3. The Ecclesiastical Conditions. To these we shall return immediately,
after a few words on--
4. The Literary Obligations, 5, The Personality of the Writer, and 6,
The Style and Diction of the Letters. As regards the Literary
Obligations, the Bishop lays down the following maxim: 'A primary test
of age in any early Christian writing is the relation which the notices
of the words and deeds of Christ and His Apostles bear to the Canonical
writings;' and he adds, 'Tried by this test, the Ignatian Epistles
proclaim their early date. There is no sign whatever in them of a Canon
or authoritative collection of Books of the New Testament.' There are
frequent references to the facts of Christ's life, death, and
resurrection, and Gospel sayings are given; but there is 'not a single
reference to written evangelical records, such as the "Memoirs of the
Apostles," which occupy so large a place in Justin Martyr.' The same
holds good of the Apostolic Epistles.
'I would ask,' the Bishop concludes, 'any reader who desires
to apprehend the full force of these (facts with reference
to Ignatius) to read a book or two of Irenaeus continually,
and mark the contrast in the manner of dealing with the
Evangelical narratives and the Apostolic letters. He will
probably allow that an interval of two generations or more
is not too long a period to account for the difference of
treatment.'
The personality of the writer is no doubt unusual. A power of
communication with angels,[75] 'extravagant' humility and
self-depreciation;[76] and a not less 'extravagant' desire for martyrdom
(confined, however, to the Epistle to the Romans), are not certainly
what a later age commended or found in the Martyrs; but due allowance
being made for the temperament of the Saint and the circumstances of the
case, 'it is a picture much more explicable as the autotype of a real
person than as the invention of a forger.'
Once more, the Style and Diction of the Letters may be, as Daille and
his followers have thought, 'forced and unnatural' in the use of images,
'confused' as to language, and 'bombastic' as to diction. But what then?
asks the Bishop:--
'What security did his position as an Apostolic Father give
that he should write simply and plainly, that he should
avoid solecisms, that his language should never he
disfigured by bad taste or faulty rhetoric?'
'It may not,' he continues, 'be considered very good taste
to draw out the metaphor of a hauling engine (Ephes. 9)--to
compare the Holy Spirit to the rope, the faith of the
believers to the windlass, &c. But on what grounds, prior to
experience, have we any more right to expect either a
faultless taste or a pure diction in a genuine writer at the
beginning of the second century, than in a spurious writer
at the end of the same?'
Elaborate compounds, Latinisms, reiterations, are no proof of
spuriousness.
It is not, however, so much on these as on so-called anachronisms that
assailants have attacked the letters. In every instance a supposed
success has ended in a reverse. Thus the term 'leopard,' applied to the
soldiers who conveyed Ignatius,[77] was said to have been unknown before
the age of Constantine; and it was argued that the forger of these
letters had antedated the word by two centuries. Pearson pointed out an
example of the word about A. D. 202; but the Bishop of Durham has found
it in a rescript of the Emperors Marcus and Commodus (A. D. 177-80), and
in an early treatise written by Galen, which carries it back within
about half a century of Ignatius. Evidently it was then a familiar term.
Another alleged anachronism is the use of the term 'Catholic
Church.'[78] Cureton and others have urged, that a period of full fifty
years must have intervened between the time when Ignatius wrote and the
first trace we find of the term 'Catholic Church.' This, says Bishop
Lightfoot, 'is founded on the confusion of two wholly different
things'--Catholic as a technical, and Catholic as a general term.
Centuries before the Christian era, the word Catholic [Greek:
katholikos] is found in the sense of 'universal'; both before and
after the age of Ignatius it is common in writers, classical and
ecclesiastical. 'In this sense the word might have been used at any
time, and by any writer, from the first moment that the Church began to
spread, while yet the conception of its unity was present to the mind.'
It was only later that the term 'Catholic' acquired a technical
meaning--orthodoxy as opposed to heresy, conformity as opposed to
dissent. In Smyrn. 8, 'where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic
Church,' the word is used in its sense of 'universal,' as contrasted
with the Smyrnaean or local Church over which Polycarp presided. Not only
is its use here not indicative of a later date, but this archaic sense
emphasizes an early one. After the word 'Catholic' had acquired its
later and technical use, it could not have been employed in its earliest
meaning without the risk of considerable confusion.
We must refer our readers to a similarly thorough refutation of the
charge of anachronism brought against these letters on account of their
use of the term 'Christian,' and suggest to them an examination of the
interesting proofs of the position next secured,[79] that certain
characteristics of style and diction tell largely in favour of their
genuineness.
We turn, after noting the summary of the internal evidences attesting
the genuineness of these letters, to the headings omitted (2, 3) on the
Theological Polemics and the Ecclesiastical Conditions. That summary is
as follows (i. 407):--
'The external testimony to the Ignatian Epistles being so
strong, only the most decisive marks of spuriousness in the
Epistles themselves, as, for instance, proved anachronism,
would justify us in suspecting them as interpolated, or
rejecting them as spurious.--But so far is this from being
the case, that one after another the anachronisms urged
against these letters have vanished in the light of further
knowledge.--As regards the argument which Daille calls
"palmary"--the prevalence of episcopacy as a recognized
institution--we may say boldly that all the facts point the
other way. If the writer of these letters had represented
the churches of Asia Minor as under presbyterial government,
he would have contradicted all the evidence which, without
one dissentient voice, points to episcopacy as the
established form of Church government in these districts
from the close of the first century.--The circumstances of
the condemnation, captivity, and journey of Ignatius, which
have been a stumbling-block to some modern critics, did not
present any difficulty to those who lived near the time, and
therefore knew best what might be expected under the
circumstances; and they are sufficiently borne out by
example, more or less analogous, to establish their
credibility.--The objections to the style and language are
beside the purpose.--A like answer holds with regard to any
extravagances in sentiment, or opinion, or character.--While
the investigation of the contents of these Epistles has
yielded this negative result in dissipating the objections,
it has at the same time had a high positive value, as
revealing indications of a very early date, and therefore
presumably of genuineness, in the surrounding circumstances,
more especially in the types of false doctrine which it
combats, in the ecclesiastical status which it presents, and
in the manner in which it deals with the evangelical and
apostolic documents.--Moreover, we discover in the personal
environments of the assumed writer, and more especially in
the notices of his route, many subtle coincidences which we
are constrained to regard as undesigned, and which seem
altogether beyond the reach of a forger.--So likewise the
peculiarities in style and diction of the Epistles, as also
in the representation of the writer's character, are much
more capable of explanation in a genuine writing than in a
forgery.--While external and internal evidence thus combine
to assert the genuineness of these writings, no satisfactory
account has been or apparently can be given of them as a
forgery of a later date than Ignatius. They would be quite
purposeless as such; for they entirely omit all topics which
would especially interest any subsequent age.'
The Section upon 'Ecclesiastical Conditions' deals with the ministry of
men, the ministry of women, and the liturgy of the Church. Interesting
though the two last points are of necessity to any student of Church
organization and ritual, we pass them by to consider the 'Ecclesiastical
Polemics.' The Bishop of Durham's view of the ministry of
men--especially of episcopacy--as furnished by the Seven Epistles is
briefly as follows. The name of Ignatius is inseparably connected with
the championship of episcopacy. Such extracts as the following
sufficiently attest the prominence and authority he assigns to the
office: 'We ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself; 'Vindicate'
(O Polycarp) 'thine office in things, temporal as well as spiritual. Let
nothing be done without thy consent, and do thou nothing without the
consent of God;' 'Give heed (ye Smyrnaeans) to your bishop, that God also
may give heed to you;' 'Let no man do anything pertaining to the Church
without the bishop.' Further, the extension of the episcopate in the
time of Ignatius is quite clear. He is himself the bishop 'belonging to
Syria.' He salutes and names the Bishops of Ephesus, of Magnesia, and
Tralles. In those parts of Asia Minor and Syria, with which he is
brought into contact, the episcopate properly so called is an
established and recognized institution. This is in accordance with what
the Bishop of Durham traces elsewhere in the history of the origin and
development of episcopacy;[80] but it is not in accordance with Dr.
Harnack's view. 'The evidence,' says the Bishop, 'points to episcopacy
as the established form of Church government in these districts from the
close of the first century.' Not so, says Dr. Harnack:--
'Ignatius' conception of the position and significance of
the bishop has its earliest parallel in the original
conception of the author of the Apostolic Constitutions (_i.
e._ the end of the 3d cent.); and the Epistles show that the
Monarchical Episcopate in Asia Minor was so firmly rooted,
so highly elevated above all other offices, so completely
beyond dispute, that on the ground of what we know from
other sources of early Church history, no single
investigator would assign the statements under consideration
to the second, but at the earliest to the third century.'
Let the reader, however, look up the references under the head of
"Apostolical Constitutions" in the Index to vol. i. of the Bishop's
work, and we shall be very much surprised if he agree with Dr. Harnack's
first conclusion. Will there not be even a lurking apprehension that Dr.
Harnack, in arguing from the 'original conception of the author of the
Apostolic Constitutions,' is confounding the 'long' and the 'middle'
Recensions of the letters? Possibly the anxiety of determination to fix
upon the third century rather than the close of the first as the date of
the establishment of Episcopacy may have been tolerable in the time of
Daille, but is it tolerable or should it be repeated now when the means
of a far more critical study of the question is open to all? In fact,
Dr. Harnack is evidently disturbed by the _parti pris_ of his position;
and he may be said to abandon it immediately for a more negative one:
but even so, how can a critic with the authorities placed before him
come even to his second and modified conclusion:--'The statements of
Ignatius regarding the rank to which the Episcopate has attained,
occupy, so far as our knowledge goes, an altogether isolated position in
the second century.' Isolated! This can be examined upon evidence. The
point is this: Are there, or are there not, witnesses to show that
monarchical Episcopacy had been developed in the later years of the
Apostolic Age? Irenaeus (born c. 130, according to Lipsius) was a scholar
of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a scholar of St. John. He delighted to
recal the reminiscences of his teacher, as did Polycarp those of St.
John. He was a travelled scholar; if born in Asia Minor, he lived at
Rome during middle life, and was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul in his later
years. He was probably the most learned Christian of his time. 'The
appreciation of the position of the man,' urges Bishop Lightfoot, 'is a
first requisite to an estimate of his evidence.' And what is his
evidence? Just that which is marked by such development as the man, his
time, and circumstances, would lead us to expect, when compared with the
Ignatius, from whom he is separated by about two generations. To
Ignatius, the bishop is the centre of ecclesiastical unity; so Irenaeus,
the depositary of Apostolic tradition. Irenaeus overlooks the identity of
'bishop' and 'presbyter' in the New Testament, and speaks of 'bishops
_and_ presbyters from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining' coming to
St. Paul at Miletus. It is to him an undisputed fact, that the bishops
of his own age traced their succession back in an unbroken line to men
appointed to the episcopate by the Apostles themselves. Thus he points
out the sequence of the bishops of the Church of Rome 'founded by the
blessed Apostles,' St. Peter and St. Paul, up to his own day; and in the
case of the Church in Smyrna, he finds in Polycarp not only one
'instructed by Apostles and who had conversed with many who had seen
Christ,' but also 'one who was appointed bishop in the Church of Smyrna
by Apostles in Asia.'[81] Similar opinions are reflected in many
passages, and they lead up to this conclusion:--
'After every reasonable allowance made for the possibility
of mistakes in details, the language (of Irenaeus) from a man
standing in his position with respect to the previous and
contemporary history of the Church leaves no room for doubt
as to the early and general diffusion of episcopacy in the
regions with which he was acquainted.'
Yet it is by fastening upon alleged 'mistakes in details,' and through
counter-conclusions with respect to some of the passages quoted, that
Dr. Harnack affirms that 'from the words of Irenaeus there is absolutely
nothing gained in regard to the origin of the episcopate and its spread
during the period between A. D. 90 and 140.' His method is somewhat
vexatious. He takes, for example, the list of the Bishops of Rome, and
he says, 'Irenaeus communicates this list, and declares that the Apostles
had _ordained_ Linus as Bishop of Rome;' and he adds, 'that this is
false can be proved, and is not denied even by Lightfoot.' The
marvellous part of this statement is, that Irenaeus says nothing of the
kind. The word 'ordination' does not occur in the passage in question.
The sentence is far from faithfully translated by the Bishop of
Durham:[82] Linus 'was entrusted with the office of the bishopric' by
the Apostles. Again, what is 'false'? the whole list, or the statement
as regards Linus individually? Neither is false when rightly understood,
and no denial is therefore forthcoming from the Bishop of Durham, or
required for what is not questioned. But Dr. Harnack--not satisfied with
having refuted an imaginary foe--next proceeds to ask, 'What reliance
then can we have in the statement of Irenaeus, that Polycarp was ordained
a bishop by the Apostles'? It might be answered, 'Your first premiss was
wrong, and until that be mended, further argument is unnecessary.' But
examine the question on its own merits--viz. that due to 'an
appreciation of the position' of Irenaeus--and its veracity is beyond
question.
The Bishop of Durham supports the language of Irenaeus by the testimony
of Polycrates, of Ephesus, his contemporary, if junior; but without
dwelling upon that and other passages of more general reference, we can
come nearer to the time of Ignatius by reference to his contemporary,
Polycarp. We assume, with Bishop Lightfoot, that the testimony of
Irenaeus to Polycarp is of the highest value; but that assumption is no
rash one. Every one can verify the value of the testimony by perusing
the Bishop's interesting pages on the subject. The relation of Polycarp
to the Apostles has been given above. It is to his language about
episcopacy that we wish to refer. In Polycarp's letter to the
Philippians, the Bishop of Smyrna speaks at length about the duties of
presbyters, deacons, widows, &c., but he makes no mention either of the
bishop, or--in other parts where it might have been expected--of
obedience due to him. This is naturally explained on the supposition
that the see was then vacant, or that ecclesiastical organization was
not fully developed at Philippi. How rash, however, it would be to
affirm the non-existence of episcopacy, or to raise objections to it
such as would render incredible the statements of Ignatius, may be
inferred from the 'Letter of the Smyrnaeans,' which, speaking of 'the
glorious martyr Polycarp, who was found an Apostolic and prophetic
teacher in our own time, a bishop of the Holy Church which is in
Smyrna,' attests at once the respect paid to the office by the writer of
the Letter and to the title by which Polycarp himself was usually
called.
Other contemporaries of Polycarp's were Clement of Rome and Papias. Do
they give no testimony to the development of monarchical episcopacy in
the later years of the Apostolic Age? Polycarp, if not acquainted with
Clement personally, was yet intimately acquainted with his genuine
letter, the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In this letter there is no
mention of episcopacy properly so-called. With St. Clement, as in the
New Testament, bishop and presbyter are convertible terms. He even drops
all mention of his own name though bishop of the Church in Rome. There
is not even the 'I' of Polycarp, but a 'we,' which defines that the
letter is written in the name of the Church and speaks with the
authority of the Church. The name and personality of the individual are
absorbed in the Church of which he is the spokesman.[83] The same
phenomena are observed in the letter written by Ignatius to the very
Church--Rome--in which alone they are noticed as occurring. The Epistle
of Ignatius to the Romans--save for the mention of his own
rank--contains no indication of the existence of the episcopal office,
inculcates no obedience to bishops, and says not a word about a bishop
of Rome. A like phenomenon is to be noticed in the next (chronologically
speaking) document, emanating from the Church of Rome--viz. the Shepherd
of Hermas. What does this contrast throughout mean, but that where--as
in Asia Minor--false doctrine and schismatical teachers prevailed, there
episcopacy was a safeguard; where these were absent--as in Rome--there
the episcopate had not yet assumed the same sharp and well-defined
monarchical character as in the Eastern churches: and what does this
contrast tend to disprove but the opinion of Dr. Harnack?--'Apart from
the Epistles of Ignatius we do not possess a single witness to the
existence of the monarchical episcopate in the churches of Asia Minor so
early as the times of Trajan or Hadrian' (_i. e._ A. D. 98-138).
Turning to the other point--the Theological Polemics--disputed by
Harnack, Bishop Lightfoot has dealt with the subject on its positive and
negative sides respectively. The positive side yields results of real
importance in attestation of the date of the letters. The heresy
combated by Ignatius is a type of Gnostic Judaism, the Gnostic element
manifesting itself in a sharp form of Docetism. This marked type of
Docetism, far from being a difficulty, is an indication of early date,
since the tendency of Docetism was to mitigation, as time went on. The
negative side is educed by cross-questioning the writer's silence. There
were certain controversies which rent the Church in the middle and
latter half of the second century. These were such as, first, the
Paschal controversy (the proper day and mode of celebrating the Paschal
festival); secondly, the controversy about Montanism, the theatre of
which was the very region with which these Epistles are concerned. Yet,
not a word, not a hint is there, that the writer felt any interest in,
or was disturbed by, anxieties about either. A similar silence points to
the same conclusion, when we consider the absence of allusion to the
three great heresiarchs, Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinus. Give to the
first a period of notoriety conterminous with the reign of Hadrian (A.
D. 117-38), yet there is not the slightest allusion in Ignatius to the
tenets of the leader or his followers. Place Marcion some years before
the middle of the second century. Remember that he was a native of Asia
Minor and taught at Rome that there he was denounced by Polycarp as the
'first born of Satan;'[84] and that he enjoyed a world-wide reputation
for evil (according to some), for good (according to others). Yet in the
Ignatian letters there is not the faintest aquaintance with the man or
his teaching. Valentinus also taught at Rome (c. A. D. 140-60), and his
strange theories about _AEons_ and Ogdoads, about spiritual, psychical,
and material men, or any other fantasy of his speculative mythology,
were not thought beneath the criticism of an Irenaeus, a Clement of
Alexandria and a Tertullian. Yet no hint is there in the Seven Epistles
that these thoughts were familiar to the writer. At one time an exultant
Daille found in his reading of 'Magn.' 8 an attack on Valentinianism,
and consequently a welcome anachronism which proved the writer of the
letters a forger. The discovery of the true reading has been followed
not only by the collapse of the objection, but also by the adhesion to
the belief, that the writer's use of certain expressions is a testimony
to his existence in a pre-Valentinian epoch, when language had not been
abused to heretical ends.
Dr. Harnack has little to say against the Bishop of Durham's conclusions
from the negative side of the investigation of these theological
polemics; but he has much to say against the Bishop's deductions from
the positive aspect of them. Though, says Bishop Lightfoot,
'in the Trallian and Smyrnaean letters the writer deals
chiefly with Docetism, while in the Magnesian and
Philadelphian letters he seems to be attacking Judaism, yet
a nearer examination shows the two to be so closely
interwoven that they can only be regarded as different sides
of one and the same heresy.'