomes an
      argument in support of the Syriac text instead of against it. Can you
      explain how it happens that the Syriac text, found in the very language of
      Ignatius himself, and transcribed many hundreds of years before the
      Ignatian controversy was thought of, now it is discovered, should contain
      only the <i>three Epistles</i> of the existence of which there is any
      historical evidence before the time of Eusebius, and that, although it may
      contain some things which you do not approve, still has rejected all the
      passages which the critics of the Ignatian controversy protested against?
      You go too far to say that Bentley rejected the Ignatian Epistles&mdash;he
      only rejected them in the form in which they were put forth by Ussher and
      Vossius, and not in the form of the Syriac. So did Porson, as Bishop Kaye
      informed me&mdash;but he never denied that Ignatius had written letters&mdash;indeed,
      the very forgeries were a proof of true patterns which were falsified.
    </p>
    <p>
      A great many of the ablest scholars in Europe, who had refused to accept
      the Greek letters, are convinced of the genuineness of the Syriac. But
      time will open. Believe me, yours faithfully,
    </p>
    <p>
      WILLIAM CURETON. THE REV. DR. KILLEN.
    </p>
    <p>
      Some time after this letter was written, ecclesiastical literature
      sustained a severe loss in the death of its amiable and accomplished
      author. Though Dr. Cureton here expressed himself with due caution, his
      language is certainly not calculated to reassure the advocates of the
      Ignatian Epistles. One of their most learned editors in recent times&mdash;so
      far from speaking in a tone of confidence respecting them&mdash;here
      admits that he attached to them "no very great importance." Though he had
      spent twenty years chiefly in their illustration, he acknowledges that he
      was constantly endeavouring "to add some new light" for his guidance. To
      him, therefore, the subject must have been still involved in much mystery.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is noteworthy that, in the preceding letter, he has not been able to
      point out a solitary error in the statement of the claims of these
      Epistles as presented in <i>The Ancient Church</i>. He alleges, indeed,
      that the arguments employed are "based upon presumptive evidence, negative
      evidence, and the evidence of appropriateness;" he confesses that these
      proofs are "valuable;" but, though he contends that they must all "tumble
      to the around before one single fact," he has failed to produce the one
      single fact required for their overthrow.
    </p>
    <p>
      Dr. Cureton had obviously not been previously aware that Dr. Bentley, the
      highest authority among British critics, had rejected the Ignatian
      Epistles. Had he been cognisant of that fact when he wrote the <i>Corpus
      Ignatianum</i>, he would have candidly announced it to his readers. The
      manner in which he here attempts to dispose of it is certainly not very
      satisfactory. He pleads that, though Bentley condemned as spurious the
      letters edited by Ussher and Vossius, he would not have pronounced the
      same decision on the Syriac version recently discovered. Why not? This
      Syriac version is an edition of <i>the same Epistles</i> in an abbreviated
      form. If Bentley denounced <i>the whole</i> as a forgery, it seems to
      follow, by logical inference, that he would have pronounced the same
      verdict on the half or the third part. Dr. Cureton is mistaken when he
      affirms in the preceding communication that his Syriac version has
      rejected "all the passages" against which "the critics of the Ignatian
      controversy" had protested. The very contrary has been demonstrated in <i>The
      Ancient Church</i>. A large number of the sentences which had provoked the
      most unsparing criticism are retained in the Curetonian edition. It is
      right to add that Archbishop Ussher more than "doubted" the Epistle to
      Polycarp. He discarded it altogether. Without hesitation he set it aside
      as spurious. Whilst he disliked its style, he felt that it wanted other
      marks of genuineness. When writing <i>The Ancient Church</i>&mdash;now
      nearly thirty years ago&mdash;I was disposed to think that the Ignatian
      Epistles had been manufactured at Antioch; but more mature consideration
      has led me to adopt the conclusion that they were concocted at Rome. They
      bear a strong resemblance to several other spurious works which appeared
      there; and the servile submission to episcopal authority which they so
      strenuously inculcate was first most offensively challenged by the chief
      pastor of the great Western bishopric. These Epistles tended much to
      promote the progress of ecclesiastical despotism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Any one who studies the two chapters on the Ignatian Epistles in <i>The
      Ancient Church</i>, must see that what is there urged against them is
      something more than "presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the
      evidence of appropriateness." It is shown that their anachronisms,
      historical blundering, and false doctrine clearly convict them of forgery.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_4_0010"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      II.
    </h2>
    <p>
      It has been deemed right to subjoin here a copy of the Ignatian Epistle to
      the Romans, as some readers may not have it at hand for consultation.
      Various translations of this Epistle have been published. The following
      adheres pretty closely to that given by the Bishop of Durham:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to her that has obtained mercy through
      the might of the Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ His only Son, to
      the Church which is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who
      willeth all things that are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God,
      to her that has the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans;
      being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of
      praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of
      love, walking in the law of Christ, and bearing the Father's name, which I
      also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, to those
      that are united both according to the flesh and spirit to every one of His
      commandments, being filled inseparably with the grace of God, and filtered
      clear from every foreign stain; abundance of happiness unblameably in
      Jesus Christ our God.
    </p>
    <p>
      "1. Through prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeing your
      most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested, for I
      hope as a prisoner in Jesus Christ to salute you, if indeed it be the will
      of God that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the
      beginning has been well ordered, if so be I shall attain unto the goal,
      that I may receive my inheritance without hindrance. For I am afraid of
      your love, lest it should be to me an injury; for it is easy for you to
      accomplish what you please, but it is difficult for me to attain to God,
      if ye spare me.
    </p>
    <p>
      "2. For I would not have you to be men-pleasers, but to please God, as ye
      do please Him. For neither shall I ever have such an opportunity of
      attaining to God, nor can ye, if ye be silent, ever be entitled to the
      honour of a better work. For if ye are silent concerning me, I shall
      become God's; but if ye love my body, I shall have my course again to run.
      Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I
      be poured out a libation to God, while there is still an altar ready; that
      being gathered together in love ye may sing praise to the Father through
      Jesus Christ, that God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be
      sent for from the east to the west. It is good to set from the world to
      God, that I may rise again to Him.
    </p>
    <p>
      "3. Ye have never envied any one. Ye have taught others, and my desire is
      that those lessons shall hold good, which as teachers ye enjoin. Only
      request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, so that I may not
      only say it, but also desire it; that I may not only be called a
      Christian, but really be found one. For if I shall be found so, then can I
      also be called one, and be faithful then, when I shall no longer appear to
      the world. Nothing visible is good: for our God, Jesus Christ, now that He
      is with the Father, is all the more revealed. The work is not of
      persuasiveness, but of greatness, whensoever it is hated by the world.
    </p>
    <p>
      "4. I write to all the Churches, and I bid all men know that of my own
      free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me. I exhort you not to
      show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for
      the wild beasts, that through them I shall attain to God. I am the wheat
      of God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found
      the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts that they may
      become my sepulchre, and may leave no part of my body behind, so that I
      may not, when I am fallen asleep, be burdensome to any one. Then shall I
      be truly a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not so much as
      see my body. Supplicate the Lord for me, that through these instruments I
      may be found a sacrifice to God. I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul
      did. They were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am a slave to
      this very hour. But, when I suffer, I shall be a freed-man of Jesus
      Christ, and shall rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put
      away every desire.
    </p>
    <p>
      "5. From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts; by land and sea, by
      night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of
      soldiers, who only become worse when they are kindly treated. Howbeit
      through their wrong-doings I am become more completely a disciple, yet am
      I not hereby justified. May I have joy of the beasts that have been
      prepared for me; and I pray that I may find them prompt; nay, I will
      entice them that they may devour me promptly, not as they have done to
      some, refusing to touch them through fear. Yea, though of themselves they
      should not be willing while I am ready, I myself will force them to it.
      Bear with me, I know what is expedient for me. Now am I beginning to be a
      disciple. May nought of things visible and things invisible envy me, that
      I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Come fire and cross, and grapplings with
      wild beasts, cuttings and manglings, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs,
      crushings of my whole body, come cruel tortures of the devil to assail me,
      only be it mine to attain to Jesus Christ.
    </p>
    <p>
      "6. The farthest bounds of the universe shall profit me nothing, neither
      the kingdoms of this world. It is good for me to die for Jesus Christ,
      rather than to reign over the farthest bounds of the earth. I seek Him who
      died on our behalf, I desire Him who rose again for our sake. My
      birth-pangs are at hand. Pardon me, brethren, do not hinder me from
      living. Do not wish to keep me in a state of death, while I desire to
      belong to God; do not give me over to the world, neither allure me with
      material things. Suffer me to obtain pure light; when I have gone thither,
      then shall I be a man. Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my
      God. If any man has Him within himself, let him consider what I desire,
      and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am straitened.
    </p>
    <p>
      "7. The prince of this world would fain seize me, and corrupt my
      disposition towards God. Let not any of you, therefore, that are near abet
      him. Rather be ye on my side, that is, on God's side. Do not speak of
      Jesus Christ and set your desires on the world. Let not envy dwell among
      you. Even though I myself, when I am with you, should beseech you, obey me
      not, but rather give credit to those things which I now write. My earthly
      passion has been crucified, and there is no fire of material longing in
      me; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me
      inwardly, 'Come to the Father.' I have no delight in the food of
      corruption, or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread of God,
      which is the flesh of Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for a
      draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.
    </p>
    <p>
      "8. I desire no longer to live after the manner of men; and this shall be,
      if ye desire it. Be ye willing, then, that ye also may be desired. In a
      brief letter I beseech you, do ye give credit to me. Jesus Christ will
      reveal these things to you, so that ye shall know that I speak the truth&mdash;Jesus
      Christ the unerring mouth by which the Father has spoken truly. Pray for
      me that I may attain the object of my desire. I write not unto you after
      the flesh, but after the mind of God. If I shall suffer, it was your
      desire; but if I am rejected, ye have hated me.
    </p>
    <p>
      "9. Remember in your prayers the Church which is in Syria, which has God
      for its shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone shall be its bishop, He
      and your love; but for myself, I am ashamed to be called one of them; for
      neither am I worthy, being the very last of them and an untimely birth;
      but I have found mercy that I should be some one, if so I shall attain
      unto God. My spirit salutes you, and the love of the Churches which
      received me in the name of Jesus Christ, not as a mere wayfarer; for even
      those Churches which did not lie on my route after the flesh, went before
      me from city to city.
    </p>
    <p>
      "10. Now I write these things to you from Smyrna, by the hand of the
      Ephesians, who are worthy of all felicitation. And Crocus also, a name
      very dear to me, is with me, with many others besides.
    </p>
    <p>
      "11. As touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome, to the glory
      of God, I believe that ye have received instructions; whom also apprize
      that I am near, for they all are worthy of God and of you, and it becomes
      you to refresh them in all things. These things I write to you on the 9th
      before the Kalends of September. Fare-ye-well unto the end in the patient
      waiting for Jesus Christ."
    </p>
    <p>
      This letter is a strange mixture of silly babblement, mysticism, and
      fanaticism; but throughout it wants the true ring of an honest
      correspondence. Why does the writer describe himself as the <i>Bishop of
      Syria</i>, and why does he never once mention <i>Antioch</i> from
      beginning to end? When an apostle was imprisoned, his brethren prayed for
      his release (Acts xii. 5); but this Ignatius forbade the Christians at
      Rome to make any attempt to save him from martyrdom. Paul taught that he
      might give his body to be burned, and yet after all be a reprobate (1 Cor.
      xiii. 3); but this Ignatius indicates that all would be well with him, if
      he had the good fortune to be eaten by the lions. His letter is pervaded,
      not by the enlightened and cheerful piety of the New Testament, but by the
      gloomy and repulsive spirit of Montanism. Bishop Lightfoot tells us that
      it had "a wider popularity than the other letters of Ignatius" (vol. ii, §
      i. p. 186). It was accommodated to the taste of an age of deteriorated
      Christianity. Polycarp would have sternly condemned its extravagance. But,
      in the early part of the third century, the tone of public sentiment in
      the Christian Church was greatly changed, and the writings of Tertullian
      contributed much to give encouragement to such productions as the Ignatian
      Epistles. Tertullian, however, in his numerous writings, never once names
      Ignatius. It would appear that he had never heard of these letters.
    </p>
    <p>
      <br /><br />
    </p>
    <hr />
    <p>
      <a name="2H_4_0011"> </a>
    </p>
    <div style="height: 4em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
    <h2>
      [ENDNOTES]
    </h2>
    <p>
      [2:1] Carwithen, <i>Hist. Ch. of England</i>, i. 554, 2nd ed.
    </p>
    <p>
      [2:2] <i>Instit.</i> I. c. xiii. § 29. "There is," says Calvin, "nothing
      more abominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of
      Ignatius."
    </p>
    <p>
      [3:1] <i>The Apostolic Fathers</i>, Part II., S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp.
      Revised texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations.
      By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Bishop of Durham. London 1885.
    </p>
    <p>
      [4:1] <i>Expositor</i> for Dec. 1885, p. 401. London, Hodder &amp;
      Stoughton.
    </p>
    <p>
      [6:1] Vol. i. p. 316.
    </p>
    <p>
      [6:2] Pref. I. vii.
    </p>
    <p>
      [6:3] Vol. i. p. 107.
    </p>
    <p>
      [7:1] Monk's <i>Life of Bentley</i>, ii. p. 44, ed. 1833. Monk adds, that
      the affair was "the talk of the Long Vacation"&mdash;a clear proof that
      the truth of the statement was indisputable.
    </p>
    <p>
      [7:2] See my <i>Old Catholic Church</i>, p. 398, Edinburgh 1871; and
      Appendix No. 1 to this Reply.
    </p>
    <p>
      [7:3] Vol. i. p. 321, note.
    </p>
    <p>
      [8:1] Vol. i. p. 316.
    </p>
    <p>
      [8:2] Vol. i. p. 321.
    </p>
    <p>
      [8:3] Vol. i. p. 320.
    </p>
    <p>
      [9:1] See <i>Expositor</i> for Dec. 1885, p. 403.
    </p>
    <p>
      [9:2] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 436.
    </p>
    <p>
      [10:1] Vol. i. p.345.
    </p>
    <p>
      [11:1] Vol. i. p. 331.
    </p>
    <p>
      [11:2] See Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 131.
    </p>
    <p>
      [12:1] See <i>Expositor</i> for Dec. 1885, p. 404.
    </p>
    <p>
      [13:1] Page v.
    </p>
    <p>
      [15:1] Preface, p. vi.
    </p>
    <p>
      [16:1] <i>Contra Haer.</i> iii. 3. 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [16:2] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 446.
    </p>
    <p>
      [16:3] <i>Ibid.</i>
    </p>
    <p>
      [17:1] Vol. i. p. 380. He says elsewhere "almost simultaneously," vol. i.
      p. 382.
    </p>
    <p>
      [17:2] § 4, 5, 6. It is worthy of remark that Eusebius notices the letter
      of Polycarp, not along with the Ignatian Epistles, but in connection with
      the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See Eusebius, Book IV.
      chap. xiv.
    </p>
    <p>
      [18:1] The words "for kings" of this part of the letter are extant only in
      a Latin version. The passage in the Latin stands thus: "Orate etiam, pro
      regibus et potestatibus et principibus."
    </p>
    <p>
      [18:2] As the great monarch of Assyria surveyed the potentates under his
      dominion, he was tempted to exclaim vaingloriously, "Are not my princes
      all of them kings?" Isa. x. 8, Revised Version. The emperor of Rome might
      have uttered the same proud boast.
    </p>
    <p>
      [18:3] Vol. i. p. 576.
    </p>
    <p>
      [18:4] <i>Ibid.</i> In support of this view Dr. Lightfoot appeals to 1 Tim
      ii. 2, where the apostle says that "supplications, prayers, intercessions,
      and giving of thanks," as circumstances required, should be made "for
      kings and all that are in authority." Paul is here giving general
      directions suited to all time; but Polycarp is addressing himself to the
      Philippians, and furnishing them with instructions adapted to their
      existing condition.
    </p>
    <p>
      [19:1] Vol. i. p. 407
    </p>
    <p>
      [21:1] § 13. This part of the letter is only extant in the Latin version.
      Its words are: "De ipso Ignatio, et <i>de his qui cum eo sunt</i>, quod
      certius agnoveritis, significate." Dr. Lightfoot admits that "it was made
      from an older form of the Greek" than any of the existing Greek MSS., vol.
      ii. § ii. p. 201. He vainly tries to prove that the words "qui cum eo
      sunt" must be a mistranslation. They do not suit his theory. They imply
      that Ignatius and his party were still living when the letter was written.
    </p>
    <p>
      [21:3] See Dr. Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 23, and Zahn, <i>Ignatius von
      Antiochien</i>, pp. 28 and 401.
    </p>
    <p>
      [21:4] This road was several hundred miles in length.
    </p>
    <p>
      [22:2] Vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 921, note.
    </p>
    <p>
      [23:1] "Si quis vadit ad Syriam, deferat literas meas, quas fecero ad
      vos." This is the reading of the old Latin version, which, as Dr.
      Lightfoot tells us, "is sometimes useful for correcting the text of the
      extant Greek MSS." Vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 901. Even some of the Greek MSS.
      read, not [Greek: par humon] but [Greek: par haemon]. This reading is
      found in some copies of Eusebius and in Nicephorus, and is followed by
      Rufinus. See Jacobson, <i>Pat. Apost.</i> ii. 488, note.
    </p>
    <p>
      [24:1] The apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem directed their
      letters to the brethren "in <i>Antioch</i>, and Syria, and Cilicia," Acts
      xv. 23; but, according to Dr. Lightfoot and his supporters, Ignatius
      ignores his own city, though one of the greatest in the empire, and
      remembers only the province to which it belonged!
    </p>
    <p>
      [25:1] Epistle to Polycarp, § 7.
    </p>
    <p>
      [26:1] The words may be literally translated, "If any one is going to
      Syria, he might convey to you my letters which I shall have finished,"
      that is, which I have ready. Friendly letters were then generally much
      longer than in our day, as the opportunities of transmitting them were
      few; and much longer time was occupied in their preparation.
    </p>
    <p>
      [27:1] [Greek: Psuria]&mdash;see the <i>Iliad</i> and <i>Odyssey</i>, by
      J. B. Friedreich, p. 64. Erlangen 1856. It is mentioned by Homer in the <i>Odyssey</i>,
      lib. iii. 171. See also Dunbar's <i>Greek Lexicon</i>, art. [Greek:
      Psuria].
    </p>
    <p>
      [27:2] Mr. Gladstone has remarked that "the [Greek: Suriae naesos], or
      Syros, has the same bearing in respect to Delos as [Greek: Psuriae] in
      respect to Chios."&mdash;<i>Studies on Homer</i>, vol. iii. 333, note.
    </p>
    <p>
      [28:1] See Homer, <i>Odyssey</i>, xv. 402. See the note in the <i>Odyssey</i>,
      by F. H. Rothe, pp. 233-34. Leipsic 1834. In the Latin version of Strabo
      we have these words: "Videtur sub-Syriae nomine mentionem facere Homerus
      his quidem verbis:&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
   'Ortygiam supra Syria est quaedam insula.'"
</pre>
    <p>
      Strabo, <i>Rer. Geog.</i> lib. x. p. 711. Oxford 1807. The passage in
      Homer is thus rendered by Chapman:&mdash;
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
  "There is an isle above Ortygia,
   If thou hast heard, they call it Syria."
</pre>
    <p>
      The present inhabitants of this island call themselves [Greek: Surianoi]
      or Syrians. See Smith's <i>Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography</i>,
      art. "Syros."
    </p>
    <p>
      [28:2] Bingham's <i>Origines Ecclesiasticae</i>, iii. 196. London 1840.
    </p>
    <p>
      [28:3] Smith's <i>Assyrian Discoveries</i>, p. 22. London 1875.
    </p>
    <p>
      [29:1] Smith, p. 21.
    </p>
    <p>
      [29:2] Dr. Lightfoot imagines that he has discovered a wonderful
      confirmation of his views in the word "likewise" which here occurs (vol.
      i. p. 574). It is not easy to see the force of his argument; but, with the
      explanations given in the text, the word has peculiar significance. It
      implies that whilst the messenger was to carry the letters from Smyrna to
      Syria, he was <i>also</i>, or likewise, to bring back Smyrna the letters
      sent to Syria from Philippi.
    </p>
    <p>
      [30:1] Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, § 11.
    </p>
    <p>
      [30:2] Zahn speaks of the mission to Antioch as "senseless, even
      considering the time of the year."&mdash;<i>Ignatius von Antiochien</i>,
      p. 287.
    </p>
    <p>
      [34:1] I was myself so much impressed at one time by Dr. Lightfoot's
      reasoning in the <i>Contemporary Review</i> (May 1875), that I actually
      adopted his reckoning as to the date of Polycarp's death in a late edition
      of my <i>Ancient Church</i>; but, on more mature consideration, I have
      found it to be quite untenable.
    </p>
    <p>
      [34:2] Vol. i. p. 629.
    </p>
    <p>
      [34:3] Vol. i. pp. 629, 630.
    </p>
    <p>
      [35:1] Vol. i. p. 630.
    </p>
    <p>
      [37:1] Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 632.
    </p>
    <p>
      [37:2] <i>Ibid.</i>
    </p>
    <p>
      [37:3] Vol. i. p. 148.
    </p>
    <p>
      [37:4] <i>Vita Malchi</i>, Opera iv. pp. 90, 91. Paris 1706.
    </p>
    <p>
      [38:1] Döllinger's <i>Hippolytus and Callistus</i>, by Plummer, pp. 79,
      80. Edinburgh 1876.
    </p>
    <p>
      [38:2] Vol. i. p. 633.
    </p>
    <p>
      [39:1] Dr. Lightfoot is not supported in his chronology by his favourite
      Zahn, who places the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp after the death of
      Peregrinus, in A.D. 165.&mdash;<i>Ignatius von Antiochien</i>, p. 517.
    </p>
    <p>
      [40:1] Vol. i. p. 451.
    </p>
    <p>
      [40:2] Vol. i. p. 635.
    </p>
    <p>
      [41:1] Vol. i. p. 640.
    </p>
    <p>
      [41:2] Vol. i. pp. 639, 640.
    </p>
    <p>
      [42:1] Vol. i. 610.
    </p>
    <p>
      [42:2] <i>Ibid.</i> Even the manuscript authorities of this postscript
      differ as to the name. According to some, the prenomen was <i>Statius</i>;
      according to others, <i>Stratius</i>; according to another, <i>Tatius</i>;
      whilst in another the name is omitted altogether. See Lightfoot, vol. i.
      p. 656, note; vol. ii. sec. ii. p. 984; see also Jacobson, ii. p. 593.
    </p>
    <p>
      [43:1] It is probable that the postscript was written many years after the
      event; and, under these circumstances, the writer may have mistaken the
      name of the proconsul at the time. Eusebius seems to have known nothing of
      this postscript, and it is now impossible to tell when it was added.
    </p>
    <p>
      [43:2] Ummidius Quadratus, in A.D. 167, was associated with the Emperor
      Lucius Verus in the consulship; and it would appear that about A.D. 169&mdash;on
      the ground of exceptional ability and influence&mdash;he was appointed to
      the proconsulship of Asia.
    </p>
    <p>
      [43:3] Vol. i. pp. 460, 463. In another case we find the proconsul <i>Sergius</i>
      Paulus styled incorrectly <i>Servillius</i> Paullus, vol. i. p. 494. See
      also i. p. 508.
    </p>
    <p>
      [44:1] It is stated in this same postscript, that "Philip of Tralles was
      high priest," or Asiarch, at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp. From
      this fact Dr. Lightfoot has endeavoured to derive support for his
      chronology. His argument is, however, quite inconclusive. The dignity of
      Asiarch could be enjoyed only by the very rich, as none others could
      sustain the expense of it; and the same individual might hold it for years
      together, as well as again and again. The Philip of whom Dr. Lightfoot
      speaks, had a son of the same name, who may also have been high priest or
      Asiarch. See Lightfoot, vol. i. pp. 612, 613, 615, 616.
    </p>
    <p>
      [44:2] Euseb. iv.
    </p>
    <p>
      [45:1] Vol. i. p. 443.
    </p>
    <p>
      [45:2] Vol. i. p. 343.
    </p>
    <p>
      [45:3] Vol. i. pp. 443-44.
    </p>
    <p>
      [46:1] Vol. i. p. 510.
    </p>
    <p>
      [46:2] § 2.
    </p>
    <p>
      [46:3] See Neander, i. p. 147. Edinburgh 1847.
    </p>
    <p>
      [46:4] Neander, i. p. 146.
    </p>
    <p>
      [47:1] Antoninus Pius became emperor in A.D. 138.&mdash;Lightfoot, i. p.
      703. Hadrian died on the 10th of July of that year.&mdash;<i>Ibid.</i>
    </p>
    <p>
      [47:2] Book iv. 10.
    </p>
    <p>
      [47:3] Book iv. 11. Dr. Lightfoot states that Eusebius had lists of Roman
      and Alexandrian bishops, "giving the lengths of their respective terms of
      office," vol. ii. sec. i. p. 451. It is said that Hippolytus was the first
      who ever made a chronological list of the Bishops of Rome.&mdash;Döllinger's
      <i>Hippolytus and Callistus</i>, p. 337.
    </p>
    <p>
      [50:1] § 8, 9.
    </p>
    <p>
      [50:2] Vol. i. p. 703.
    </p>
    <p>
      [50:3] Vol. i. p. 650.
    </p>
    <p>
      [51:1] Vol. i. p. 273.
    </p>
    <p>
      [53:1] <i>Contra Haer.</i> lib. v. c. 28. §4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [54:1] Dr. Lightfoot seems to have been in a condition of strange
      forgetfulness when he asks, "Why does not Irenaeus quote Polycarp's
      Epistle?"&mdash;vol. i. p. 328. The simple answer is that he mentions the
      Epistle, and quotes Polycarp by name as a witness against the heretics. <i>Contra
      Haer.</i> book iii. c. 3. § 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [55:1] Eusebius, v. c. i. The writer here mentions a number of individuals
      by name, who were at this time "led into the amphitheatre to the wild
      beasts."
    </p>
    <p>
      [55:2] Professor Harnack says: "If we do not retain the Epistle of
      Polycarp, then we must allow that <i>the external evidence on behalf of
      the Ignatian Epistles is exceedingly weak, and hence is highly favourable
      to the suspicion that they are spurious."&mdash;Expositor</i> for Jan.
      1886, p. 11. We have seen, however, that the Epistle of Polycarp furnishes
      no evidence in their favour. See Chap. II.
    </p>
    <p>
      [56:1] Vol. i. p. 578.
    </p>
    <p>
      [57:1] Vol. i. p. 579.
    </p>
    <p>
      [57:2] Vol. i. p. 580.
    </p>
    <p>
      [57:3] Vol. i. p. 39.
    </p>
    <p>
      [57:4] Vol. i. p. 583.
    </p>
    <p>
      [57:5] To the Trallians, § 10.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:1] To the Romans, § 5.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:2] To the Trallians, § 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:3] To the Smyrnaeans, § 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:4] To the Romans, § 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:5] Letter of the Smyrnaeans relating to the death of Polycarp, § 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:6] To the Smyrnaeans, § 9.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:7] Polycarp to the Philippians, Section § 1, 5, 10.
    </p>
    <p>
      [58:8] § 4, 6.
    </p>
    <p>
      [59:1] To the Philad. § 3. To the Smyrnaeans, § 9. To Polycarp, § 6.
    </p>
    <p>
      [59:2] <i>The Ancient Church</i>, Period II. sec. ii. chap. ii., iii.
    </p>
    <p>
      [59:3] <i>Epistle to the Philippians</i>, pp. 181-269.
    </p>
    <p>
      [60:1] Vol. i. p. 377.
    </p>
    <p>
      [60:2] 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 5.
    </p>
    <p>
      [61:1] Acts xx. 28, 31.
    </p>
    <p>
      [61:2] 1 Tim. iv. 14.
    </p>
    <p>
      [62:1] <i>Comment. in Titum</i>.
    </p>
    <p>
      [62:2] Gal. ii. 9.
    </p>
    <p>
      [63:1] <i>Philippians.</i> Essay, pp. 216, 218.
    </p>
    <p>
      [63:2] Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, here completely mistakes the date
      of the Epistle of Polycarp.
    </p>
    <p>
      [63:3] <i>Philippians</i>, p. 226.
    </p>
    <p>
      [63:4] <i>Ibid.</i> p. 227.
    </p>
    <p>
      [63:5] <i>Ibid.</i> p. 226.
    </p>
    <p>
      [64:1] See my <i>Ancient Church</i>, 4th edition, pp. 470-71. New York
      1883.
    </p>
    <p>
      [64:2] Vol. i. p. 377.
    </p>
    <p>
      [64:3] It is quite clear that the bishops of whom Irenaeus speaks were not
      a distinct order from presbyters. Thus he says, "It is incumbent to obey
      the <i>presbyters</i> who are in the Church, those who possess the
      succession from the apostles, and who together with the <i>succession of
      the episcopate</i> have received the certain gift of truth." ... "It
      behoves us ... to adhere to those who ... hold the doctrine of the
      apostles, and who, together with <i>the order of the presbytery</i>,
      display sound speech and blameless conduct."&mdash;<i>Contra Haer.</i>
      lib. iv. c. 26, § 2, 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [65:1] <i>Irenicum</i>, part ii. chap. 7.
    </p>
    <p>
      [65:2] <i>Contra Haer.</i> iii. 3, 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [65:3] "It is," says he, "at all events <i>not likely</i>," vol. i. p.
      425.
    </p>
    <p>
      [66:1] 1 Tim. i. 18.
    </p>
    <p>
      [66:2] If he was eighty-six years of age at the time of his martyrdom in
      A.D. 169, he was born A.D. 83.
    </p>
    <p>
      [67:1] Even Eusebius has given some countenance to this practice. See his
      <i>Evangelical Preparation</i>, xii. c. 31.
    </p>
    <p>
      [68:1] Döllinger's <i>Hippolytus and Callistus</i>, p. 113.
    </p>
    <p>
      [69:1] § 9. See this letter in Appendix II.
    </p>
    <p>
      [70:1] Vol. i. p. 383. It is worthy of note that, in this Epistle to the
      Romans, Antioch is not named. Ignatius speaks of himself as "the bishop
      from Syria," § 2. He thus seeks to identify himself with the Ignatius
      mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, who speaks of sending letters to
      Syria.
    </p>
    <p>
      [71:1] Vol. ii. sec. i. p. 186.
    </p>
    <p>
      [72:1] Lightfoot, vol. ii. sec. i. pp. 435, 445.
    </p>
    <p>
      [72:2] Vol. i. p. 46.
    </p>
    <p>
      [73:1] Euseb. v. c. 24.
    </p>
    <p>
      [74:1] Eph. § 6; Magn. § 6.
    </p>
    <p>
      [74:2] Rom. § 4.
    </p>
    <p>
      [74:3] Eph. § 12; Rom. § 4; Trallians, § 3.
    </p>
    <p>
      [74:4] Eph. § 9.
    </p>
    <p>
      [75:1] Polycarp, § 6.
    </p>
    <p>
      [75:2] Smyrnaeans, § 5; Philad. § 6.
    </p>
    <p>
      [75:3] <i>Philosophumena</i>, Book IX.
    </p>
    <p>
      [75:4] Eph. § 1.
    </p>
    <p>
      [75:5] Rom. § 6.
    </p>
    <p>
      [76:1] Vol. i. p. 329.
    </p>
    <p>
      [76:2] Philippians, p. 236.
    </p>
    <p>
      [77:1] Cyprian could not sympathize with this Ignatius in his passion for
      martyrdom. The Bishop of Carthage incurred some odium by retiring to a
      place of safety in a time of persecution.
    </p>
    <p>
      [77:2] Philippians, Essay 237.
    </p>
    <div style="height: 6em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>







<pre>





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious, by
William Dool Killen

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ***

***** This file should be named 8908-h.htm or 8908-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        http://www.gutenberg.org/8/9/0/8908/


Text file produced by Freethought Archives

HTML file produced by David Widger


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
  www.gutenberg.org/license.


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887.  Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit:  www.gutenberg.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.



</pre>

  </body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-07-17 23:45:25 +0000