I add one other pa.s.sage for comparison:--

FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.

| 'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his that the quotation being by "the | alternative that the quotation, Presbyters" was more ancient even | being by "the Presbyters," was than Papias, by showing that it | more ancient even than Papias, _may be referred to Irenaeus himself | by showing that it _must be quoting probably from | attributed to Irenaeus himself_, contemporaries_, and that there is | and that there is no ground for no ground for attributing it to the | attributing it to the Presbyters Presbyters at all.' [58:1] | at all.'

Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in charges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' and the like.

III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.

[FEBRUARY, 1875.]

The letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are immediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he was pa.s.sing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their representations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility are not very wide. The earlier date a.s.signed is about A.D. 107, and the later about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are written to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed more especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis that his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue him from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time members of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a pardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic Churches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations, friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in personal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their delegates.

Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long Recension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin translation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part of the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it seemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two others, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it may be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction; its language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers of the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth century, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of the fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence.

Only, before pa.s.sing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of our author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in the sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability of much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth, or even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian letters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided by independent evidence.

The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as follows:--

(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him, and in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp.

It is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them in the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong to this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from which last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was translated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in the Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original, about the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the Long Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the happy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus superseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious reasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the _Vossian._

(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of the Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in a still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the Nitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I shall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles.

Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon fanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is raging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or the Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the Vossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or whether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and abridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not.

The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the case, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial prepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the dispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the investigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of Scripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with equally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and Protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth century, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the eighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions, though not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting.

In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian question as a whole. It will simply be my business to a.n.a.lyse the statements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural Religion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these papers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to early Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to indicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid testimony.

The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.

A writer therefore may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with some diffidence.

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ has no hesitation on the subject.

'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a ma.s.s of falsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if the Epistle [to the Smyrnaeans] were genuine, which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:--

'We must, however, go much further, and a.s.sert that none of the Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they possess any value at all.' [62:3]

And immediately afterwards:--

'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be spurious.' [63:1]

The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. It becomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments.

I will take first of all a pa.s.sage which sweeps the field of the Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The author writes as follows:--

'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which s.p.a.ce forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the Epistles.' [63:3]

No statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the results of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than this. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.

But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case, for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]

and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters, in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tubingen views of early Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.

Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius, Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as ill.u.s.trating this point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his former opinion on both questions alike [64:8].

But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I have named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very pa.s.sages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light on this point, I will a.n.a.lyse the author's general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier pa.s.sage. He writes as follows:--

'These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have p.r.o.nounced them to be the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess (^1). As early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious (^1), an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others, and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth century (^2), and onward to comparatively recent times (^3), although the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. That the Epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier doubts, and a large ma.s.s of critics recognise that the authenticity of none of these Epistles can be established, and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions (^4).'

The first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:--

'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei acht. u. d.

vier unacht. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145; Bohringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845; _Vindiciae Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch.

d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d.

Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i., 1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p.

7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk.

Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.'

[The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be quoted.]

These references, it will be observed, are given to ill.u.s.trate more immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who do not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters as spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty, while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain the genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2].

As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the discovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the Long Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The criticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those pa.s.sages which are found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen the position of the Papal power etc.' [66:3]

The note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:--

'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton, _Vindiciae Ignatianae_, 1846, appendix.'

Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus, while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters.

It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these [67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all.

Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) p.r.o.nounces them 'either supposit.i.tious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624) denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2].

Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens et justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.

The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:--

[Wotton, _Praef. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p.

88; Lampe, _Comm. a.n.a.lyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichee, etc._, 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._, 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _de Rebus Christ._, p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._, 1745, p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._, 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._, 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._, 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmuller, _Hist. Interpr.

Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._, 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. in Epist. ii. Petri_, 1784, Praef.; Kestner, _Comm. de. Eusebii H.E.

condit._, 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.

p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 357, anm. 1]; Baumgarten-Crusius. _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1832, p. 83, cf.

_Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1840, p. 79; [_Niedner, Gesch. chr. K._, p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit_, p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._, i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, _Vind. Ign. append._; Ziegler, _Versuch ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfa.s.sungs-formen_, u.s.w., 1798, p.

16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch ub. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S.

Ignat._ in _Henke's Mag. f. Rel. Phil._, u.s.w. [1795; cf.

_Biblioth. f. Krit._, u.s.w., _N.T._, i. p. 463 ff., _Urspr. kath.

Kirche_, II. i. p. I f.]; _H'buch Chr. K.G._, i. p. 200.

The brackets are not the author's, but my own.

This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years'