Produced by Freethought Archives
THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.
A Reply to The Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham.
By W. D. Killen, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Principal
of the Presbyterian Theological Faculty, Ireland.
"As the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius may be justly
suspected, so, too, the letters which presuppose the correctness
of this suspicious legend do not wear at all a stamp of a distinct
individuality of character, and of a man of these times addressing
his last words to the Churches."
--AUGUSTUS NEANDER.
EDINBURGH
1886.
PREFACE.
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, "_The Apostolic Fathers_, 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.
ASSEMBLY COLLEGE, BELFAST,
July 1886.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
The critical spirit stimulated by the Reformation--The Ignatian Epistles
as regarded by Calvin, Ussher, Vossius, Daillé, Pearson, Wake, and
Cureton--Dr. Lightfoot as a scholar and a commentator--The valuable
information supplied in his recent work--His estimate of the parties who
have pronounced judgment on the question of the Ignatian Epistles--His
verdict unfair--His introduction of Lucian as a witness in his
favour--The story of Peregrinus--Dr. Lightfoot's cardinal mistake in his
treatment of this question.
CHAPTER II.
THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.
Dr. Lightfoot makes a most unguarded statement as to the Ignatian
Epistles--The letter of Polycarp better authenticated--The date assigned
for the martyrdom of Ignatius--The date of Polycarp's Epistle--Written
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius--Not written in the reign of Trajan--The
Epistle of Polycarp has no reference to Ignatius of Antioch--It refers
to another Ignatius of another age and country--It was written at a
time of persecution--The postscript to the letter of Polycarp quite
misunderstood--What is meant by letters being carried to Syria--Psyria
and Syria, two islands in the Aegaean Sea--The errors of transcribers of
the postscript--The true meaning of the postscript--What has led to
the mistake as to the claims of the Ignatian Epistles--The continued
popularity of these Epistles among High Churchmen.
CHAPTER III.
THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.
Dr. Lightfoot's strange reasoning on this subject--The testimony of
Eusebius, Jerome, and others--Eusebius and Jerome highly competent
witnesses--Dr. Döllinger's estimate of Jerome--The basis on which
Dr. Lightfoot rests the whole weight of his chronological
argument--Aristides and his _Sacred Discourses_--Statius Quadratus, the
consuls and proconsuls--Ummidius Quadratus--Polycarp martyred in the
reign of Marcus Aurelius--His visit to Rome in the time of Anicetus--Put
to death when there was only one emperor--Age of Polycarp at the time of
his martyrdom--The importance of the chronological argument.
CHAPTER IV.
THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.
The testimony of Irenaeus quite misunderstood--Refers to the dying
words of one of the martyrs of Lyons--The internal evidence against the
genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles--The contrast between the Epistle
of Polycarp and the Ignatian Epistles as exhibited by Dr. Lightfoot
himself--Additional points of contrast--Dr. Lightfoot quite mistaken
as to the origin of Prelacy--It did not originate in the East, or Asia
Minor, but in Rome--The argument from the cases of Timothy and Titus
untenable--Jerome's account of the origin of Prelacy--James not the
first bishop of Jerusalem--In the early part of the second century
the Churches of Rome, Corinth, and Smyrna were Presbyterian--Irenaeus
conceals the origin of Prelacy--Coins the doctrine of the apostolical
succession--The succession cannot be determined even in Rome--Testimony
of Stillingfleet--In what sense Polycarp may have been constituted a
bishop by the apostles.
CHAPTER V.
THE FORGERY OF THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
We have no positive historical information as to the origin of the
Ignatian Epistles--First saw the light in the early part of the third
century--Such forgeries then common--What was then thought by many as to
pious frauds--Callistus of Rome probably concerned in the fabrication of
the Ignatian Epistles--His remarkable history--The Epistle to the
Romans first forged--It embodies the credentials of the rest--Montanism
stimulated the desire for martyrdom--The prevalence of this mania early
in the third century--The Ignatian Epistles present it in its most
outrageous form--The Epistle to the Romans must have been very popular
at Rome--Doubtful whether Ignatius was martyred at Rome--The Ignatian
Epistles intended to advance the claims of Prelacy--Well fitted to do
so at the time of their appearance--The account of Callistus given
by Hippolytus--The Ignatian letters point to Callistus as their
author--Cannot have been written in the beginning of the second
century--Their doctrine that of the Papacy.
APPENDIX
I.--Letter of Dr. Cureton.
II.--The Ignatian Epistle to the Romans.
ENDNOTES
THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
The question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed 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--who then stood at the head of
Protestant theologians--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 _Institutes_ 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--in the very midst of the
din and confusion of the civil war between Charles I. and his
Parliament--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--the fruit of six years' labour--attempted to restore their
reputation. This vindication was not permitted to pass without an
answer; but, meanwhile, the dark prospects of the Reformed faith
in England 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--printed under the supervision of the late
Rev. Dr. Cureton--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--extending to upwards of 1800 pages of closely printed
matter--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.
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 _Expositor_ [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 _Acts of Martyrdom of
Ignatius_--which he also acknowledges to be a mere bundle of fables--he
treats with the same tender regard. Nor is this all. He gives these
acts, or large portions of them, in Latin and Greek, as well as
in Coptic and Syriac; and 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.
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 _second and third rate_ 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 _condemning_ 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 _conjectures_, 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
_obiter dictum_ 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
_Vindiciae_ of Pearson.
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--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 _Vindiciae_, 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.
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--who has already
reviewed his pages in the _Expositor_, and who, to a great extent,
adheres to the views which they propound--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--under the name of death-messengers--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.
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
never once doubted_," 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.