Skip to main content

Full text of "The apostolic fathers ... by the late J.B. Lightfoot"

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2008 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 




VOL. I. 









J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., 


VOL. I. 

Uontron : 


[Afl /Hfn-Zifs reserves/.] 


©ambrtligc : 














THE first edition of my Ignatius and Polycarp was exhausted 
a considerable time ago. The favourable reception which 
was accorded to it would have led me, had I been able, to issue 
its successor much earlier. But owing partly to other engage- 
ments, partly to a long and serious illness, this was impossible. 
Its appearance indeed would have been much longer delayed, 
if I had not had the invaluable assistance of my chaplain, the 
Rev. J. R. Harmer, on whom has fallen the burden — no slight 
burden — of carrying the larger part of the work through the 
press and adding a fuller and revised index. 

My especial thanks are due to my critics for their kindly 
reception of a work which deals so largely with materials for 
controversy. I have striven to profit by their criticisms, where 
they have been brought "before my notice. It is a satisfaction to 
find that the view, maintained in these volumes, of the genuineness 
of the middle form of the Ignatian Epistles is gaining ground. 
The adhesion of an able and intelligent critic like de Pressense, 
who previously had maintained the priority of the Curetonian 
form, but in his new edition {Lc Siecle Apostolique II. p. vii. p. 
460 sq) frankly accepts the Vossian letters as genuine, giving 
his reasons for this change of opinion, is a happy augury for the 
future of this controversy. 

It was hardly to be expected that in a subject so well-worn 
any new materials would have been forthcoming for a second 
edition. In this respect I have been much more successful — 
thanks to the kindness of friends — than I could have anticipated. 


I would only point to the fragments of the original Syriac 
version — as distinguished from the Curetonian abridgment — 
which were furnished to me from a recently acquired Cam- 
bridge MS by the great oriental scholar, whose recent loss we are 
still mourning, William Wright (see I. p. 93 sq, 103) ; to two 
previously unknown MSS of the Greek Antiochene Acts with 
the Epistle to the Romans (hitherto preserved only in a single 
MS), which were photographed or collated for me during a 
recent visit to the East by Prof Rendel Harris, whose ungrudg- 
ing kindness in placing so much of his time and labour at my 
disposal, I cannot too gratefully record (see II. p. 589) ; to the 
Thebaic Version of the Roman Acts of Ignatius published by 
F. Rossi from a Turin MS (ll. p. 365) ; and to an additional 
Greek MS of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans discovered and col- 
lated during his Eastern tour by the same Prof. Rendel Harris 
(see III. p. 357) to whom I have already expressed my gratitude. 
To these new materials for the texts I should add an important 
Pergamene inscription throwing much light on the Calendar of 
Proconsular Asia, which I owe to the kindness of Mommsen 
(l. p. 687 sq) ; and some new inscriptions relating to Philippus 
of Tralles the Asiarch and -his family which were published or 
communicated to me since the appearance of my first edition 
(l. p. 629 sq). My thanks are due likewise to those private 
friends, who have sent me corrections — more especially to Prof 
J. E. B. Mayor who read through the whole work, noting errors 
and offering suggestions. 

September 12, 1889. 

Preface to the First Edition. 

THE present work arose out of a keen interest in the 
Ignatian question which I conceived long ago. The sub- 
ject has been before me for nearly thirty years, and during this 
period it has engaged my attention off and on in the intervals 
of other literary pursuits and official duties. Meanwhile my 
plan enlarged itself so as to comprehend an edition of all the 
Apostolic Fathers ; and the portion comprising S. Clement 
(1869), followed after the discovery of Bryennios by an 
Appendix (1877), was the immediate result. But the work 
which I now offer to the public was the motive, and is the 
core, of the whole. 

When I first began to study the subject, Cureton's discovery 
dominated the field. With many others I was led captive for 
a time by the tyranny of this dominant force. I never once 
doubted that we possessed in one form or another the genuine 
letters of Ignatius. I could not then see, and I cannot see 
now, how this conclusion can be resisted, except by a mode of 
dealing with external evidence which, if extensively applied, 
would reduce all historical and literary criticism to chaos. 
If therefore the choice had lain between the seven Vossian 
Epistles and nothing, I should without hesitation have ranged 
myself with Ussher and Pearson and Rothe, rather than with 
Daille and Baur. Though I saw some difficulties, they were 
not to my mind of such magnitude as to counterbalance the 
direct evidence on the other side. 

When however the short Syriac of Cureton appeared, it 
seemed to me at first to offer the true solution. I was not 
indeed able to see, as others saw, any theological difference 
between the Curetonian and Vossian letters ; but in the 
abridged form some extravagances of language at all events 
IGN. I. b 


had disappeared, and this was a gain. For a time therefore I 
accepted the Curetonian letters as representing the genuine 
Ignatius, and this opinion was expressed in some of my pub- 
lished works. Subsequent investigation however convinced me 
of the untenableness of this position. At an early stage an 
independent investigation of the relations between the Armenian 
and the Syriac assured me that there had existed at one 
time a complete Syriac version of the seven Vossian Epistles, 
of which fragments still remained, and of which the Curetonian 
recension was either the abridgement or the nucleus. The theory 
of the priority of the Curetonian letters, which I then held, re- 
quired me to regard it as the nucleus, which had been afterwards 
expanded into a complete version of the seven Epistles by 
translating the additional parts from the Greek. This was not 
the prima facie explanation of the facts, but still it then seemed 
to me possible. Afterwards Zahn's monograph, Ignatius von 
Atitiochien, was published (1873). This appears to me to be 
quite the most important contribution which has been made 
to the subject since the publication of the Curetonian letters. 
I could have wished indeed that he had adopted a more 
conciliatory attitude towards opponents. Moreover his main- 
tenance of untenable positions in other departments of early 
Christian literature may have created a prejudice against his 
labours here. But these drawbacks ought not to blind us to 
the great value of the book. His historical discussions have 
not only removed difficulties, but have discovered or suggested 
harmonies, which are a highly important factor in the solution 
of the question. I must therefore assign to this work a dis- 
tinct place in the train of influences which led to my change 
of opinion. Meanwhile, in revising my own exegetical notes, 
which had been written some years before, I found that to 
maintain the priority of the Curetonian letters I was obliged 
from time to time to ascribe to the supposed Ignatian forger 
feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill, and self-restraint, 
which transcended all bounds of probability. At this stage 


I gave expression publicly to my growing conviction that 
after all the seven Vossian Epistles probably represented the 
genuine Ignatius. Afterwards I entered upon the investigation, 
which will be found in this volume, into the language of the two 
recensions. This dispelled any shadow of doubt which might 
have remained ; for it showed clearly that the additional parts 
of the Vossian Letters must have proceeded from the same 
hand as the parts which were common to the Curetonian and 
Vossian Recensions. 

I have explained thus briefly the history of my own change 
of opinion, not because the processes of my mind are of any 
value to any one else, but because the account places before 
the reader the main points at issue in a concrete form. 

For reasons therefore which will be found not only in the 
separate discussion devoted to the subject, but throughout these 
volumes, I am now convinced of the priority and genuineness of 
the seven Vossian Letters. Indeed Zahn's book, though it has 
been before the world some twelve years, has never been 
answered ; for I cannot regard the brief and cursory criticisms 
of Renan, Hilgenfeld, and others, as any answer. Moreover 
there is much besides to be said which Zahn has not said. 
We have indeed been told more than once that ' all impartial 
critics ' have condemned the Ignatian Epistles as spurious. 
But this moral intimidation is unworthy of the eminent writers 
who have sometimes indulged in it, and will certainly not be 
permitted to foreclose the investigation. If the ecclesiastical 
terrorism of past ages has lost its power, we shall, in the interests 
of truth, be justly jealous of allowing an academic terrorism to 
usurp its place. Only when our arguments have been answered, 
can we consent to abandon documents which have the un- 
broken tradition of the early centuries in their favour. 

For on which side, judging from the nature of the question, 
may we expect the greater freedom from bias .-' To the dis- 
ciples of Baur the rejection of the Ignatian Epistles is an 
absolute necessity of their theological position. The ground 



would otherwise be withdrawn from under them, and their re- 
constructions of early Christian histor}^ would fall in ruins on 
their heads. On the other hand those, who adopt the tra- 
ditional views of the origin of Christianity and of the history of 
the Church as substantially correct, may look with comparative 
calmness on the result. The loss of the Ignatian Epistles would 
be the loss of one buttress to their fabric ; but the withdrawal 
would not materially affect the stability of the fabric itself 

It has been stated already that a long period has elapsed 
since this edition was first conceived. But its execution likewise 
has been protracted through several years. Nor were the pages 
passed through the press in the same order in which they appear 
in the volumes as completed. It is necessary to state these facts, 
because in some places the absence of reference to works which 
have now been long before the public might create surprise. In 
these cases my work has at least the advantage of entire inde- 
pendence, which will enhance the value of the results where they 
are the same. The commentary on the genuine Epistles of Igna- 
tius and the introduction and texts of the Ignatian Acts of Mar- 
tyrdom, which form the greater part of the first section of the 
second volume, were passed through the press before the close 
of 1878. Some portions of the Appendix Ignatiana had been 
already in type several years before this, though they remained 
unpaged. In the early part of the year 1879 I removed to 
Durham, and thenceforward my official duties left me scanty 
leisure for literary work. For weeks, and sometimes for months 
together, I have not found time to write a single line. Indeed 
the book which is now at length completed would probably 
have appeared some three or four years before, if I had re- 
mained in Cambridge. For the most part the first volume has 
been written and passed through the press after the second; 
but in the later parts they have often proceeded pari pass2i, and 
elsewhere an occasional sheet in either volume was delayed for 
special reasons. 

The long delay in the publication has had this further result, 


that some of the materials which were here printed for the first 
time have been anticipated and given to the world meanwhile. 
This is the case for instance with the Coptic fragments recently- 
published by Ciasca, and with the readings of the Munich and 
Constantinople MSS of the Long Recension collated by Funk for 
his edition (1881). So in like manner the text of the Anglo- 
Latin version in the Caius MS has been anticipated by this 
latter editor in a separate work (1883). But over and above 
these, other materials appear now for the first time, such for 
instance as Ussher's collation of the important Montague MS of 
the Anglo-Latin version for the Ignatian Epistles, the collation 
of the Vatican MS of the Syriac version for the Antiochene 
Acts of Ignatius, and the Coptic version, together with the 
collation of the hitherto unnoticed Paris MS, for the Roman 
Acts. Altogether I have striven to make the materials for 
the text as complete as I could. But I have discarded mere 
secondary authorities, as for instance several Greek MSS of 
the Long Recension, because they have no independent value, 
and I should only have been encumbering my notes uselessly, 
if I had recorded their readings. Of the use which I have 
made of the critical materials thus gathered together, I must 
leave others to judge. Of the introductions, exegetical notes, 
and dissertations, I need say nothing, except that I have 
spared no pains to make them adequate, so far as my know- 
ledge and ability permitted. The translations are intended not 
only to convey to English readers the sense of the original, but 
also (where there was any difficulty of construction) to serve as 
commentaries on the Greek. My anxiety not to evade these 
difficulties forbad me in many cases to indulge in a freedom 
which 1 should have claimed, if a literary standard alone had 
been kept in view. 

I must not conclude without fulfilling the pleasant task of 
expressing my obligations to many personal friends and others 
who have assisted me in this work. My thanks are especially 
due to Dr W. Wright, who has edited the Syriac and Arabic 


texts, and whose knowledge has been placed freely at my dis- 
posal wherever I had occasion to consult him ; to Professor 
Guidi who, though an entire stranger to me, transcribed for me 
large portions of Coptic texts from manuscripts in the Vatican; 
to Mr P. le Page Renouf, the well-known Egyptian scholar, who 
has edited the Coptic Version of the Ignatian Acts of Martyr- 
dom from Professor Guidi's transcript ; and to Bryennios the 
Metropolitan of Nicomedia, whose name has recently gathered 
fresh lustre through the publication of the Didache, and to 
whom I owe a collation of the Pseudo- Ignatian Epistles from 
the same manuscript which contains that work. I am also in- 
debted for important services, chiefly collations and transcripts, 
which will be noted in their proper places, to Dr Bollig the 
Sublibrarian of the Vatican, to Dr Zotenberg the Keeper of 
the Oriental Manuscripts in the Paris Library, to Professor 
Wordsworth of Oxford, and to Dr Oscar von Gebhardt the 
co-editor of the Patres Apostolici. Nor should I be satisfied 
without recording my obligations to the authorities and officials 
of the great public libraries at home and abroad. The courtesy 
and attention with which my troublesome importunities have 
been almost uniformly met deserve my sincerest gratitude. 
Other not inconsiderable obligations will be mentioned from 
time to time throughout these volumes; but it would have 
been impossible for me, at every point in the progress of the 
work, where I have consulted private friends, to note the fact. 
One name however I cannot pass over in silence. I am only 
one of many who have profited by the characteristic unselfish- 
ness which led the late Mr A. A. VanSittart to devote un- 
grudgingly to his friends the time which might well have been 
given to independent literary work of his own. Those sheets 
which were printed while I was still in Cambridge had the 
advantage of his careful supervision. Lastly; I have been 
relieved of the task of compiling the indices by my chaplain the 
Rev. J. R. Harmer, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, to 
whom my best thanks are due. 


The Ignatian Epistles are an exceptionally good training 
ground for the student of early Christian literature and history. 
They present in typical and instructive forms the most varied 
problems, textual, exegetical, doctrinal, and historical. One who 
has thoroughly grasped these problems will be placed in pos- 
session of a master key which will open to him vast store- 
houses of knowledge. 

But I need not say that their educational value was not the 
motive which led me to spend so much time over them. The 
destructive criticism of the last half century is, I think, fast 
spending its force. In its excessive ambition it has 'o'erleapt 
itself It has not indeed been without its use. It has led to a 
thorough examination and sifting of ancient documents. It has 
exploded not a few errors, and discovered or established not a 
few truths. For the rest, it has by its directness and persist- 
ency stimulated investigation and thought on these subjects 
to an extent which a less aggressive criticism would have failed 
to secure. But the immediate effect of the attack has been to 
strew the vicinity of the fortress with heaps of ruins. Some 
of these were best cleared away without hesitation or regret. 
They are a rallying point for the assailant, so long as they 
remain. But in other cases the rebuilding is a measure de- 
manded by truth and prudence alike. I have been reproached 
by my friends for allowing myself to be diverted from the more 
congenial task of commenting on S. Paul's Epistles; but the 
importance of the position seemed to me to justify the ex- 
penditure of much time and labour in 'repairing a breach' not 
indeed in 'the House of the Lord' itself, but in the immediately 
outlying buildings. 

S. Peter's Day, 






Clement and Ignatius contrasted [i, 2]. The fathers on Trajan's con- 
duct towards the Christians [-2] ; Story of Gregory the Great [2 — 6]. View 
of recent critics respecting Trajan's action discussed [7 — 17]. His real atti- 
tude ; his dread of guilds [17 — 21]. Martyrdoms during his reign [22]. 
The names Ignatius [22 — 25] and Theophorus [25 — 28]. Early life of 
Ignatius [28]. His Apostolic education and ordination [28 — 30]. An- 
tiphonal singing [30, 31]. His condemnation, journey, and death [31 — 37]. 
Fame of his martyrdom [37 — 39]. His teaching on doctrine and Church- 
order [39, 40]. His fame temporarily eclipsed by Babylas [40 — 44]. Later 
glory, translation of reliques, and panegyrics pronounced over him [45 — 48]. 
Reputation in East and West [48, 49]. 

Notices relating to persecutions under Trajan. 50 — 69 

Pliny and Trajan [50 — 56]; Tertullian [57, 58]; Eusebius [58— 62]; 
Joannes Malalas [62 — 65] ; Chronicon Paschale [65, 66] ; Acts of Sharbil 
and Barsamya [66 — 69]. 


Preliminary statement [70, 71]. (i) Short Form [72, 73]. (2) Middle 
Form, (i) Greek [73 — 76]. (ii) Latin ; History and character of this ver- 
sion [76 — 81] ; Manuscripts [81 — 86]. (iii) Armenian. Date and character 
of this version [86, 87] ; a translation from the Syriac [87 — 90]. Acts of 
Martyrdom translated from the Greek [90,91]. (iv) Syriac; fragments of lost 
version from which the Armenian was taken [91 — 106]. Acts of Martyrdom, 
a separate translation [106— 108]. (v) Copto-Thebaic [ro8, 109]. d) Long 
Form, (i) Greek [109— 125]. (ii) I,atin. Date and contents [125, 126J; 
manuscripts [126 — 132]; Character of the version [133, 134]. 




I Polycarp [135, 136]. 2 Martyrdom of Polycarp [137]. 3 Lucian 
[137 — 141]. 4 Melito [141]. 5 Churches of Vienne and Lyons [141]. 
6 Athenagoras [142]. 7 Theophilus of Antioch [142]. 8 Irenreus [143]. 
9 Clement of Alexandria [143]- 10 Acts of Perpetua [143]. 11 Ter- 
tullian [144]. 12 Origen [144]. 13 Apostolic Constitutions [145]. 14 
Peter of Alexandria [145]. 15 Eusebius of Ctesarea [145—149]. 16 Cyril 
of Jerusalem [149]. 17 Athanasius [149]. 18 Syriac Martyrology [150]. 
19 Ephrem Syrus [150]. 20 Basil of Cresarea [150]. 21 John the Monk 
[151— 155]. 22 Hieronymus [155— 157]- 23 Chrysostom [157—167]. 
24 Cyrillonas [168]. 25 Rufinus [168, 169]. 26 Theodoret [170 — 172]. 
27 John of Antioch [172]. 28 Socrates [172, 173]. 29 Timotheus of 
Alexandria [173 — 176]. 30 Gelasius of Rome [177]. 31 Dionysius the 
Areopagite [177]. 32 Philoxenus of Hierapolis [177]. 33 Sevems of 
Antioch [178 — 194]. 34 Anonymous Syriac writers [194 — 200]; Merx 
on Syriac versions [200 — 202]. 35 Ephraem of Antioch [202]. 36 Jovius 
the Monk [203]. 37 John Malalas [203]. 38 Gregory of Tours [203]. 
39 Evagrius [203]. 40 Stephanus Gobarus [204]. 41 Anastasius of 
Antioch [204]. 42 Gregory the Great [205]. 43 Leontius of Byzantium 
[205]. 44 Antiochus the Monk [205 — 209]. 45 Chronicon Paschale 
[210]. 46 Theodorus the Presbyter [211]. 47 Maximus the Confessor 
[211, 212]. 48 Anastasius of Sinai [212]. 49 Andreas of Crete [212]. 
50 John of Damascus [212 — 222]. 51 Theodorus of Studium [222, 223]. 
52 Joseph the Hymnographer [223, 224]. 53 Michael Syncellus [224]. 
54 Nicephorus of Constantinople [224, 225]. 55 Georgius Hamartolus 
[225]. 56 Ado of Vienne [225, 226]. 57 Antonius Melissa [226 — 228]. 
58 Severus of Ashmunin [228 — 230]. 59 Solomon of Bassora [230, 231]. 
60 Gregory Barhebrjeus [231]. Concluding remarks [232]. 


Table of contents of different recensions [233]. Correspondence with 

5. John and the Virgin [234 — 237]. Long Recension; doubts and contro- 
versies respecting it [237 — 242]. Ussher's discovery and its sequel [243 — 
245]. Connexion of the Seven Additional Epistles with the Long Re- 
cension as shown by (i) Internal Evidence [245 — 249], (ii) External Evi- 
dence [249 — 253]. The Epistle to the Philippians [253 — 257]. Date and 
purpose of the Long Recension; (i) External testimony [257]; (ii) In- 
ternal testitnony: (a) Ecclesiastical status [257 — 60]; (/3) Persons and 
places [260]; (7) Plagiarisms, relation to the Apostolic Constitutions [261 — 
265]; (5) Doctrinal teaching [266 — 273]. Conclusions [273— 274]. Fate of 
this Recension [274, 275]. Arabic and yEthiopic fragments [275]. Zahn's 
theory respecting the Epistle to the Romans discussed [275 — 279]. 


Progress of the Ignatian controversy [280]. Discovery of the Cure- 
tonian Syriac and controversy thereupon [280 — 284]. Cureton's method 



discussed [284, 285]. Recent opinion unfavourable to his view [285, 2S6]. 
Examination of the Curetonian Letters, (i) External evidence: (i) Quota- 
tions [286 — 290]; (ii) Manuscripts and authorities for the text [290 — 293]; 
(iii) Historical relations of the two recensions [293—295]. (2) Internal 
evidence: (i) Diction [295 — 314]; (ii) Connexion of thought [314 — 319]; 
(iii) Topics, theological, ecclesiastical, and personal [320 — 322]. Summing 
up of this investigation [322, 323]. Motive of Curetonian Abridgment 
[323—325]- Probable date [325—327]. 

6. THE GENUINENESS. 328—430 

The question narrowed to the Seven Epistles [328]. Progress of the 
controversy since Ussher's time; Daille and Pearson [328 — 334]. (i) Ex- 
ternal Evidence: Polycarp, Irenceus, Letter of the Smyrnceans, Letter of 
the Galilean Churches, Lucian, Origen, Eusebius [335 — 349]. Nicephorus 
not adverse [349 — 353]. (2) Internal Evidence: (i) Historical and geo- 
graphical circumstances [354 — 373]. (ii) Theological polemics ; (a) Posi- 
tive side, Docetism and Judaism [373 — 382], (^) Negative side [382 — 388]. 
(iii) Ecclesiastical conditions [389 — 402]. (iv) Literary obligations [402 — 
405]' (v) Personality of the writer [405 — 408]. (vi) Style and character 
of the Letters; Compounds [408 — 410], Latinisms [410, 411]' Reiterations 
[411, 412], Supposedanachronisms ('Leopard', 'Cathohc', 'Christian') [412 — 
419]. Indications of genuineness [419 — 421]. The case summed up [422, 
423]. Sylloge Polycarpiana [423 — 428]. Renan's and Volter's views [428 — 



The Pionian legend [433 — 436]. The name Polycarp [436, 437]. Date 
of his birth [437, 438]. Contemporaiy events [43S]. He was a Christian 
from his birth, and probably a man of substance [439]. Was he married? 
[439, 440]. His relations with (i) S. John and other Apostles [440 — 442] ; 
(2) Ignatius and other contemporaries [442 — 444]; (3) a younger gene- 
ration, especially Irenseus, Florinus, Pothinus, and the founders of the 
Galilean Churches [444 — 449]- His old age [449]. Visit to Rome [449, 
450]. The Roman Church at this time [451, 452]. Apprehension and 
martyrdom [452 — 456]. Attitude of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and 
M. Aurelius, towards the Christians [456 — 462]. The early Church of 
Smyrna and its rulers; the message in the Apocalypse [462 — 464]. Con- 
temporary religious opinion ; revival of paganism ; Csesar-worship [464 — 
468]. The Jews at Smyrna [468 — 470]. The reliques and festival of 
Polycarp [470 — 472]. No local tradition of sites [472]. Writings ascribed 
to Polycarp [473]. Contemporary veneration of Polycarp [473, 474]. His 
significance to the later Church, as ' the Elder' [474, 475]- 



The Church and the Empire UxNder Hadrian, Pius, and Marcus. 476—545 

(i) Imperial Letters and Ordinances, (i) Hadrian. (a) Rescript 
to Minucius Fundanus [476—480]; (/3) Letter to Servianus [480, 481]. 
(ii) Antoninus Pius. Letter to the Commune Asiae [481—485]. 
(iii) M. Aurelius. (a) Letter to the Roman People and Senate on the 
Thundering Legion [485—492] ; (/3) Letter to Euxenianus and Epitaph of 
Abercius [492 — 501]; (7) Decree against Superstitious Rites [502]. 

(2) Acts and Notices of Martyrdoms, (i) Hadrian, (a) Telesphorus 
Bishop of Rome [502] ; (/S) Symphorosa and her Seven Sons [502 — 505] ; 
(7) Dionysius the Areopagite [505] ; (5) Alexander Bishop of Rome and 
others [505, 506] ; (e) Other martyrs [506—508]. (ii) Antoninus Pius. 
(a) Publius Bishop of Athens [508] ; (/3) Ptolemasus, Lucius, and another 
[508, 509] ; (7) Polycarp and his companions [509]. (iii) M. AuREi.ius. 
(a) Justin and his companions [509, 510]; (/3) Thraseas, Sagaris, and 
others [510, 511]; (7) Felicitas and her Seven Sons [511—51.^]; (^) The 
Gallican martyrs [515, 516]; (e) Cecilia and her companions [516—522]; 
(f) The Madaurian martyrs [522, 523] ; (7?) The Scillitan martyrs [524, 525]. 
Severity of the persecutions under M. Aurelius [525 — 527]. 

(3) Heathen 'd'r iters; (i) Epictetus, (ii) Phlegon, (iii) Fronto, (iv) Celsus, 
(v) Galen, (vi) Apuleius, (vii) Lucian, (viii) Aristides, (ix) M. Antoninus 


(4) Christian -writers ; (i) Epistle to Diognetus, (ii) Hermas, (iii) Justin, 
(iv) Minucius Felix, (v) Melito, (vi) Athenagoras, (vii) Theophilus of 
Anticch, (viii) Tertullian, (ix) Hieronymus, (x) Sulpicius Severus, (xi) Oro- 
sius, (xii) Xiphilinus, (xiii) Oracula Sibyllina [533— 5453- 


Connexion of the Epistle with the Ignatian Letters [546, 547]. (i) Greek 
Manuscripts [547— 550] ; (ii) Latin Version [550, 551]. 


I Ignatius [552]. 2 Letter of the Smyrnceans [552]. 3 Lucian [553]. 
4 Irenffius [553—555]- 5 Polycrates [556]. 6 Tertullian [556]. 7 Acts 
of Pionius [556, 557]. 8 Apostolical Constitutions [557]. 9 Eusebius 
[557—559]. 10 Syriac Martyrology [560]. 11 Life of Polycarp [560]. 
12 Pseudo- Ignatius [560]. 13 Hieronymus [560, 561]. 14 Rufinus [561]. 
15 Macarius Magnes [561, 562]. 16 Socrates [562]. 17 Theodoret [562]. 
18 Sozomen [563]. 19 Timotheus of Alexandria [563]. 20 Dionysius the 
Areopagite [564]. 21 Philoxenus of Hierapolis [564]- 22 Severus of 
Antioch [564, 565]. 23 Anonymous Syriac Writers [=^6^, 566]. 24 An- 
tiochene Acts of Ignatius [566]. 25 Roman Acts of Ignatius [567]. 
26 Gregory of Tours [567, 568]. 27 Chronicon Paschale [568, 569]. 
28 Early Roman Martyrologies [569, 570]. 29 Warnaharius [570, 571]. 
30 Maximus the Confessor [571, 572]. 31 Michael Syncellus [572]. 
32 Nicephorus of Constantinople [572]. 33 Photius [572, 573J 34 Geor- 


gius Hamartolus [573]. 35 Florus-Beda [574]. 36 Ado of Vienne [575, 
576]. 37 Anthologia Palatina [576]. 38 Pseudoprochorus [576, 577]. 
39 Menrea [577]. 

Attacks on its genuineness and integrity [578—580]. Twofold in- 
vestigation, (i) External Evidence [580 — 582]. (ii) Internal Evidence. 

(i) Position of Polycarp [582, 583]; (2) References to S. Paul [583, 584]; 
(3) Supposed allusion to Marcion, involving two points, the character of 
the heresy attacked and the reiteration of a phrase [584—588]; (4) Refer- 
ences to Ignatius, involving two points of objection, irreconcilability of 
statements, and suspiciousness of the references themselves [ = 88—591]; 
(5) Prayer for 'kings' [592]. Arguments for the genuineness [593]. Con- 
nexion with supposed Ignatian forgery, excluded by manifold contrasts 
[593) 594]"' (i) Ecclesiastical order [594]; (2) Doctrinal statement [595, 
596]; (3) Scriptural quotations [596]; (4) Style and character [596, 597]; 
(5) Individual expressions [597, 598]. Other considerations affecting the 
relation to the Ignatian Epistles [598, 599]. Incidental tests of authen- 
ticity [600]. Ritschl's theory of interpolation considered [600—602]. Per- 
plexities of Renan's point of view [602, 603]. 

(i) The Main Document. Recent attacks on its genuineness or 

integrity [604, 605]. External Testimony [605 — 609]. Internal Testi- 
mony. Claim to be written by eye-witnesses [609, 610]. Points of objec- 
tion considered, (i) Parallelism to our Lord's history [610 — 614]; (2) Mi- 
raculous element [614, 615]; (3) Prophetic insight [615, 616]; (4) Keim's 
'postmark' [616, 617]; (5) Estimate of martyrs and martyrdom [617 — 
620]; (6) The expression 'Catholic Church' [621 — 623]. Verisimilitude 
of the narrative [623—625]. Hilgenfeld's theoi7 of an interpolation [62=, 

(2) The Supplementary Paragraphs, (i) The Chronological Ap- 
pendix. Parallelism to Clement's Epistle [626, 627]; dates and persons 
[627, 628], especially Philip the Trallian [628—635] ; supposed anachronism 
of the ' reign of Christ ' [635, 636] ; silence of Eusebius [637]. (ii) The 
Cojnmendatory Postscript [638]. (iii) The History of the Transmission 
[638]. The true and the false Pionius. (i) The true Pionius. 
Acts of Pionius — their genuineness and date [638 — 641]. Acts of Carpus 
and Papylus [642]. (ii) The false Pionius ; the author of this last postscript 


(i) The Year of the Martyrdom. The notice in Eusebius con- 
sidered [646—649]. Subsequent writers (Jerome, Chronicon Paschale, 
Idatius, Georgius Hamartolus, Socrates, Menn^a) [649—651]. Modern 
critics before Masson [651 — 653]. Masson's chronology of Aristides [653 — 
655]. Revolt of Letronne and Borghesi against Masson [655], carried 



further by Waddington [656]. Interval between the consulate and Asiatic 
pro-consulate [656 — 658]. Waddington's chronology and date for Quad- 
ratus [658 — 66r]. The war with Vologesus [661 — 665]. Waddington's 
chronology tested in various ways [665 — 667]. Its general acceptance 
[667]. Slight modifications possible. Readjustment of Lipsius and Hil- 
genfeld considered, and Waddington confirmed [668 — 672]. Refutation of 
attacks on Waddington's system by Wieseler [672 — 676] and by Keim 
[676, 677]. 

(2) The Day of Martyrdom. Data of the authorities [677, 678]. 
Different days adopted: (i) February 23, the traditional date, confirmed 
by the 'Asiatic' and ' Ephesian ' solar calendars [678 — 681], by the state- 
ment of Galen [681, 682], and by notices in the inscriptions [682—684]. 
Differences in the names of the months considered [684—689]. (ii) April 6, 
Wieseler's view, refuted [689 — 691]. (iii) March 23. Statement of Sal- 
mon's view [691]. The arguments for the use of a lunar calendar at this 
time discussed and rejected [692 — 697]. A solar calendar alone consistent 
with the evidence [697, 698]. Probable introduction of the solar calendar 
under Augustus [698—700] by Paullus Fabius Maximus [700—702]. 
(iv) March 26, the date in the Paschal Chronicle [702]. Its adoption by 
older critics discussed [703, 704]. The Syro-macedonian calendar [704, 
705]. Hilgenfeld's advocacy of this day considered [705 — 707]. Account 
of the statement of Paschal Chronicle [707, 708]. (v) January 16, the day 
in the Latin Church, accounted for by a comparison of calendars [708, 709]. 
Explanation of the 'Great Sabbath' [709—713]. The heathen festival 
which synchronized [713 — 715]. 

On the date of Pionius' Martyrdom. 

The consulships at this epoch [715]. Acts of Pionuis in the Collection 
of Eusebius [715, 716]. The two extant recensions [716, 717]. The 
notices of dates in these [717, 718]. The year of the martyrdom [71S, 
719]. The day (a) of the apprehension [719], and (/3) of the martyr- 
dom [720, 721]. Aube's view [721, 722]. The day kept by the Western 
Churches [722]. 

Imperial Fasti. 723, 724 

Map illustrating the route of S. Ignatius. To face page 724 

ADDENDA. 725—727 

INDEX. 729—767 







THE transition from the first to the second Apostolic father — from 
Clement to Ignatius — is rapid ; but, when it is made, we are con- 
scious that a wide chasm has been passed. The interval of time indeed 
is not great. Twenty years at the outside separate the Epistle of Cle- 
ment to the Corinthians from the letters of Ignatius. But these two 
decades were a period of exceptionally rapid progress in the career of the 
Church — in the outward extension of the Christian society, in its internal 
organization and government, in the progress and ramifications of theo- 
logical opinion. There are epochs in the early history of a great insti- 
tution, as there are times in the youth of an individual man, when the 
increase of stature outstrips and confounds by its rapidity the expecta- 
tions founded on the average rate of growth. 

But lapse of time is not the only element which differentiates the 
writings of these two Apostolic fathers. As we pass from Rome and 
Corinth to Antioch and Asia Minor, we are conscious of entering into a 
new religious and moral atmosphere. The steadying influence of the 
two great classical peoples — more especially of the Romans — is dimin- 
ished; and the fervour, the precipitancy, of oriental sentiment and 
feeling predominate. The religious temperament has changed with the 
change of locality. This difference impresses itself on the writings of 
the two fathers through the surrounding circumstances ; but it appears 
to a very marked degree in the personal character of the men them- 
selves. Nothing is more notable in the Epistle of Clement than the 
calm equable temper of the writer, the cVtctKcia, the ' sweet reasonable- 
ness,' which pervades his letter throughout. He is essentially a tnode- 
rator. On the other hand, impetuosity, fire, headstrongness (if it be 
not an injustice to apply this term to so noble a manifestation of 

IGN. I. I 


fervid zeal and self-devotion), are impressed on every sentence in the 
Epistles of Ignatius. He is by his very nature an impeller of men. 
Both are intense, though in different ways. In Clement the ' intensity 
of moderation '—to adopt his own paradox of language twice-repeated'— 
dominates and guides his conduct. In Ignatius it is the intensity of 
passion'— passion for doing and suffering— which drives him onward. 

Not less striking is the change which has passed over the imperial 
government meanwhile. The letter of Clement synchronizes with the 
persecution of Domitian ; the letters of Ignatius were evoked by the 
persecution of Trajan. The transition from Domitian to Trajan is a 
stride in the social and constitutional life of Rome, of which the mere 
lapse of time affords no adequate measurement. Centuries, rather than 
decades of years, seem to have intervened between the one and the 


The attitude of Trajan towards the Christians has been represented 
in directly opposite lights in ancient and modern times. To the fathers 
who wrote during the latter half of the second century, as to Christian 
writers of subsequent ages generally, Trajan appears as anything rather 
than a relentless persecutor. His lenity is contrasted with the wanton 
cruelty of a Nero and the malignant caprice of a Domitian. He inter- 
poses to modify the laws and so to assuage the sufferings of the perse- 
cuted sect. If he does not altogether revoke the persecuting edicts of 
his predecessors, he at least works them in such a spirit that they shall 
press as lightly as possible on the unoffending people of God^ 

1 Clem. Rom. 58, 62, /[ierd eKrevovs aov, Kai croO to. iravra crvvSioiKovvros 

iirietKelas. See the note on the former (ffv/jLiravra dioiKOvPTOS MSS) avTL^, rats 

of these two passages. iroXeo-t we pi tov fx-qUv veurepl^eiv irepl 

- See especially Horn, i, 2, 4, 5, 6, vfidv lypa\{/ev k.t.\. Here indeed there 

7, Philad. 5, Smym. 4. In Rom. 7 he de- is no direct mention of Trajan, but he 

scribes himself as 'enamoured of death' must be included in kv oh, as one who 

(kpQiv TOV airo9a.v£7v). protected the Christians. Perhaps a re- 

3 Melito, writing about A.D. 170, collection of the Bithynian persecution 

and addressing M. Aurelius, says (Euseb. deterred Melito from a direct mention, 

H.E. iv. 26) fiduoL 7rdvTuy...Tbi' Kad' which could not have been made without 

Tjixas ev Sia^oXy KaTaaTrjcrai \6yov 7)84- qualifications and explanations. Ter- 

Xrjaav N^/jwc /cai Aoix€TLav6s...dX\a Tr]v tuUian, who otherwise copies Melito, 

iKelvwv dyvoiav ol (rol evae^eis traTipez supplies the omission; Afol. 5 'repe- 

iiTTjvupducravTo, -iroWaKis voWoh ewLTrXr)- rietis primum Neronem in banc sectam 

^avTes iyypdcfuos, 6'o-ot Trept tovtwv veu- cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano 

repiffai sToKix-qcav ev oh 6 fi^f irdiriro^ gladio ferocisse . . . temptaverat et Domi- 

ffov 'ASpiavbi iroWois /iiv Kal dXXots Kal tianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate... 

iovvdav(^...yp(x<p(j}v (palverai, 6 5^ irar^p Tales semper nobis insecutores, injusti, 


This favourable estimate of Trajan culminates in medieval legend. 

impii, turpes, quos et ipsi damnare con- 
suestis...Ceteruin de tot exinde principi- 
bus ad hodierniim divinum humanumque 
sapientibus edite aliquein debellatorem 
Christianorum...Quales ergo leges istae 
quas adversus nos soli exercent impii, 
injusti, turpes, truces, vani, dementes? 
quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est 
vetando inquiri Christianos, quas nullus 
Hadrianus, quamquam omnium curiosi- 
tatum explorator, nullus Vespasianus, 
quamquam Judaeorum debellator, nullus 
Pius, nullus Verus, impressit.' Lactan- 
tius {de Mori. Persec. 3, 4) passes on 
from Domitian to Decius, omitting all 
the intermediate persecutions, as if they 
had never taken place. The passage is 
quoted below, p. 8, note. Eusebius 
{H.E. iii. 31 — 33) studiously exculpates 
the memoiy of Trajan himself. He 
cannot ignore the persecutions which 
took place in this emperor's reign, but 
he says that they were partial and local 
(c. 31 /JiepiKus Kal /caret TroXejs, c. 33 
fiepLKovs /car' iirapxiav), and were brought 
about either by an uprising of the 
people or by the hostility of individual 
magistrates (c. 31 i^ iiravacrrdaews 8i]ixwv, 
c. 33 ^a6' Sttt; fi^v tQv Srifiiov, ^crd' 6irrj 
8i Kai Twv /card x'^pas ApxiivTUV /c.r.X.); 
while the emperor himself interposed 
to mitigate their violence by laying 
down the rule for Pliny's guidance that 
the Christian community /ar/ eK^reTcrdai 
ixiv, ifiweffbv 8^ KoXd^eadai. ' To a certain 
extent,' adds Eusebius, ' the menace of the 
persecution, which pressed with exceeding 
rigour, was quenched; yet nevertheless 
as good pretexts as ever remained for 
those who desired to do us (Christians) 
an ill turn.' The estimate of Eusebius, 
read either in the original text or in the 
translation of Rufinus, for the most part 
set the fashion to subsequent writers. 
Sulpicius Severus indeed goes further and 
represents Trajan as stopping the per- 
secution {Ckron. ii. 31 'Tertia perse- 

cutio per Trajanum fuit; qui cum tor- 
mentis et quaestionibus nihil in Chris- 
tianis morte aut poena dignum reperisset, 
saeviri in eos ultra vetuit'); but his lan- 
guage may easily be explained. In the 
original form of the Chronicon of Euse- 
bius the words seem to have run TrpJs 
ravra avTiypaipev [Tpaiavis] r6 tQv 
Xpi(TTiavui> (pvKov fj.7] eK^rjTeiadai, the 
latter clause eixireabv 8k KoXd^eaOat being 
absent, as in the Armenian translation 
(see Schoene 11. p. 162) and in the Syriac 
abridgment {i6. p. 214) likewise. In 
Jerome's recension {id. p. 165) the se- 
cond clause is restored verbatim from the 
text of Tertullian himself, 'inquirendos 
non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere'; 
but Sulpicius Severus seems here to have ■ 
had the original of the Chronicon before 
him (comp. Bernays Ueber die Chronik 
des Siilpic. Sever, p. 46) and to have 
known nothing of the qualifying anti- 
thetical clause. 

This favourable view of Trajan how- 
ever, though it predominates, more es- 
pecially in writers of reputation, is by 
no means universal. As Uhlhorn re- 
marks {Conflict of Christianity with 
Heathenism p. 158), 'His edict was by 
one party viewed as a sword, by the 
other as a shield. In truth it was both.' 
The authors who represent Trajan in an 
unfavourable light are chiefly martyrolo- 
gists and legend-mongers, to whom this 
dark shadow was necessary to give effect 
to the picture. Thus in the Acts of 
Ignatius, more especially the Roman Acts 
and in the Acts of Sharbil and his com- 
panions preserved in Syriac (Moesinger 
Act. Syr. Sarbel. p. 4 ; see below p. 66), 
he appears as a brutal persecutor, at 
least until the receipt of Pliny's letter. 
So too in the spurious letter of Tiberi- 
anus the governor of Palestine, pre- 
served by John Malalas {Chron. xi. p. 
273, ed. Bonn.), and in the narrative of 
John Malalas himself (p. 276 sq). Simi- 

I — 2 


Gregory the First — so runs the story' — walking through the forum of 
Trajan and admiring the magnificent buildings, was struck among other 
memorials of this emperor's clemency with one incident more especially 
which he found commemorated". The emperor, surrounded by his 
legions, was setting out on a foreign expedition, when he was accosted 
by an aged widow in tears. She complained that her only son, the 
staff and solace of her declining years, had been slain by his soldiers, 
and that she had failed to obtain redress. The emperor, already on the 
march, put her aside; 'When I return,' said he, 'tell me thy story, and 
I will do thee entire justice.' ' Sire,' she replied, ' and if thou returnest 
not, what is to become of me*?' The emperor, notwithstanding the 

larly in the Armenian Version of the 
Chrotiicon of Eusebius (Schoene li. p. 
162) the negative is omitted from Tra- 
jan's order firi eK^Tjrelffdai, and he is re- 
presented as commanding the Christians 
to be hunted out. From this version of 
the Chro7iicon doubtless was derived the 
notice in the Chronique de Michel le Grand 
Pairiarchc des Syriens yacobites (Venise 
1868, translated by Langlois from the 
Armenian) p. 105, 'L'empereur lui fit 
repondre, Extermhiez-les sans pitie. ' 

^ It is told by both the biographers 
of Gregory — Paul the Deacon ( Vit. 
Greg. 27, Greg. Op. xv. p. 262- sq, 
Venet. 1775), who flourished towards 
the close of the eighth century, and 
John the Deacon ( Vit. Greg. ii. 44, Greg. 
Op. XV. p. 305 sq), who wrote by the 
command of Pope John VIII (a. d. 

" The earlier biographer Paul writes, 
'Cum quadam die per forum Trajani 
procederet, et insignia misericordiae 
ejus conspiceret, inter quae memorabile 
illud cotnperiret, videlicet quod etc' 
This implies not only that Gregory 
saw in the forum of Trajan memorials 
of Trajan's clemency generally, but that 
his eye lighted upon a representation of 
this particular incident. A probable ex- 
planation of this account suggests itself. 
Memorials of Trajan's clemency, such 
as this story supposes, are still extant. 
On one bas-relief on the Arch of Con- 

stantine (whither it was transferred from 
the Arch of Trajan) Trajan is repre- 
sented as supplying the people with pro- 
visions: on another, recently discovered 
in the Forum Romanum, he seems to 
be issuing the edict relating to the ali- 
menta (see Burn's Rome and the Cam- 
pagna, Appendix, p. 452). The incident 
in question is not related of Trajan by 
any classical writer, but Dion Cassius 
(Ixix. 6) has a somewhat similar story of 
Hadrian ; ywaiKhs wapLovros avrov o5<f5 
Tivi deofi^VT)?, TO fiiv irpurov etirev airr^ 
Htl Ov <txo\6.^(i}, lireira, ws eKelvrj dva- 
Kpayovffa ^(p-q Kai /x-ij ^aaiXeve, iire- 
(XTp6.(prj T€ Kal \byov avrrj §5wKei>. It 
seems not unlikely that the representa- 
tion to which Gregory's biographer re- 
fers may have been some allegorical 
figure, like the Italy who is presenting 
a child to Trajan in the bas-relief of the 
alimenia already mentioned. A sculpture 
of this kind might easily be mistaken 
as representing the incident in question, 
when by a lapse of memory this incident 
was transferred from Hadrian to Trajan. 
It is worthy of remark that the later 
biographer John, who lived at Rome, 
omits all mention of these sculptures 
and says simply 'judicii ejus, quo viduam 
consolatus fuerat, recordatiis.'' 

^ The story is spoilt by the addi- 
tion of the later biographer John, who 
continues the conversation: 'My suc- 
cessors in the empire,' rejoins Trajan, 


entreaties of his counsellors, stayed his march, paid the widow a com- 
pensation from the imperial treasury, and put the offenders in chains, 
only releasing them on their giving proof of sincere penitence. The 
great pope was moved to tears by this act of clemency in the great 
emperor. He betook himself to the tomb of S. Peter, where he wept 
and prayed earnestly. There, rapt in an ecstasy, he received a revela- 
tion to the effect that the soul of Trajan was released from torments in 
answer to his intercessions ; but he was warned never again to presume to 
pray for those who had died without holy baptism. The miracle, says 
John Damascene^ (if indeed the discourse attributed to him be genuine), 
was attested by the whole East and West. The noble charity which 
underlies this story may well exempt it from rigorous criticism. But 
its doctrine has not escaped censure. The tale, writes one of Gregory's 
biographers', John the Deacon, is told by Enghsh writers. The Romans 
themselves, while accepting other miracles recorded of Gregory by these 
Saxons, hesitate to credit this one story, because it cannot be supposed 
that Gregory would have prayed for a pagan. He himself however 
thinks it a sufficient answer to this objection, that Gregory is not said to 

'will see to it.' 'And what will it 
profit thee, ' says the widow, ' if another 
shall do me justice?' 'Why nothing at 
all,' answers Trajan. 'Well then,' says 
she again, 'is it not better for thee, 
to do me justice thyself and get thy 
reward for this, rather than transfer it 
to another?' Thus the motive is no 
longer the inherent sense of mercy and 
righteousness in Trajan, but his fear of 
personal consequences. In this last form 
however the story is repeated by John of 
Salisbui7 and by Dante. 

^ Joann. Damasc. In Fide Dormient. 
16 {Op. I. p. 591, Lequien) firt roZro 
yv7}cnov TrAet koL ddid^XrjTov, ixaprvs i] 
€(^a irda-a Kal tj icnripios. The genuine- 
ness of this work is questioned by Le- 
quien and other older critics on various 
grounds. It is condemned also by a 
recent writer, Langen {Johannes von 
Damaskus p. 182 sq). His main argu- 
ment is the impossibility of this story of 
Trajan and Gregory being already known 
to John Damascene; but he has much 
over-stated the difficulty. Thus he speaks 

of John the Deacon in the ninth century 
as the earliest authority, whereas it is 
related a century before by Paul. Whether 
genuine or not, this passage is already 
quoted as from John Damascene by 

" Vit. Greg. ii. 41, 44, 'Quae autem 
de Gregorii miraculis penes easdem An- 
glorum ecclesias vulgo leguntur, omit- 
tenda non arbitror...Legitur etiam penes 
easdem Anglorum ecclesias, quod Gre- 
gorius etc....Sed cum de superioribus 
miraculis Romanorum sit nemo qui du- 
bitet, de hoc quod apud Saxones legitur, 
hujus precibus Trajani animam ab in- 
ferni cruciatibus liberatam, ob id vel 
maxime dubitari videtur quod etc' The 
intercourse between England and Rome 
during and after the lifetime of Gregory 
gives weight to the English tradition. 
Nevertheless I cannot find any traces of 
the story in English writers of this early 
date. Later authors, as John of Salis- 
bury and Henry of Huntingdon, ob- 
viously borrow it directly or indirectly 
from Gregory's Italian biographers. 


have prayed for Trajan, but to have wept for him (such was the form 
of the story known to his biographer), and that Trajan's soul is not 
reported to have been translated from hell to Paradise — which could 
have been incredible — but only to have been released from the torments 
of hell — which was possible without his removal thence. The legend 
seems to have had a strange fascination for the medieval mind. In the 
East the authority of John of Damascus doubtless secured its currency. 
It appears in a Greek Euchologium, as a notable example of the effi- 
cacy of importunate prayer', though it is not admitted to a place in 
the Menasa on S. Gregory's day (March 12). In the West its reception 
was still more cordial. To a famous English writer, John of Salisbury, 
it served as the climax of a panegyric on this pagan emperor, whom he 
does not hesitate to prefer to all other sovereigns that have reigned on 
earth ^ To the most illustrious of the schoolmen, Thomas of Aquinum, 
it suggested an anxious and perplexing problem in theology. He did 
not question the truth of the story, he could not disparage the authority 
of the chief agent concerned therein. But the direct recovery of a lost 
soul — above all a lost soul of an unbelieving heathen — could not be 
brought within the range of theological possibility. There was only one 
escape from the difficulty. He conceived that the dead emperor was 
restored to life in answer to Gregory's prayer; that his soul was thus 
permitted to animate another body and to work out its period of pro- 
bation anew. Thus having made a fresh start and passed through a 
second earthly life as a devout Christian, he was received into the joys of 
heaven ^ Lastly of all, this legend received its crowning triumph, when 
it found a home in Dante's poem^ and 'the great victory' of Gregory 
over death and hell was handed down to all time enshrined in his un- 
dying verse ^ 

^ EucJiol. Grace, c. 19 cis 'iKv(Ta.% r^s 161 2), Qtiaest. Disput. vi. Art. vi {Op. 

fidffTiyoi Tpa'iavov 6t' iKrevovs evretj- VIII. 688); comp. Siiimna Theol. Part. 

lews 70V 8oij\ov aov Vprjyopiov tov Aia- TerL Suppl. Quaest. Ixxi. Art. v (iv. 

X070U, iira.KOvcroi' /cat tj/xwv Seoiiivoiv aov, 1242, ed. Migne). 

quoted by Ussher (see below). ^ Purg. x. 73 'L' alta gloria Del 

* Joann. Saresb. Polycraticiis viii. 8 roman prince, lo cui gran valore Mosse 

' Quare Trajanus videatur omnibus prae- Gregorio alia sua gran vittoria,' etc. See 

ferendus.' After relating the story of also Parad. xx. 44 sq, 106 sq, in which 

Gregory he ends, ' Unde et merito prae- passage Dante adopts the solution ot 

fertur aliis, cujus virtus prae caeteris ita Thomas Aquinas, that Trajan was re- 

sanctis placuit, ut eorum meritis solus sit stored to a second life in the flesh, 

liberatus.' ^ 'pyjg intense and general interest 

3 The references to Thomas Aquinas which gathered about this story, even at 

are In iv Libr. Sentent. Distinctio xlv. a later date, may be inferred from the 

Quaest. ii. Art. ii [Op. vii. 223, ed. elaborate disquisition of Baronius /i««a/. 


On the other hand recent criticism delights to view Trajan's con- 
duct towards the Christians in a directly opposite light. So regarded, 
he is the first systematic persecutor of Christianity', Nero and Domi- 
tian, it is maintained, assailed individuals in fewer or larger numbers, 
from caprice or in passion; but the first imperial edict issued against 

Ecdcs. sub ann. 604, in which he refutes 
at great length the truth of the story. It 
is related also in Ussher's Answer to a 
Jesuit (Works III. p. 249 sq), and in 
^^zoxii, Advancement of Learning '\. 7. 5 
(^Works III. p. 304, ed. Ellis and 
Spedding). It appears in Piers Plough- 
man's Vision 6857 — 6907 (ed. Wright), 
and in Hans Sachs (Overbeck Ueber 
die Gesetze etc. p. 154). In Henry of 
Huntingdon, Hist. Angl. i {Man. Hist. 
I. p. 699), the offender is Trajan's own 
son, and he is punished accordingly, ' Hie 
est ille qui causa justitiae oculum sibi 
et oculum filio eruit ; quern Gregorius 
ab inferis revocavit' etc.; an embellish- 
ment of the story which he may have 
got from the Aurea Legenda. 

^ This view is enunciated by Gie- 
seler, Eccles. Hist. i. p. 62 sq (Engl. 
Transl.), who speaks of Trajan's as 'the 
first edict' issued with respect to the 
Christians ; but he does not develope it. 
Its currency in very recent times is 
largely due to a paper by Overbeck 
Ueber die Gesetze der Romischen Kaiser 
von Trajan, etc., in his Studien zur 
Geschichte der Alien Kirche I. p. 93 sq 
(1875), who discusses the question at 
length. About the same time Aube in 
his Persecutions deVEglise etc. p. 186 sq 
(1875) advocated the same view. Some 
years before (1866) he had written a 
paper De la Icgalitc du Christianisme 
dans r Empire Romain pendant le premier 
siicle, in the Acad, dcs Inscr. Comptes 
Rendiis Nouv. Ser. il. p. 184 sq (re- 
printed in his later work, p. 409 sq), 
which tended in the same direction, and 
he was followed by Dierauer (1868) 
Geschichte Trajans p. 118 sq in Bii- 
dinger's Untersuchungen zur Romischen 

Kaisergeschichte Band i. Friedlander also 
(1871) regards Trajan as the first to 
legalise the persecution of the Christians 
{Sittengeschichte Roms III. p. 518). Over- 
beck's view has also been accepted by 
Gorres in his Beitrdge zur dltercn Kir- 
chengeschichte in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 
f. Wissensch. Theol. XXI. p. 35 sq 
(1S77), and again in his Christenthum 
u. der Romische Staat zur Zeit des Kaisers 
Vespasianus in this same periodical xxil. 
p. 492 sq (187S). This also seems to be 
the view of Uhlhorn Conflict of Chris- 
tianity with Heathenism p. 257 sq 
(Engl. Transl.). On the other hand it 
is opposed by Wieseler Christenverfol- 
gungen der Cdsaren p. i sq (1878), by 
Boissier Revue ArcMologique Fevr. 1876, 
by C. de la Berge Essai sur le Regne de 
Trajan p. 208 sq (1877), and (to a 
certain extent) also by Keim Aus dem 
Urchristenthum p. 171 sq (1878), in 
so far as he strongly maintains the early 
distinction of 'Jews' and 'Christians.' 
Wieseler's refutation is the fullest ; but 
Keim has treated the particular point 
to which he addresses himself very satis- 
factorily. In his posthumous work Ro7n 
u. das Christenthum p. 512 sq (1881), 
Keim takes a view substantially the same 
as my own. Renan (Zt-J Evangiles p. 
470) says, 'Trajan fut le premier perse- 
cuteur systematique du christianisme,' 
and again he writes (p. 480) ' A partir de 
Trajan, le christianisme est un crime 
d'Etat ; ' but these statements are ma- 
terially qualified by his language else- 
where (p. 483), ' La reponse de Trajan a 
Pline n'etait pas une loi ; mais elle sup- 
posait des lois et en fixait I'interpr^ta- 


the Christians, as Christians, was due to Trajan. According to this view 
the rescript of the emperor to the propraetor of Bithynia inaugurated a 
new era; and the pohcy so initiated ruled the procedure of the Roman 
magistrates from that day forward during the whole of the second 
century till the age of Septimius Severus. Hitherto Jews and Christians 
had been confounded together; and, as the Jewish religion was recog- 
nized and tolerated by Roman law, Christianity escaped under the 
shield of this toleration. By Trajan for the first time Christianity was 
distinguished from Judaism, and singled out as a 'religio illicita.' 
Then at length the outcry against the Christians took the shape which 
became familiar in later persecutions, No7i licet esse vos, ' The law does 
not allow you to exist' 

This sharp line, which recent criticism has drawn between Trajan 
and his predecessors as regards their treatment of Christianity, does not 
seem to be justified in any degree by the evidence before us. It may 
indeed be allowed that the early fathers were under some temptation to 
represent the attitude of this emperor towards their brothers in the 
faith in too favourable a light. Sentiment would lead them by an 
apparently direct road to the conclusion that the good emperors of 
Rome must of necessity have looked favourably on a cause so essentially 
good as Christianity. Moreover sentiment was fortified herein by policy. 
The earlier apologists, writing under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aure- 
lius, were pleading their cause before the direct heirs of the traditions 
and principles of Trajan, so that it was a matter of vital moment with 
them to represent the great predecessor of these emperors as leniently 
disposed towards the cause which they advocated ; and the arguments 
of these earlier apologists would be adopted without question and 
repeated without misgiving by the later. A Tertullian would necessarily 
follow in the track where a Melito had gone before '. 

It will be prudent therefore not to lay too much stress on the repre- 
sentations of Christian writers, however early. But even when their 
evidence has been duly discounted, the recent theory fails to make good 
its position; for it does not satisfy the most obvious tests which can be 
applied to it. The two questions which it occurs to us to ask, are 

^ The passages of Melito and Ter- imperii clavum regimenque tenuerunt, 

tullian are quoted above, p. 2, note 3. The nuUos inimicorum impetus passa [ec- 

motives of these writers, as suggested in clesia] Sed enim postea longa pax 

the text, are sufficiently apparent from rupta est : extitit enim post annos pluri- 

their language. See also Lactantius de mos execrabile animal Decius, qui vexa- 

Mort. Pers. 3, 4 'secutisque temporibus ret ecclesiam. Quis enim justitiam, nisi 

quibus multi ac boni principes Romani malus, persequatur?' 


these. First) Do the heathen accounts of the times previous to Trajan 
exhibit this confusion between Jew and Christian which would secure 
for the two religions the same treatment at the hands of Roman law, 
and which therefore is essential to the theory in question? Secondly; 
Do the records of Trajan's own acts imply any consciousness on his 
part that he was inaugurating a new policy when he treated the mere 
fact of their being Christians as a sufficient ground for punishment? 
Unless these two questions can be answered clearly in the affirmative, 
the ground is cut away from beneath the theory of modern critics. 

I. The first of these questions does not admit a simple answer. 
In the earUest stage of Christianity this confusion of Jew and Christian 
is an indisputable fact. The first Christian teachers were Jews by 
birth; they addressed themselves to Jews; they taught in Jewish syna- 
gogues; they founded their teaching on Jewish records: and therefore 
the heathen could hardly do otherwise than regard them as a Jewish 
sect. Hence the complaint of the impostors at PhiHppi, ' These men, 
being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city' (Acts xvi. 20). Hence 
the attitude of Gallio at Corinth in treating the dispute between S. 
Paul and his opponents as a mere question of Jewish law (Acts xviii. 
15). Hence also the necessity of the step taken by the Jews at Ephesus 
in putting forward Alexander as their spokesman to dissociate their 
cause from the new teaching (Acts xix. n). Moreover this confusion 
underlies the famous notice of Suetonius respecting Messianic distur- 
bances at Rome in the reign of Claudius'. But from the first moment 
when the Christians began to be troublesome to others and to get them- 
selves into trouble in consequence, it became a matter of the highest 
concern to the Jews to emphasi/e the distinction between themselves 
and the new religion; and they had ample means of doing so. Accord- 
ingly we find from the records of the Neronian persecution that at that 
time the Christians were commonly known as a distinct sect with a 
distinct name. *Quos...vulgus Christianos appellabat,' are the words of 
Tacitus, describing the new religionists {Ami. xv. 44). Modern critics 
have endeavoured to invalidate the force of this testimony by supposing 
that Tacitus is here injecting into the incidents of the reign of Nero the 
language and experience that belong to the age of Trajan. But this 
assumption is wholly gratuitous. Tacitus himself betrays no signs of 
confusing the two. His knowledge of the origin of Christianity is 
decidedly more accurate than his knowledge of the origin of Judaism. 
In the very expression which has been quoted, the tense is directly 

' Sueton. Claud. 35; see Philippians p. i6. 


opposed to the hypothesis in question; not 'the common people calls ^ 
but 'the common people called i^atva. Christians.' He lived sufficiently 
near to the time of the events related to obtain accurate information. If 
he was only eight or ten years old when the Neronian persecution broke 
out\ he must at all events have grown up among those who were eye- 
witnesses of the terrible scenes. Again when Domitian raised his hand 
against the Church, he was a Roman magistrate of some standing ^ 
having held several important offices of state. It is therefore a highly 
improbable hypothesis that his account of the persecution of the Chris- 
tians under Nero is a violent anachronism — a hypothesis which would 
only then deserve serious consideration, if it were supported by some 
really substantial evidence. 

But no such evidence is forthcoming. On the contrary all the 
authentic notices of this first persecution point in the same direction. 
The testimony of Tacitus is confirmed by the testimony of Suetonius. 
Suetonius was a contemporary younger probably by a few years; but he 
was grown or growing up at the time when Domitian stretched out his 
hand to vex the Church. It is an important fact that both these writers 
regard Christianity as a neiv religion. Tacitus relates that its founder 
Christ suffered capital punishment at the hands of the procurator Pon- 
tius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius {Ann. xv. 44). Suetonius describes 
it as 'a novel and malignant superstition' {Nero 16). These represen- 
tations are supplemented by the statements of a later writer, Sulpicius 
Severus. After describing the tortures and executions of the Christians, 
he proceeds; 'In this way commenced the savage onslaught on the 
Christians. Afterwards also laws were promulgated and the religion 
was forbidden. Then Paul and Peter were condemned to death : the 
former was beheaded, and Peter crucified ^' No great stress can be laid 
on the statements of an author who wrote at the close of the fourth 
century. But Sulpicius commonly follows good authorities for these 
times ; and his account of the sequence of events here is at least consis- 
tent and probable in itself. The edict would not be the first, but the 
second stage in the persecution. If, as is quite possible, a certain 
number of Jews, from malice or ignorance on the part of the officers who 
conducted the persecution, suffered in its earlier stages ^ this confusion 

1 Teuffel Gesch. d. Rom. Liter. § 315, edictis propositis Christianum esse non 
p. 671 sq. licebat. Turn Paulus ac Petrus capitis 

2 lb. p. 672. damnati; quorum uni cervix gladio de- 

3 Chron. ii. 29 ' Hoc initio in secta, Petrus in crucem sublatus est.' 
Christianos saeviri coeptum ; post etiam * See Philippians pp. 24, 331 sq. 
datis legibus religio vetabatur, palamque 


would soon be cleared up. The Jews had a powerful advocate at head 
quarters. If Nero ruled the world, Poppaea ruled Nero. Her power 
with the emperor was never so great as it was about the time when 
these incidents occurred. Whether she would have cared to persecute 
the Christians, may be a question ' ; but she would certainly have cared 
to save the Jews. She herself was a proselytess. She had intimate 
relations with Jews resident in Rome. Through one of these, an actor 
Aliturus by name, the historian Josephus obtained access to her, appa- 
rently in the very year of the fire; and through her intercession with the 
emperor he secured the release of certain Jewish priests on whose 
behalf he had undertaken his journey to Rome, while the empress 
herself loaded him with presents". The Jews therefore were in the 
ascendant at the imperial court at this moment. Thus they had every 
opportunity, as it is certain they must have had every motive and every 
desire, to separate their cause from that of the Christians. An 
edict or edicts against the new sect would be the probable con- 

But it is a matter of comparatively little importance to the question at 
issue, whether any distinct edict was issued. The mere negative fact, that 
the Christian religion had not been recognized as lawful, would be an 
ample justification for proceedings against the Christians, as soon as it 
came to be recognized that Christianity was something distinct from 
Judaism. No positive prohibition was needed. Here was a religion 
rampant, which had never been licensed by the state, and this fact 
alone was sufficient to set the law in motion. It is quite possible there- 
fore that no edict was issued against the Christians before the rescript 
of Trajan; and yet for the forty or fifty preceding years, they were 
equally exposed to persecution, as adherents of an unlawful religion ^ 

When we pass from Nero to Domitian, we find the notices of the 
later persecution more vague and difficult to interpret, but they con- 
tain nothing inconsistent with the inferences drawn from the records 
of the earlier. It may indeed be allowed that the exaction of the 
capitation-fee from the Jews under Domitian* was exercised in such a 

^ See Philippians, pp. 39, 41, 330. was originally paid by every Jew for the 

* Joseph. Vit. § 3 ; see Philippians maintenance of the temple-worship at 
p. 5, note 4. Jerusalem (Matt. xvii. 24), was diverted 

3 This aspect of the matter seems by the Romans after the destruction of 

sufticiently obvious, and yet it has been the holy city, and ordered by Vespasian 

strangely overlooked by writers on both to be paid to the Capitoline Jupiter : 

sides. Joseph. B. J. vii. 6. 6 (^tbpov 5i toIj 

* The didrachm, or half-shekel, which oirovdi^Tror ov<nv 'lovdalon en-^/SaXe 8vo 


manner as to be vexatious to many a Jewish Christian also'. As the 
net was spread widely, to catch as many as possible, and as the evidence 
of circumcision was resorted to as a test, it can hardly have been 
othenvise^ But this plea for the exaction of money stands quite apart 
from the religious question. If the plea was allowed by the magistrate 
and the payment exacted from the Jewish Christian, this was done on 
the ground of his nationaUty, not of his religion — circumcision being 
accepted as a test of nationality. His religion still remained an object 
of attack, if any one were disposed to put the law in motion. In this 
way the Jewish Christian might be a double sufiferer. But in these 
proceedings there is nothing at all which suggests that, as religions, 
Judaism and Christianity stood on the same level, so that the latter 
should enjoy the immunity accorded by law to the former. 

The account of Dion Cassius however respecting the proceedings 
taken by this emperor against Flavius Clemens and Domitilla seems at 
first sight to favour the view that the two religions were identified at 
this time. After mentioning the execution of Clemens, this historian, 
or rather his epitomator, goes on to say: 'Against both of them [Clemens 
and his wife Domitilla] a charge of atheism was brought, under which 
many others also who were perverts to the practices of the Jews were 
condemned; of these some were put to death, and others had their pro- 

SpaxM^s ^Ka.<TTov KeXei/cas a.vb. irav ^tos ets Judaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est ; ad 

TO KairiTuXiov (p^peiv, wa-rrep irphrepov els quern deferebantur, qui vel improfessi 

rbv iv 'l6/50(ro\i5/xots veihv avvereXoiv, Dion Judaicam viverent vitam vel dissimulata 

Cass. Ixvi. 7 (cat air' eKelvou Si8paxfJ-ov origine imposita genti tributa non pepen- 

iraxdv tovs to. irdrpia airrCiv idr) TreptcrreX- dissent.' The first class would include 

Xoi^as ry KaTTtrwXty Att kclt iros airo- proselytes of the gate and other loose 

<pipeiv. It was exacted with every aggra- hangers on of Judaism; under the second 

vation of rigour and unseemliness by class would fall those Judaic Christians 

Domitian (Sueton. Dom. 12, see the next who pleaded exemption on the ground 

note). These aggravations ceased under that they were not Jews, and were sup- 

Nerva, whence the well-known medals of posed accordingly to be denying their 

this emperor with the inscription Fisci • nationality. Many recent critics how- 

JVDAICI • CALVMNIA • SVBLATA (Cohen ever, as Hilgenfeld [Einkituug in das 

Med. Imper. Rom. I. p. 476, Eckhel Neitc Tcsi.^^. ij,\), XvHai {PerscaUions de 

Num. Vet. vi. p. 404 sq) ; but it is clear V Eglise etc. p. 423), and Gorres {Zeitschr. 

that he did not do away with this capita- /. Wissensch. Theol. XXI. p. 500), find 

tion tax on the Jews, for it still existed in the Judaic Christians in the former clause, 

the time of Origen ; ad African. \\{0p. 'qui vel z'w/rtT/'^m Judaicam etc' Gratz 

I. p. 28, Delarue) koX vvv yovv 'FufMaluv {Geschichte der Jiiden iv. p. 79) would 

paciKevom-uv Kai .'lovdalwu to didpaxp-ov read 'vel uti professi' for 'vel impro- 

aOroij T€\o6vTwv. fessi.' 

^ Sueton. Domit. 12 'Praeter ceteros - Sueton. Domit. 11. 


perty confiscated at the very least'.' If Christian historians are correct, 
as they appear certainly to be, in assuming that Flavius Clemens and 
his wife were Christians, there is here at all events a prima facie plea 
for the confusion of Judaism Avith Christianity. But we must remember 
that these are not the words of the historian himself It is just in 
incidents of this kind that an epitome is most likely to mislead; and 
even the epitomator does not distinctly say that Flavius Clemens and 
Domitilla were themselves among the perverts to Jewish practices. 
The notice is entirely satisfied by the supposition that offences not 
identical, but similar in kind — offences namely which the Roman law 
regarded as 'atheism' — are classed together in a rough way. ^\^len for 
instance Tacitus {An7i. ii. 85) says, 'A debate was held on the expulsion 
of Egyptian arid Judaic religious ceremonies (de sacris ^g)^tiis Judaicis- 
que pellendis); and a decree of the Senate was passed ordering that 
four thousand persons of the class of freedmen, fai?ited with that super- 
stition (ea superstitione infecta), who were of a proper age, should be 
transported to the island of Sardinia,' no one infers from this passage 
that either the authors of the decree themselves, or the historian who 
records it, identified the worship of Isis and Serapis with the religion of 
the Jews, though from a Roman point of view the association of the two 
would appear in the highest degree natural. Attaching therefore the 
utmost weight which it is possible to attach to this passage and inter- 
preting it in the sense most unfavourable to the view which is here 
maintained, we cannot regard it as in any way counterbalancing or 
invalidating the inferences akeady drawn from the distinct notices of 
the Neronian persecution. 

2. Nor again does the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny* 
betray any signs that a new policy was inaugurated at this period. 
Neither in the appeal of the provincial governor nor in the reply of the 
emperor is there any — even the faintest — suggestion that Christianity 
now for the first time was promoted to the unenviable distinction of an 
unlawful religion. On the contrary the impression left by the cor- 
respondence is that, so far as the law itself was concerned, the Christians 
continued to be regarded now, as they had been regarded heretofore, 
but that the humane and upright characters of the emperor and his 
servant secured some mitigation in the enforcement of the law. 

1 Dion Cass. Ixvii. 44 einjvixOv 5^ The bearing of the passage is discussed 

dficpolv iyK\7]fj.a dOeorrjTos, v(p' ^s Kal in Philippians p. 22 sq, i". Clement of 

aWoi els ra 'lovSalwv idr) i^oKiWovres Rome I. p. 33 sq. 

TToXXoi Ka.TedLKa.adt)(Tav, koI 01 fih airida- - Plin. Traj. et Plin. Ef. X. 96, 97. 

vov ot 5^ tQv fovv ovcnQv ecrrepridrjcrav. 


Pliny consults the emperor according to his custom in difficult 
matters. He had never himself been present, he writes, at judicial 
proceedings against the Christians; therefore he was ignorant what 
matters were usually made subjects of punishment or of investigation, 
and to what extent He did not know whether the bare name, even if 
free from crime, was visited with punishment, or only the crimes which 
attached to the name. Meanwhile his method of procedure had been 
this. When information was laid against persons as Christians, he 
enquired whether they were so or not. If they confessed, he asked 
them a second and third time, threatening them with punishment. If 
they were obstinate, he ordered them to be put to death : for he did not 
doubt that, whatever might be the nature of their confession, their per- 
sistence and inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment. Those who 
denied that they then were or had been Christians, he released when at 
his dictation they had called upon the gods and made supplication to 
the emperor's image with incense and wine, and had cursed Christ. It 
is said, he adds, that the Christians cannot be forced to do any of these 
things. He reports these renegades as stating that the Christians had 
given up their common evening meal in consequence of an edict issued 
by him, in which in pursuance of the emperor's command he had 
forbidden the existence of clubs. 

The emperor's reply is still more emphatic by its silence. He 
answers that Pliny had acted rightly in his manner of conducting these 
judicial proceedings against the Christians. No rule of universal ap- 
plication, he adds, can be laid down. The Christians are not to be 
sought out, but, if accused and convicted, they must be punished. Yet 
if a man denies himself to be a Christian and follows up his denial by 
sacrificing to the gods, his repentance is to acquit him. An anonymous 
accusation is not to be entertained. It is a precedent of the worst 
kind and unworthy of Trajan's age. 

All this is intelligible enough, if intended to convey instructions for 
carrying out an existing law. But could any language more vague and 
futile be conceived, if the emperor's purpose had been to inaugurate a 
wholly new policy and to declare the Christian religion, which had 
hitherto been recognized by the law, to be hencefonvard illegal ? Yet 
Trajan was a man who not only knew his own mind, but could declare 
it in plain soldierly language. Pliny, though he confesses his want of 
personal experience in this matter, evidently supposes himself to be 
acting on the same legal principles as his predecessors; and Trajan 
says not a word to undeceive him. He enunciates no new law. He 
contents himself with saying that in the application of the law no 


absolute rule can be laid down, but the magistrate must exercise his 
own discretion. The refusal to accept anonymous accusations is the 
only point in this rescript which suggests the appearance of novelty. 

There seems to be only one escape from this conclusion. Trajan 
may have inaugurated his new policy at a previous stage. The pro- 
ceedings against the Christians, which Pliny mentions as having taken 
place before this time, may refer, not as is commonly supposed, to the 
persecution of Domitian, but to earlier transactions in the reign of 
Trajan himself. This however is not contended by those who maintain 
the theory which I am combating. Nor would it afford any support 
for their hypothesis, which has no other basis but this rescript of 

But, it will be said, if from the time of Nero Christianity was a 
forbidden religion, how is it that from that date to the age of Trajan — 
a period of nearly half a century — the Church enjoyed unbroken peace, 
only disturbed for a moment by the capricious onslaught of the last 
Flavins ? How do we account for the fact that, under Vespasian and 
Titus more especially, the laws lay dormant and were never put 
into force? The answer is twofold. In the first place we do not 
know that they were never put in force. Our information with respect 
to these early ages of the Church is singularly defective and capricious. 
We shall see presently by what a slender thread of accident the record 
of the sharp and fierce persecution in Bithynia under Trajan has been 
preserved to us. But we may go further than this. Hilary of Poitiers 
ranks Vespasian between Nero and Decius as a persecutor of the 
faith'. What may be the ground of this exceptional notice in the 

1 Hilar. Pictav. c. An'an. c. 3, Oj>. Judaeorum et Christianorum religio tol- 

II. p. 594 (ed. Bened., Veron. 1730). leretur : quippe has religiones, licet con- 

'Quibusnam suffragiis ad praedicandum trarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus 

evangelium apostoli usi sunt ? anne profectas : Christianos ex Judaeis exti- 

aliquam sibi assumebant e palatio dig- tisse : radice sublata stirpem facile peri- 

nitatem, hymnum Deo in carcere inter turam.' If Sulpicius Severus has bor- 

catenas et post flagella cantantes? e- rowed from Tacitus here, as Bemays 

dictisque regis Paulus, cum in theatro (Ueber die Chronik d. Sulpic. Sever. 

spectaculura ipse esset, Christo ecclesiam p. 57) supposes, and as seems probable, 

congregabat ? Nerone se credo aut Ves- his statement deserves some attention 

pasiano aut Decio patrocinantibus tue- but it does not go far. The case is dif- 

batur, quorum in nos odiis confessio ferent with the testimony of Hilary 

divinae praedicationis effloruit,' etc. See Gorres [,Das Christenthum unter Ves- 

also Sulpic. Sev. Chron. ii. 30 'At con- pasianus ■p. ioz,'\n Zeitschr.f, Wissensch 

tra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in Theol. xxi. 1878), while attempting to 

primis templum censebant, quo plenius invalidate this testimony, betrays a naive 



Gallican father, we do not know. Possibly it may be an error. More 
probably it is based on some facts known to Hilary, but since oblite- 
rated by time from the permanent records of history. It is no answer 
to this view to allege that Melito' by his silence exempts Vespasian 
from the list of persecutors, for Melito equally exempts Trajan and 
Antoninus Pius, though a fierce persecution raged in Bithynia under 
the former, and though Polycarp and his fellow martyrs suffered in 
Smyrna under the latter. Neither again is it of any avail to insist 
that Tertullian in direct words exculpates this emperor from any share 
in the sufferings of the Christians ^ for Tertullian not only expressly 
exculpates M. Aurelius, but even ranks him among the protectors of 
the Gospel, though the arenas of Vienne and Lyons were watered with 
the blood of martyrs executed in this reign ^. The fact is that no 
systematic record was kept of the persecutions. The knowledge pos- 
sessed by each individual writer was accidental and fragmentary. And 
it can hardly be pronounced less probable that a persecution under 
Vespasian, which had escaped Eusebius, should have been known to 
Hilary, than that a persecution under M. Aurelius, which was wholly 
unknown to Tertullian, though it occurred within his own Hfe-time, 
should have been recorded for the information of posterity, in extracts 
from a contemporary record, by Eusebius who wrote a century and a 
half after the occurrence. 

In the second place, the difficulty of accounting for this period 
of undisturbed peace — if such it was — on the hypothesis that Chris- 
tianity was all the while an unlawful religion, is not greater than meets 
us again and again during the succeeding ages. During the second 
century and the first half of the third it is allowed on all hands that 
Christianity was prohibited by law. Yet the intervals between persecu- 
tion and persecution during this period are, as a rule, decidedly longer 
than the intervals between Nero and Domitian, and between Domitian 
and Trajan. The explanation is the same in both cases. The law 

unconsciousness that he is begging the 
question throughout. ' Secondly,' he 
writes, ' this father of the Church pro- 
ceeds from the unhistorical assumption 
that Christianity was already a religio 
illicita in the Apostolic age. Thirdly, 
with this fundamental error is connected 
the fact that Nero, the partial persecutor 
of Christianity from the transient caprice 
of a despot, is placed on the same level 
with Decius the first systematic foe of 

the Christians. Fourthly, the assertion, 
that the first Flavius had persecuted the 
Church in the manner of a Decius, con- 
tradicts the historical connexion, that is 
to say, the political situation of Chris- 
tendom generally before Trajan's time.' 

^ In Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, quoted 
above, p. 2, note 3. 

^ Apol. 5, quoted above, p. 2, note 3. 

3 Euseb. H. E.\. I. 


was there, if any one were disposed to call it into action. But for 
long periods it lay dormant. Only now and then the panic of a 
populace, or the bigotry of a magistrate, or the malice of some in- 
fluential personage, awoke it into activity. Sometimes it was enforced 
against one or two individuals, sometimes against collective numbers. 
But, as a rule, there was no disposition to deal hardly with the Chris- 
tians, who were for the most part peaceful and industrious citizens. 
In this respect Christianity was on the same footing with other pro- 
hibited religions. The unrecognized rites of Syria or Babylonia or 
Egypt might be practised in the Roman Empire, even in the metropolis 
itself, without molestation for long periods. It was only -vvhen some 
accidental circumstance excited an alarm or awoke a prejudice, that 
they were made to feel the perilous insecurity of their position. 

It appears therefore that, as regards Trajan's attitude towards Chris- 
tianity, the view of the earliest Christian fathers was less wide of the 
truth than the view of recent modern critics. Still it was very far from 
correct in itself. The good emperors, as a rule, were not more friendly 
to Christianity than the bad. Their uprightness might exclude caprice ; 
their humanity might mitigate extreme rigour. But, as straightforward, 
patriotic, law-loving Roman statesmen, they were invited by the 
responsibilities of their position to persecute. The Roman religion 
was essentially political. The deification of the dead emperor, the 
worship of the genius of the living emperor, were the direct logical 
result of this political religious system. An arbitrary, unscrupulous 
prince might disregard this system ; a patriotic Roman could not. 
Hence the tragic fact that the persecutions of Trajan and M. Aurelius 
were amongst the severest on record in the early Church. On the 
other hand, the Christians had almost as much to hope, as to fear, 
from the unscrupulousness of the bad emperors. If the caprice of a 
Nero persecuted them, the caprice of a Commodus not only spared 
but favoured them. 

One other important consideration is suggested by the records of 
this Bithynian persecution. It is generally supposed that the historian 
of the early Church, in order to arrive at the truth with regard to the 
extent of the persecutions, has only to make deductions for the exag- 
gerations of Christian writers. In other words, it is assumed that the 
Christians forgot nothings but magnified a>erything. This assumption 
however is shown to be altogether false by the history of the manner 
in which the record of this Bithynian persecution has been preserved. 
With the possible exception of the Neronian outbreak, it was the most 
severe of all the persecutions, of which we have any knowledge, during 

IGN. I. 2 


the first and second centuries. Vef no record whatever was presented 
of it in any Christian sources. Tertullian derived his knowledge of it 
from the con-espondence of PUny and Trajan ; Eusebius from Tertul- 
lian ; later Christian writers from TertuUian and Eusebius, one or 
both. The correspondence of a heathen writer is thus the sole ultimate 
chronicle of this important chapter in the sufferings of the early 
Church. What happened in this case, is not unlikely to have happened 
many times. Again and again the Christians may have undergone 
cruel persecutions in distant provinces, without preserving any special 
record of what was too common an occurrence with them. If therefore 
large deductions must be made (as confessedly they must) for the 
exaggeration of Christian records on the one hand, yet very consider- 
able additions are probably due in compensation for the silence of 
Christian tradition on the other, if we would arrive at a correct estimate 
of the aggregate amount of suffering undergone. 

Amidst many spurious and questionable stories of persecutions 
alleged to have taken place during the reign of Trajan', only three 
are reported on authority which can be trusted. Of these three two 
are concerned with the fate of individual Christians — of Symeon at 
Jerusalem and of Ignatius at Antioch. The third only — the Bithynian 
persecution, of which I have been speaking — was in any sense general. 

For this last alone, so far as our authentic information goes, Trajan 
was personally responsible. In what spirit, and on what grounds, he 
came forward as the persecutor of the Church on this occasion, will 
have been sufficiently obvious from what has been said already. It 
was as a statesman and a patriot that he conceived himself obliged 
to suppress Christianity. As the guardian of the constitution and the 
champion of the laws, he was constrained to put down unlawful 
gatherings. On no point does this humane and righteous emperor 
manifest more sensitiveness than in the suppression of clubs or guilds". 
Whether the avowed object of such a guild were religious or com- 
mercial, convivial or literary, it mattered not. There was always the 

1 These fictitious persecutions under Sharbil, Barsamya, and others, are shown 

Trajan are discussed and refuted liy to be unauthentic by Gorres. See also 

Gorres Kaiser Trajan 21. die Christliche the appendix to this chapter (p. 62 sq). 
Tradition in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. - See the inscription, Bull, de Corr. 

Theol. XXI. p. 35 sq (1877). The alleged Hellcn. vii. p. 506 airafopevu iiriTe cwip- 

persecution in Palestine under Tiberi- ;;^e(r(?at tovs aproKoirovs Kar (sic) erat- 

anus, together with others given on the plav jj.7]Te TrpoeaT'ijKoras dpaavveadai k.t.\., 

authority of John Malalas, I have discuss- where however there is nothing to fix 

ed elsewhere in this work (il. p. 439 sq). the reign. 
The Syriac Acts of the Edessene Martyrs 


danger that it might be perverted to political ends ; and therefore it 
must be suppressed at all hazards. In the correspondence between 
Pliny and Trajan, which precedes the letters relating to the Christians, 
two occasions arise on which the proprietor solicits the emperor's 
instructions with regard to such gatherings ; and the light thrown by 
these on his dealings with the Christians is striking. 

(i) A destructive fire had broken out in Nicomedia. It had found 
the people wholly unprepared. There was no hose nor engine, nor 
apparatus of any kind. Pliny is anxious to guard against the recur- 
rence of such a calamity. Accordingly he puts this question to the 
emperor' : 

' It is for you. Sire, to consider whether you think a guild of work- 
men should be organized, consisting of not more than a hundred and 
fifty strong. I will take care that none but workmen are admitted, 
and that they do not use the privilege for any other purpose. Nor 
will it be difficult to exercise surveillance, the numbers being so 

We should regard this as an excess of caution, but it is far from 
satisfying the emperor. Here is his reply. 

Trajan to Puny greeting. 

' It has occurred to you, following the precedents of many other 
cases, that a guild of workmen could be organized among the Nico- 
medians. But we must remember that this province and especially 
those cities are harassed by party associations of that kind. Whatever 
name we may give to them, and whatever may be the purpose, those 
who have been brought together will before long form themselves into 
clubs all the same". It will therefore be better that apparatus should 
be procured which may be useful to put out fires, and that the owners 
of estates should be admonished to keep them in check themselves; 
and, if the occasion should require, that recourse should be had to a 
general muster of the people for the purpose.' 

(ii) Amisa was a free city under a special treaty. The people pre- 
sented a petition to Pliny respecting certain convivial gatherings where 

1 See Traj. et Plin. Ep. 42 (33), 43 inserts ' sodalitates ' before 'que'; others 
(34)- insert other words; Keil supposes a la- 

2 'Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque cuna after 'fuerint'; others alter 'que 
causa dcderimus lis, qui in idem contracti brevi' into 'quamvis breves'; l)ut plainly 
fuerint, hetaeriae que (or quae) brevi fienl.' it should be read 'hctaeriae acque brevi 
So the passage stood in the ms. Doring ficnt,' the ae being repeated. 


there was a subscription supper. 'I have appended it,' writes PUny', 
' to this letter, that you, Sire, might consider in what respects and to 
what extent they should be allowed or prohibited.' 
To this the emperor answers as follows. 

Trajan to Pliny greeting. 

' As regards the Amisenes, whose petition you attached to your 
letter, if they are allowed by their laws, which they enjoy by virtue of the 
treaty, to hold a subscription supper (benefit club), it is competent for us 
to abstain from preventing their holding it ; and this the more easily, if 
they employ such a contribution not for making disturbances or for 
unlawful gatherings, but to support the needs of the poorer members. 
In all the other cities, which are subject to our laws, anything of the 
kind must be prohibited.' 

The letters relating to the Christians follow almost immediately after 
this correspondence about Amisa ; and Pliny not unnaturally, when 
this new emergency arose, viewed it in the light of the emperor's pre- 
vious instructions. Of certain apostates from the faith, whom he 
examined, he writes {Ep. 97 [96]) : 

' They asserted that this was the sum and substance of their fault 
or their error; namely that they were in the habit of meeting before 
dawn on a stated day and singing alternately (secum invicem) a hymn 
to Christ as to a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath, not to 
the commission of any wicked deed, but that they would abstain from 
theft and robbery and adultery, that they would not break their word, 
and that they would not withhold a deposit when reclaimed. This 
done, it was their practice, so they said, to separate, and then to meet 
together again for a meal, which however was of the ordinary kind and 
quite harmless. But even from this they had desisted after my edict, 
in which in pursuance of your commands I had forbidden the existence 
of clubs (hetaerias).' 

Lawful religions held a license from the state for worship or for 
sacrifice, and thus these gatherings were exempted from the operation of 
the laws against clubs. Christianity enjoyed no such privilege. The 
first form, in which any Christian body was recognized by the law, was 
as a benefit-club with special view to the interment of the dead". Even 
this however implied no recognition of the religion, as a religion. But 
in the time of Trajan it had not, so far as we know, even the indirect 

^ See Plin. Ep. x. 93 (gi), 94 (93), p. 10 sq, to whom we are indebted for 

^ See De Rossi, Roma Sottcrraitea i. bringing this fact into prominence. 


protection which was accorded afterwards to its burial clubs. If tliere- 
fore the character of these Christian gatherings had been entirely neutral 
in themselves, they could not even then have been tolerated. But 
this was far from being the case. When the individual Christian was 
examined, he was found to be obstinate on points of vital importance. 
He would not swear by the genius of the emperor ; he would not offer 
incense on the altar. The religious offence was bound up with the 
political offence. He stood self-convicted of ' impiety,' of ' atheism,' of 
'high treason'.' Only by some wholly illogical decision of a magistrate 
more humane than consistent, could he be saved from the penalties 
of the law. 

Trajan himself seems to have had no interest in the religious aspects 
of Christianity. He was only anxious to suppress secret associations 
which might become dangerous to the state. He would not care to 
hunt down individuals. In the Bithynian persecution therefore he 
took an active part ; but in the two authentic instances of individual 
martyrs, who suffered during his reign, there is no reason to think that 
he manifested any personal concern. 

The incidents relating to Symeon of Jerusalem are told on the 
authority, and for the most part in the very words, of the early Jewish 
Christian historian Hegesippus'. Symeon was the reputed cousin of 
our Lord, being son of Clopas the brother of Joseph. On the death of 
James the Just he had been chosen unanimously to fill the vacant see. 
He was now 120 years old, and Trajan was emperor. He was accused 
by certain Jewish sectarians on a twofold charge : first, that he was a 
descendant of David and therefore a claimant for the kingdom of 
Israel ; secondly, that he was a Christian and therefore the adherent of 
an unlawful religion. Atticus was then governor, and before Atticus 
he was tried. For many days he was tortured, to the astonishment of 
all beholders, not least of the governor himself, who marvelled at this 
endurance in a man of such venerable age. Last of all he was crucified. 
Whether this occurred before or after the Bithynian persecution, we 
are not informed ^ There is obviously an exaggeration in the age 
assigned to Symeon ; and the fact that he was a son of the Clopas 
mentioned in the Evangelical records suggests that his death should be 
placed early rather than late in the reign of Trajan. 

^ The different offences, of which a 1866, p. 358 sq. 
Christian might be guilty, are investi- - In Euseb. H. E. iii. 32. 

gated by Leblant Sur les bases jttridiqiies ^ See the introduction to the Acts of 

dcs pour suites dirigecs contrc les martyrs Martyrdom in vol. II, on the relative 

in the Acad, dcs Iiiscr., Comptes-rcndus chronology of these persecutions. 


There is no reason for questioning the grounds of accusation against 
Symeon as reported by Hegesippus. Strange as the first charge seems 
at first sight, it is not at all improbable. From the day when the Jewish 
mob clamoured in the ears of Pilate 'We have no king but Caesar' 
(John xix. 15), it Avas always the policy of the Jews in these agitations 
to work upon the pohtical sensibilities of their Roman masters. There 
was at least a plausible pretext for such a charge in the vivid expecta- 
tion of an approaching kingdom which was ever present to the minds, 
and not seldom heard from the lips, of the Christians. The Jews of 
Thessalonica, who denounced Paul and Silas as acting contrary to the 
decrees of Csesar, 'saying that there is another king, one Jesus' (Acts 
xvii. 7), set a fashion which doubtless had many imitators in later ages. 
Moreover in this particular case the insinuation of family interests, of 
dynastic pretensions, in a descendant of the royal house would give an 
additional colour to the accusation. But, though it is highly probable 
that the Jews would advance this charge, it is by no means likely that 
the governor would seriously entertain it. The ' saving common sense,' 
which distinguished the Roman magistrates as a class, would rescue 
him from such a misconception. The Jews had not misled Pilate, 
and they were not likely to mislead Atticus. Even the emperor 
Domitian is said to have seen through the flimsiness of this charge, 
when it was brought against other members of this same family, the 
grandsons of Judas the Lord's brother'. But the second accusation 
was not so easily set aside. If, when questioned, Symeon avowed 
himself to be a Christian, if he declined the test of swearing by the 
genius of Csesar and throwing a few grains of incense on the altar, 
nothing remained for the magistrate but to carry out the law. 

Of the circumstances which led to the condemnation of Ignatius on 
the other hand we know absolutely nothing. The two legendary Acts 
make the emperor himself the prime mover — the one at Antioch, the 
other at Rome". But it will be shown that both these documents alike 
are absolutely valueless. We are therefore thrown back on the inci- 
dental references which occur in the martyr's own letters. The bearing 
of these will be considered lower down. 

The name of the saint is Roman, or rather ancient Italian, not 
Greek or Syrian, as might have been expected. In the third Samnite 
war (B.C. 29S) the ability and daring of the Samnite general, Gellius 

1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. these two martyrologies, see the intro- 
" Mart. Ign. Ant. 2, Mart. Igii. Rom. duction to the Acts of Martyrdo}n , 11 
■2. For the unauthentic character of p. 377 sq. 


Egnatius, foiled the Romans for a time, till the struggle was ended I)}' 
his death on the battle-field of Sentinum (Liv. x. 18 — 29). Again 
two centuries later, in the last great conflict of the Romans with the 
neighbouring Italian nations, the Marsian war (a.d. 90), another general 
bearing the same name, Marius Egnatius, likewise a Samnite, inflicted 
heavy losses on the Romans, till he too met with a similar fate (Liv. 
Epit. Ixxv, Appian Civ. i. 40, 41, 45). From this time forward the 
distinction of Roman and Italian ceases; and Egnatius appears as a 
not uncommon Roman name. It occurs for instance not less than 
five times in a single inscription belonging to the age of Vespasian 
(Gruter Inscr. ccxl, ccxli). At a later date it was borne b}' one of 
the Roman emperors (Orelli Inscr. 1004 P. Licinio Egnatio Gallieno ; 
comp. 1008). The form Ignatius has many analogies in the language. 
Thus we have Deana, Dometius, Fabrecius, Menerva, Opemius, 
Paperius, etc., in the older inscriptions {Corp. Inscr. Lat. i. p. 605), 
where the later forms are Diana, Domitius, Fabricius, Minerva, 
Opimius, Papirius, etc. Nor is this exchange of vowels confined to 
proper names; e.g. fuet, mereto, tempestatebus, etc. {see Roby's Latin 
Grammar i. § 234). As a rule, the substitution of the I for E had 
taken place in the language long before, but in some proper names, 
e.g. Vergilius, Verginius (Ritschl Opusc. 11. p. 779), the older forms 
still prevailed. The name with which we are concerned seems to 
have been written indifterently Egnatius or Ignatius, though doubtless 
there was a greater tendency to the latter form in Greek than in Latin'. 
Thus the Samnite general in the Marsian war appears persistently as 
Tyvarios in Appian {Civ. i. 40, Schweighaeuser's note), though written 
Egnatius in Livy. So too the lieutenant of Crassus is called Tyi/artos 
by Plutarch {Vit. Crass. 27), though a Latin writer would doubtless 
write the name Egnatius. The name of the Carthaginian saint again 
is written in both ways in the manuscripts of Cyprian Ep. xxxix. 3, and 
elsev/here (see Zahn, /. v. A. p. 28). There is however no persistence 
either in the Greek or the Latin orthography of the name. Thus for 
instance 'Eymrtos appears in inscriptions (e.g. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Grace. 
Index p. 85; C. I. L. vi. p. 85), and coins (Mionnet iii. p. 16), 
and in Dion.Cassius (liii. 24, Ixii. 26). On the other hand, Ignatius, 
Ignatia, occur in Latin (e.g. C. I. L. 11. i457. if correctly so read, 
IX. 353), though rarely, until a comparatively late date. There is there- 
fore no ground for supposing with Wieseler {Christenvcrfolg. d. Cdsarcn 
pp. 122, 133) that Ignatius and Egnatius are two separate names. 

^ So evocatus becomes toiw\aTos in vcxillatio ^i^iXarluv in an inscription, 
Hesesippus (Eus. H. E. iii. 20); and Bull, dd Corr. Hellin. y.. \^. 22-j (\?>^(ii). 


The name was not unknown in these parts. The Stoic, P. Egnatius 
Celer, who under Nero won for himself an exceptional place in the 
annals of crime (Juv. Sat. iii. 114 sq, Tac. A^m. xvi. 32, Hist. iv. 
10, 40), was a native of Beyrout (Dion Cass. Ixii. 26). At a later 
date again, during the joint reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, we 
have an inscription at Pheeno or Phjena in Palestine, which mentions 
one Egnatius Fuscus, a tribune stationed there (Boeckh C. I. G. 4544 
$atV7ycriot dtfuepaxjav £</)€CTTwros x[^L\Ldp)(Ov] \iy[^eijJvos] y Ta[\XjLK-^<; ; 
comp, 4542). Moreover it was sometimes borne by Jews, as appears 
from another inscription {id. 4129), where it is found in connexion 
apparently with the name Esau and the symbol of the golden candle- 
stick. In Christian circles also, during the early centuries, it appears 
more than once. The African martyr Egnatius or Ignatius, comme- 
morated by Cyprian, has been mentioned already. In a sepulchral 
monument also at Rome, which being written in Greek must belong 
to an early date, we tind the name, though in the abbreviated form, 
'lyvaTts (C. 1. G. 9694). 

Connected herewith is the name Nurono (T<lancvJ), by which the 
martyr is not unfrequently designated in Syriac (Gregor. Barhebr. 
Chroii. I. p. 42, ed. Abbeloos et Lamy; Assem. Bibl. Orient. 111. p. 
16 sq). Tentzel {Exerc. Sel. i. p. 46 sq), misled by Pocock's render- 
ing of the words of Barhebraeus {Hist. Dyn. vii. p. 11 9), ' Ignatius 
Nuraniensis,' supposed that the saint was a native of Nora or Nura in 
Sardinia; and this explanation has found favour with others (e.g. Grabe 
Spicil. II. p. I sq. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vii. p. 32 sq, ed. Harles). The 
true derivation was divined by Pearson {Ign. Epist. Gen. p. i, annot.), 
who called attention to a passage of Epiphanius {Haer. xxvi. i), where 
vovpo. is given as the Syriac equivalent to -Kvp^ and by others (e.g. 
Wesseling Itin. Anton, p. 84 sq). A passage in Severus the Mono- 
physite patriarch of i\.ntioch, first published by Cureton {C. I. pp. 216, 
247) from a Syriac version, removes all doubt as to the meaning of 
the word. In his 65th Epithronian Oration, delivered in the Church 
of Ignatius, the ancient Temple of Fortune at Antioch, Severus, as 
represented by his Syriac translator, states that Ignatius was appro- 
priately so named by a certain prescience ; that the Latin ignis is 
equivalent to the Syriac nuro or ' flame ' ; and that he was called 
Nurono or 'Inflamed,' because the torch of divine love blazed in him'. 

1 There is some corruption in the Sy- priately named Ignatius from facts, be- 

riac text here, as Zahn (/. v. A. p. 555) cause he foreknew things future; for any 

has noticed. As it stands, Severus is one who is only moderately acquainted 

made to say that the saint ' was appro- with the language of the Romans knows 


It seems probable therefore that the appellative ' Nurono ' is due to 
this passage in the Epithronian Orations. The great reputation of 
Severus would give currency to this interpretation of the name 
' Ignatius,' and the Syriac equivalent ' Nurono ' would pass into general 
use in the Syrian Churches. The wide popularity of these Epithronian 
Orations is shown by the fact that two Syriac versions of them are 
extant. It is not likely that Severus, writing in Greek, used the 
word Nurono himself, and Zahn (/. v. A. p. 73 sq) is probably right 
in conjecturing that it was introduced by the Syriac translator to 
explain the meaning'. It is needless to add that the derivation of the 
name 'Ignatius' from 'ignis' is altogether false. Not improbably, 
like Gnatius, it is connected with gnascor (nascor), gnatus (natus). 

Around the other name Theophorus, likewise borne by Ignatius, 
much superfluous controversy has gathered. A significance has been 
assigned to it which the facts do not warrant. It has been regarded 
as a title of honour bestowed upon the saint by his admirers, and 
allusions have been discovered in several passages of his epistles to 
this imaginary glorification of the martyr (see the notes on Magn. i, 
Trail. 4, Sniyrn. 5). All such references melt away in the light of 
criticism. On the other hand, an attempt has been made' to discredit 
it altogether as a later interpolation in the addresses of the epistles. 
This view disregards the evidence of manuscripts and versions, which is 
absolutely unanimous in favour of the word at every occurrence. Its 
only plea is the fact that the earliest fathers take no notice of this 
designation of the saint. No doubt, if it had possessed the signi- 

that Nurono, that is, Inflamed, as we also contemporary with Severus, and of which 

say, was derived from hence; for the extant Mss bear the dates A. D. 563, 569, 

Romans call the fire which is lighted up 576, is preserved in great part in mss 

and in flames, ignis. Who then is he that in the British Museum (Wright's Catal. 

has in himself the flame, that is to say, p. 546 sq) and the Vatican (Assem. 

the lamp of divine love, and is inflamed Bibl. Apost, Vat. Cod. MSS. Catal. iii. 

by the desire to suffer for Christ? The p. 241 sq), but the portion containing 

same who also in writing to the Romans this homily is wanting. Otherwise a com- 

says,' etc. (Cureton C. I. p. 247). The parison of the two translations might 

prescience evidently should not be as- have enabled us to arrive approximately 

cribed to Ignatius himself, as in the at the original words of Severus. A 

present text, but to God or to the person translator would have to deal freely with 

who gave him the name. the Greek here, and the insertion of a 

^ The translation of Severus, which word like Nurono was a necessity. See 

is here quoted, was made by Jacob of a similar instance in Pallad. Hist. Laus. 

Edessa, A.D. 701 (W^right's Catal. of 11 12, 1 1 14 (ed. Migne), 'episcopalus, in- 

Syr. MSS in the Brit. Mils. p. 534 scj). spectio.' 
The older version (probably by Paul of - See II. p. 22. 

Callinicus), which must have been nearly 


ficance which some late fathers and many modern critics have assigned 
to it, this silence, though it would have little weight against the unani- 
mous testimony of all the direct authorities, might have demanded an 
explanation. But in fact Theophorus was a second name of Ignatius, 
and nothing more. Examples of these second names, introduced in the 
very form which we find in the openings of the Ignatian Epistles (d kol 
©fo^opos), abound in the inscriptions. A few of these have been given 
in the notes (ii. p. 22); but, if it were necessary, instances might be 
multiplied manifold. Illustrations also might be gathered from extant 
authors. Thus a nearly contemporary writer, Aristides, mentions a 
person, ' Sedatus by name, but originally Theophilus' {Orat. 26 S^'^Suros 
ovofjia, TO 8* dpxcuov ©eo^tXos, Oj>. I. p. 506, ed. Dindorf), So too Jose- 
phus speaks in one place of ' Diodotus also surnamed Tryphon ' (A /it xiii. 
5. I AtdSoTos d Kol Tpv(jiix>v iTnK\r]9€L<i), in another of 'Joseph also called 
Caiaphas ' (Afif. xviii. 3. 2 'Iwarjiros 6 koI Kaia'^as), besides several other 
examples which this author alone could furnish. And so again in later 
writers, both Greek and Latin. Thus Eusebius (as reproduced by 
Syncellus) speaks of the Roman emperor as Ma'p^os Avp-rjXto^ 6 koI 
Ovrjpos (C/iron. 11. p. 170, Schone), and elsewhere describes him as 
M. AvptjXiO's Ovr}po<s 6 Koi ^AvTwvtvos {If. E. iv. 14). In like manner 
Socrates {H. E. i. 30) tells of 'Axadfi 6 /cat 'Iwawr;?, and Jerome {Catal. 
80) of ' Firmianus qui et Lactantius'; while Cyprian [Epist. 66) styles 
himself ' Cyprianus qui et Thascius,' at the same time addressing a 
friend who is designated ' Florentius qui et Puppianus'.' 

The reasons for assuming another name either in place of or in addi- 
tion to the original name may be various. In some cases it was a mark 
of personal affection or respect for some friend or patron. Thus Josephus 
mentions one of his sons ' Simonides also surnamed Agrippa ' (Jos. Vit. 
76 2t/Aaji'tS7;s...d KoX 'AyptTTTras iirLKXyjOeLs), doubtless SO called after the 
Jewish prince of that name. Sometimes a man adopted a professional 
name. Thus a martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, when asked who 
he was, replied, ' If you want the name in common use, I am called 
Tarachus by my parents ; but when I was in the army, I was called 
Victor' (Act Tar. et Prob. i, Ruinart p. 452, Ratisb. 1859). Not unfre- 
quently the change was dictated by a religious motive. So Jerome tells 
us that Cyprian took the name of Ctecilius from the presbyter to whom 
he owed his conversion [Cata/. 67). And a still more notable example 
of an adopted name may perhaps be explained by the desire to comme- 
morate a critical incident in his career, ' Saulus who is also called 
Paulus' (Acts xiii. 9 %av\o';...6 kol IlauXos). Of the Palestinian martyrs 

' See also Marquardt Privatlcben dcr Roiiicr p. 25. 


again it is related (Euseb. Mart. Fal. 11), that they assumed the names 
of the old prophets, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel, Daniel, instead of 
their original names, which in some cases were derived from idols (eiSoj- 
Xifcwv ovTOJv d Tu'xoi). In like manner, in the absence of any definite 
information, we may conjecture that Ignatius assumed the name Theo- 
phorus, ' the God-bearer,' at the time of his conversion or his baptism, 
desiring thereby to keep continually before his mind the duties and 
privileges of his newly acquired position. 

But whatever may have been the cause of its assumption in the first 
instance, the name itself gave rise to more than one mythical legend, 
according as it was interpreted 'the God-borne' {0e64>opo<;) or 'the God- 
bearer' {6€ocf>6pos). 

(i) As the 'God-borne,' it not unnaturally suggested the story that 
Ignatius was the very child whom our Lord took in His arms (Mark ix. 
36, 37). In the Mensea for Dec. 20, this legend is repeated several 
times, and the surname of the martyr is so explained (pp. 137, 140, 141, 
143, ed. Venet. 1877). The story however was unknown in the early 
centuries, as the silence of Eusebius shows. Indeed S. Chrysostom 
says distinctly that, unhke the Apostles, he had 'not even seen' the Lord, 
and regards his readiness to die for Christ as a more convincing proof of 
the truth of the resurrection on this very account {Horn, in Ign. Mart. 
4). It appears first at the end of the ninth century in Anastasius Biblio- 
thecarius {Op. in. p. 42, Migne) where it is introduced as 'a tradition,' 
and is found in Nicephorus Callistus {H. E. ii. 35), in Symeon the 
Metaphrast {Mart. Ign. i), in Solomon of Bassora (Cureton Corp. Ign. 
pp. 220, 251), and in other later writers. The story doubtless seemed 
to gain confirmation from a passage in the martyr's own letter to the 
Smyrnreans (§ 3), where he was wrongly interpreted as saying that ' he 
had known Jesus Christ in the flesh even before the resurrection.' The 
legend of S. Christopher has its origin in a similar rebus, as explained in 
Vida's couplet, 

Christophore, infixum quod cum usque in corde gerebas, 
Pictores Christum dant tibi ferre humeris 

(see M. Miiller, Science of language, 2nd Sen p. 552 sq). In the older 
accounts he is a converted heathen, who takes the name Xptcrro^dpos at 
his baptism. Like Ignatius, he was an Antiochene ; and like him also 
he suffered a martyr's death (see Smith's Diet, of Christ. Biogr. i. 
p. 496 s. v.). The story which is familiarly connected with his name 
does not appear till a very late date. 

(2) In the West another story was told of Ignatius, founded, like the 
former, on a literal interpretation of the name ^eoc^o'pos, whicli however 


in this instance was correctly taken in an active sense. Vincentius of 
Beauvais {Sptx. Hist. x. 57) relates how 'when his heart was cut into 
small pieces (minutatim) the name of the Lord Jesus Christ was found 
inscribed in golden letters on every single piece, as we read (ut legitiir); 
for he had said that he had Christ in his heart.' We cannot fail to be 
reminded by this of the sad saying of the English Queen, that when she 
was dead the name of Calais would be read engraven on her heart. 
This latter legend of Ignatius however seems never to have gained 
any wide currency like the former. 

Of the origin, birth, and education of Ignatius we are told absolutely 
nothing. The supposition that he was a slave is a very uncertain infer- 
ence from his own language (see Rom. 4, with the note). It may be 
conjectured however with probability from expressions in his letters, 
that he was not born of Christian parentage ; that he was brought up a 
pagan and converted in mature life to Christianity ; and that his youth 
had been stained by those sins of which as a heathen he had made no 
account at the time, but which stung his soul with reproaches in the 
retrospect, now that it was rendered sensitive by the quickening power 
of the Gospel. Thus he, like S. Paul, speaks of himself {Rom. 9) as an 
enTpwfxa, a child untimely born to Christ. There had been something 
violent, dangerous, and unusual in his spiritual nativity. Coupled with 
this expression is another, which he likewise uses elsewhere {Ephes. 21, 
Trail. 13, Smyrn. 11). He speaks of himself as 'the last' (eo-xaros) of the 
Antiochene Christians, as unworthy therefore to have a place among them. 
It cannot indeed be safely inferred that this expression signifies in itself 
' latest in time ' \ but the sense of inferiority which it implies is best 
explained by supposing that his conversion was comparatively late in 
date. Indeed not a few expressions in his epistles, otherwise hardly 
explicable, become full of life and meaning, when read by the light of 
this hypothesis. His was one of those ' broken ' natures out of which, as 
Zahn has truly said (/. v. A. p. 404), God's heroes are made. If not a 
persecutor of Christ, if not a foe to Christ, as seems probable, he had at 
least been for a considerable portion of his life an alien from Christ. 
Like S. Paul, Uke Augustine, like Francis Xavier, like Luther, like John 
Bunyan, he could not forget that his had been a dislocated life ; and the 
memory of the catastrophe, which had shattered his former self, filled 
him with awe and thanksgiving, and fanned the fervour of his devotion 
to a white heat. 

But, if this be so, what must be said of the tradition which represents 
him as ordained, or at least taught, by Apostles ? What claim has he to 
the title of an ' apostolic ' father ? 

The earliest tradition represents Ignatius as the second of the Antio- 


chene bishops, or (if S. Peter be reckoned) the third'. Of extant writers 
our first authority for this statement is Origen {Horn, vi in Luc. § i, Op. 
III. p. 938 a), who however does not give the name of Ignatius' predeces- 
sor. This missing name, Euodius, is suppHed by Eusebius (//. E. iii. 
22; Chron. 11. pp. 152, 158, ed. Schoene), who doubtless followed some 
older tradition. Whether his authority was Julius Africanus (c. a.d. 220) 
or another, is a question which will be fully discussed in its proper 
place (11. p. 452 sq). On the other hand S. Chrysostom seems to speak 
as though Ignatius were the immediate successor of S. Peter, though his 
language is not quite explicit^; and Theodoret appears to have thought 
the same, for he describes him as having 'received the grace of the high- 
priesthood at the hand of the great Peter'.' In the Apostolical Constitih 
tions (vii. 46) the matter is differently represented; 'In Antioch,' says 
the prince of the Apostles, ' Euodius (was ordained bishop) by me Peter, 
and Ignatius by Paul' No weight attaches to a statement given on 
such authority. It is obviously a constructive inference built upon three 
data: (i) That Euodius was the first and Ignatius the second of the 
Antiochene bishops ; (2) That two Apostles were connected in history or 
tradition with the foundation of the Antiochene Church, of whom Peter 
was the elder and Paul the younger; (3) That Ignatius, though the 
second bishop of Antioch, was nevertheless an 'apostolic' man, this 
term being interpreted narrowly, so as to signify that he was ordained 
bishop by some Apostle. In all the accounts hitherto mentioned Igna- 
tius is connected with the chief Apostle of the Circumcision or with the 
Apostle of the Gentiles ; but in the more widely spread, though later, 
tradition he appears as a disciple of S. John. The source of this state- 
ment seems to have been the Chronicon of Eusebius, not however in 
its original form, but as it appears in Jerome's revision and elsewhere, 
where the name of Ignatius of Antioch is added to those of Papias of 
Hierapolis and Polycarp of Smyrna as scholars of the beloved disciple. 

1 He is styled the 'second,' with or iXhov irXeKofievov oPtos S^ ia-ri to fxer' 

without additions, by Origen (1. c. /xera eKehov tovtov^^aa9ai tV dpxvf-- 

Tov naKapLov Tl^Tpov), Eusebius {C/invi. ovtu 5?) Kal U^rpov ixiWovro^ evr^vOtv 

II. p. ■213, ed. Schone; H. E. iii. 22, 36 airodrjiJ.e'ii/, 'inpov avrlppowov WTpov di- 

TTJs Kar 'AvTibxeiav H^rpov SiaSoxv^ j ddaKa\oi> r\ tov TrvevfxaTos aPTeia-qyaye Stcph. 1 /iera toi)s aTroffToXoi/s), x^^P'' /c.r.X. Thus Euodius is altogether 

and others ; the ' third,' with a mention of ignored. 

S. Peter, by Jerome {Vir. III. 16 'post ^ Epist. 151 {Op. iv. p. 1312, ed. 

Petrum apostolum') and Socrates {H. E. Schulzc) '171'drtos (Ke7vos 6 iro\vdpv\\r)TOi, 

vi. 8 aTTO Tou airocTToXov Tl^Tpov). 6 Sia t^s tov fieyoKov nirpov Sepias TTfv 

- Op. II. p. 597 iireidr] 5^ ifj.vr]ff8r]v apxi-epi>}<Tvuy)v Scfa/uei/os. 
W.iTpov, Koi Tr4 fiwTOv i^ avTou arl<pai'ov 


The origin and spread of this form of the tradition is discussed below 
(ii. p. 477 sq). All these different attempts to name his teacher are 
excrescences on the earliest tradition, which is content to speak of him 
as an 'apostolic' man. 

Still less can be learnt from the dates assigned by tradition to his 
episcopate. These are discussed in their proper place (ii. p. 448 sq). 
It is sufficient to say here, that his accession is represented as taking 
place about a. d, 69, while the commonest date assigned to his martyr- 
dom is about A.D. 107. But neither the one nor the other has any claim 
to respect, as authentic history. Of his accession we know nothing at 
all. His martyrdom may with a high degree of probability be placed 
within a few years of a.d. tig, before or after. 

The traditions therefore relating to his date and apostolic teaching 
may be safely dismissed from the consideration of the question before 
us. They are neither authoritative enough, nor consistent enough, to 
have any value for our purpose. Having thus cleared the way, we have 
only to ask whether there is any chronological inconsistency in the 
supposition that Ignatius was a disciple of some Apostle, though not 
converted till he had reached mature age. And the answer must be in 
the negative. If we place his martyrdom about a.d. iio, and suppose 
(as there is fair reason for supposing) that he was an old or elderly man 
at the time, he may have been born about a.d. 40. If his apostolic 
master were S. Peter or S. Paul, his companionship with either may have 
fallen as late as a. d. 65, so that he would have been twenty-five years of 
age at the time. If his teacher were S. John (and there is no improba- 
bility in this supposition, though the tradition, as a tradition, is value- 
less), the epoch of his conversion might be advanced to a.d. 90 or later, 
which would make him some fifty years of age. Nor is his apostolic 
discipleship contradicted by his own statement in Ephes. 11, as Zahn 
seems disposed to think. Even though a-wrjaav were the correct read- 
ing in this passage, he would not, when he commends the Ephesians as 
' always associating with the Apostles,' tacitly contrast himself as never 
associating with them. If any tacit contrast were implied, which is 
more than doubtful, it would rather be with his own brief or infrequent 
companionship with them. But the reading o-wTjVeo-av 'consented unto' 
seems slightly more probable than a-wrjaav 'associated with.' 

Of his administration, as a bishop, only one tradition has been 
preserved ; and this refers to a matter of ritual. The historian Socrates 
(H. E. vi. 8) relates that Ignatius ' saw a vision of angels, praising the 
Holy Trinity in antiphonal hymns, and left the fashion of his vision as 
a custom to the Church in Antioch (tw rpoTrov tov dpayuaro? rfj iv 


'Avnoxeto, cKK/XT^o-ta TrapeSwKev), whence this custom spread Hkewise 
throughout all the churches'. This story is repeated also by later 
writers, more especially Syrian; e.g. by Solomon of Bassora (Cureton 
C, I. pp. 221, 251), by Gregory Barhebrceus {Pair. Ant. 3, i. p. 42, 
ed. Abbeloos et Lamy, Assem. Bibl. Or. 11. p. 399), by Nicephorus 
Callistus {H. E. xiii. 8), and by Amr of Tirhani (Assem. Bibl. Griait. 
II. p. 397). A tradition which appears so late does not deserve con- 
sideration, as containing any element of historical fact; but it is a 
matter of soiiie httle interest to speculate on its origin. It seems then 
to be founded partly on the boast of Ignatius {Trail. 5) that he 'could 
comprehend heavenly things, yea the arrays of the angels and the muster- 
ings of the principalities,' and partly on his directions (not however 
intended in this literal sense) to one and another church {Ep/ics. 4, 
Rom. 2), that they should ' form themselves into a chorus ' and chant 
to the Father through Jesus Christ. Antiphonal singing indeed did not 
need to be suggested by a heavenly vision. It existed already among 
the heathen in the arrangements of the Greek chorus. It was practised 
with much elaboration of detail in the psalmody of the Jews, as appears 
from the account which is given of the 'Egyptian Therapeutes'. Its 
introduction into the Christian Church therefore was a matter of course 
almost from the beginning'; and, when we read in Pliny {Epist. x. 97) 
that the Christians of Bithynia sang hymns to Christ as to a god 
'alternately' (secum invicem), we may reasonably infer that the practice 
of antiphonal singing prevailed far beyond the limits of the Church of 
Antioch even in the time of Ignatius himself ^ 

The pitchy darkness, which envelopes the life and work of Ignatius, 
is illumined at length by a vivid but transient flash of light. If his 
martyrdom had not rescued him from obscurity, he would have 
remained, like his predecessor Euodius, a mere name, and nothing 
more. As it is, he stands out in the momentary light of this event, a 
distinct and living personality, a true father of the Church, a teacher and 
an example to all time. 

It will be shown elsewhere (11. p. 377 sq) that the Martyrologies 
of Ignatius cannot be accepted as authentic history. With these the 

1 Philo de Vit. Cont. 11 (11. p. 485) '^ See Hooker's Works 11. p. 164 sq, 

elra q.^ov(ji. Tri-Koiy]p.tvov% els rbv Qcov Ilarnack Christl. Gemcindcgottcsdieiist p. 

i/'yuvoi's woXXois fiirpOLS Kal ixeXecn, rfi fih 121 sq. 

avvy)xovvT€S, TTj dk avTKpojvofs apfj.0- ^ Theodoret, ^. ii". ii. 24 (19), ascribes 

ylats iTTLX^ipoi'Ofj.ovi'Tes Kai eTropxov/j.evoL, this mode of singing to Flavianus and 

Kal iiriOeLd^ovTes Tore /x^u to. irpoaoSia, Diodorus in the reign of Constantius. 

ToTe 8i TO., arpocpds re ras e'f But see tlic note of Valois on Socr. 1. c. 
Xpe'9 Kal dvTLaTpocpovs 7roLov/.ui>OL k.t.X, 


interview with Trajan, which forms the main feature in the popular 
tradition, falls to the ground. We have therefore no trustworthy infor- 
mation respecting the circumstances of his trial and condemnation 
beyond the notices in his own letters. 

From these notices it appears that the peace of the Antiochene 
Church was disturbed at this time; but there is no reason to believe 
that a fierce persecution raged here as in the Churches of Pontus and 
Bithynia. No mention is made of any individual sufferer besides him- 
self, though such there may have been. What was the occasion of the 
disturbance in the Church of Antioch — whether popular excitement or 
magisterial caprice — we know not. What definite charge was brought 
against him, it is vain to speculate. One thing only seems certain. He 
did not go to Rome, like S, Paul, on an appeal to the Imperial Court. 
He speaks of himself more than once as condemned to death already 
{Ephes. T 2, Trail. 3, Rom. 4). He has no wish or intention to appeal. 
On the contrary his one fear is that persons of influence may obtain the 
emperor's ear and thus procure a pardon or at least a mitigation of his 
sentence {Rom. i, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8). This alarm is quite decisive. An 
appeal must have been his own act ; but his every word contradicts the 
suggestion that he could have been a party to any steps which would 
rob him of his crown. 

He goes to Rome therefore for the execution of his sentence. He 
had been condemned to the wild beasts by the provincial magistrate; 
and in the Flavian amphitheatre he must meet his bloodthirsty execu- 
tioners. The sports of the are«a in Trajan's reign were on a gigantic 
scale — gigantic even for the prodigality of imperial Rome. The whole- 
sale butchery of wild beasts demanded a corresponding sacrifice of 
human life. The provinces therefore were put under requisition to 
supply convicts, who might be 

Butcher'd to make a Roman holiday. 

We can well imagine moreover that in the case of Ignatius there were 
special reasons why it was thought desirable by his enemies that he 
should be sent to Rome and not executed in his own city Antioch. He 
himself is a more than willing victim. His bones shall be ground to 
powder by the teeth of the wild beasts, that they may be as fine wheat- 
flour, fit for the sacrificial offering. If the wild beasts are timid and 
reluctant, he himself will rush upon them, will irritate them, will 
compel them to devour and entomb him {Ro?n. 5). The altar is ready, 
and he longs for the time when the libation of his blood shall be poured 
upon it {Rom. 2). With an almost fierce enthusiasm he forecasts the 


supreme moment, when the mangling of his limbs and the crunching of 
his bones shall at length confer upon him the coveted honour of disci- 
pleship {Rotn. 4, 5). 

It is clear from his mode of punishment that he was not a Roman 
citizen. As a Roman citizen, he would have been spared the worst 
horrors of the amphitheatre, and would, like S. Paul according to the 
ancient tradition, or like those martyrs of Vienne and Lyons of whom 
we read, have been beheaded by the sword'. If elsewhere he mentions, 
as possibilities which he was prepared to meet, ' the fire, the sword, the 
wild beasts' {S7nyrn. 4; comp. Rom. 5), if he adds, 'nigh to the sword 
nigh to God, encircled by wild beasts encircled by God,' the fire is 
only mentioned as an alternative which might have been his fate, as it 
was Polycarp's afterwards, and the sword which he contemplates is not 
the guillotine of the executioner, but the knife of the 'confector,' who 
would be ready at hand to give him the coup de grace in case the wild 
beasts did their work imperfectly. 

Thus condemned to the wild beasts, he sets out on his journey 
Romeward in the custody of a ' maniple ' or company of ten soldiers 
{Rojfi. 5), Of the earlier part of his route we have no notice direct or 
indirect. It is not improbable that he would take ship at Seleucia, the 
port town of Antioch, and sail thence to some harbour on the Cilician 
or Pamphylian coast (see 11. p. 211). From this point onward he must 
have travelled across the continent of Asia Minor, if indeed his whole 
journey from Antioch to Smyrna was not performed by land^ His 
route would be determined mainly by the duties of his guards; for the 
custody of this one prisoner can only have formed a small part of the 
functions assigned to them on this long journey. Not improbably they 
were charged with gathering up other prisoners on their route through 
Asia Minor; for the silence of Ignatius about any such fellow-captives 
is not a proof, or even a presumption, that there were none. It will be 
seen presently that, at all events after they reached Europe, he was 
joined by others who, like himself, were travelling Romeward to seek 
the crown of martyrdom. 

The earliest point at which we are able to determine his route 
with any degree of probability is in the heart of Asia Minor. Near 
to the junction of the Lycus and the Maeander, the road which 

^ For S. Paul see Tertull. Scorp. 15 preserved in Euseb. H. E. v. \% 43 oW 

'Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae conse- /z^k I^okovv Tro\LTe[ai' 'Viafialuv k(TX<l'<^''ai, 

quitur nativitatem, cum illic martyrii re- tovtwv dir^Te/xve ras Ke<paKds k.t.X. 
nascitur generositate'; for the martyrs of - The alternative routes are exhibited 

Vienne and Lyons, the original document in the map at the end of this vohmie. 

IGN. I. 3 


traverses Asia Minor from East to West bifurcates". The northern 
branch crosses the Dervend pass into the valleys of the Cogamus and 
Hermus, and passing through Philadelphia and Sardis conducts the 
traveller to Smyrna. The southern road keeps along the valley of the 
Mseander, passing through Tralles and Magnesia ; from which latter 
city it crosses the depression in the mountain-range of Messogis north- 
ward and so reaches Ephesus (see ii. pp. 2, 241). At this bifurcation 
Ignatius must have taken the northern road; for we hear of him at 
Philadelphia. Of his sojourn there occasional notices are preserved in 
his subsequent letter to the Church of Philadelphia (11. p. 241). His 
reception there had not been in all respects satisfactory. From Phila- 
delphia he would go to Sardis, where doubtless he halted, though this 
city is not named in his extant letters. From Sardis he would travel to 
Smyrna. At Smyrna he was hospitably received by Polycarp and the 

It would appear that, while Ignatius himself took the northern road 
at the bifurcation, tidings travelled along the southern road to the 
churches situated thereon, Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus, informing 
them that the saint would make a halt at Smyrna, so that any delegates 
whom they might send would have an opportunity of conferring with 
him there. Accordingly on or soon after his arrival at Smyrna, he 
was joined by representatives from all these churches. Ephesus, the 
nearest of the three, sent the bishop Onesimus {Ephes. i, 5, 6), a deacon 
Burrhus, and three other delegates, Crocus, Euplus, and Fronto, of whose 
rank or office the saint says nothing {Ephes. 2). Through this large 
representation he seemed to see the whole church with the eyes of love. 
These Ephesian delegates were a great comfort and refreshment to him 
{Ephes. 21, Magn. 15, Trail. 13, Rom. 10). Of Onesimus he speaks in 
terms of the highest admiration and love. Burrhus was so useful to him, 
that he prayed the Ephesians to allow him to remain in his company 
{Ephes. 2). This prayer was granted ; and Burrhus afterwards accom- 
panied him as far as Troas, where he acted as his amanuensis {Philad. 
II, Smyrn. 12). Of Crocus also he speaks in affectionate terms {Ro7n. 
10). Of the remaining two, Euplus and Fronto, the names only are 
recorded. At the same time Magnesia, lying only a few hours farther 
off than Ephesus, sent an equally adequate representation, her bishop 
Damas, her presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and her deacon Zotion 
{Magn. 2). Of all these Ignatius speaks in language of high commen- 

1 Herod, vii. 31 ws 5^ Ik ttjs ^pvylrjs cpepovcrris, ttJs de es de^L'^v is 2(x/>5ts k.t.X. 
ecr^/SaXe e'j T-ijf Av8ir]v, crxtfb/x^j'Tjs t^s Xerxes, like Ignatius, took the road 
oSov, Kal rrjs fikv es api(jTeprjv ewl Kaplrjs tlirough Sardis. 


dation. Tralles, being more distant, was not so largely represented ; 
but her bishop Polybius came, and he was in himself a host {Trail, i). 

Of the members of the Smyrnaean Church, with whom he came in 
contact during his sojourn there, the martyr mentions several by name. 
First and foremost is the bishop Polycarp — a prominent figure alike in 
the history of the early Church and in the career of Ignatius. What 
strength and comfort he drew from this companionship may be gathered 
from his own notices {Ephes. 21, Magu. 15, Smyrn. 12, Polyc. i, 7, 8).' 
Next in order of prominence comes Alee, ' beloved name to me 
{Smyr?i. 13, Polyc. 8) — Alee herself a devout servant of Christ, but 
sister of Nicetes and aunt of Herodes, who are destined half a century 
later to take an active part in the martyrdom of the bishop Polycarp 
himself (yl/rtr/. Polyc. 8, 17). He mentions byname likewise Eutecnus, 
Attains his ' beloved,' and Daphnus ' the incomparable,' besides the 
wife (or widow) of Epitropus with her whole household and those of her 
children, and (if this be not the same person) ' the household of Gavia ' 
also (see Smyrn. 13, Polyc. 8, with the notes). 

While sojourning at Smyrna, he wrote four letters which are extant. 
Three of these are addressed to the three churches whose dele- 
gates he had met at Smyrna — the Ephesians, the Maguesians., and 
the Trallians. The fourth is written to the community among whom 
he hopes to find his final resting place — to the Church of the Romans. 
Beyond occasional references to personal matters the first three are 
occupied almost wholly in enforcing lessons of doctrinal truth and eccle- 
siastical order. The last stands apart from these, and indeed from all 
the other letters of Ignatius. It deals neither with doctrine nor with 
order, but is occupied almost entirely with the thought of his approach- 
ing martyrdom. He was no longer writing to the Churches of Asia 
Minor, with whose dissensions or whose heresies he had been brought 
into more or less direct personal contact. The one topic which he had 
in common with the Romans was the closing scene of his life's drama, 
which was soon to be enacted in their great amphitheatre. The letter 
to the Romans is the only one which bears a date. It was written on 
the 24th of August. It appears from the closing sentences that he was 
preceded on his journey to Rome by certain friends, to whom he sends 
a message \ so that the Romans would be fully apprised of his circum- 

Meanwhile he was treated with rigour by his guards, whom he com- 
pares to 'ten leopards' {Rom. 5). His conflict with these human 
monsters was an anticipation of his approaching struggle in the amphi- 
theatre. From the moment when he left the Syrian shore — by lanil and 



by sea — night and day — he had been 'fighting with wild beasts'. The 
gratuities, by which he or his friends sought to appease them, served 
only to whet the edge of their cruelty, doubtless as suggesting pleas for 
fresh exactions. 

From Smyrna he was led to Alexandria Troas, whence, like the 
great Apostle in whose footsteps he was treading (Acts xvi. 8, 9), he 
would first look upon the shores of Europe. Hither he was accom- 
panied by Burrhus, as the representative not only of the Ephesians, his 
fellow-citizens, but also of the Smyrnseans, his recent hosts. Here too 
he was gladdened by two fresh arrivals from his own country and neigh- 
bourhood. Philo a deacon of Cilicia, and Rhaius Agathopus a deacon 
(so it would seem) of his own Syrian Church, had followed in his track. 
They had been hospitably welcomed both at Philadelphia and at 
Smyrna; though some persons in the former place had treated them 
contemptuously, as might have been expected from their attitude 
towards the saint himself They were now at Troas ministering to him 
'in the word of God' {Fhilad. 11, Smyrn. 10, 13). From them doubt- 
less he had received the welcome intelligence that his dear Church of 
Antioch was once more in enjoyment of peace. 

From Troas the saint wrote three letters. These three letters differ 
from all the preceding in this respect, that they were written to those 
whom he had visited personally on his route. The first and second 
were addressed to the Churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna respectively, 
the third to Polycarp the bishop of the last-mentioned Church. The 
general topics in these are the same as in the previous letters (the 
Epistle to the Romans alone excepted). But the altered circumstances 
of the Church of Antioch give occasion to a special charge. He desires 
that the churches with whom he communicates should send delegates 
or (where delegates are not possible) at all events letters to Syria to 
congratulate and exhort the Antiochene brotherhood [Fhilad. 10, 
Sinyrn. 11). More especially Polycarp is enjoined to select an excep- 
tionally trustworthy representative, to act in this capacity of ' God's 
courier ' (Folyc. 7). The letter to Polycarp was written on the eve of 
his departure from Troas to Neapolis. The sailing orders had been 
sudden, and he had not had time to write, as he had intended, to all the 
churches to this same effect. He begs Polycarp to supply the omis- 
sion {Folyc. 8). 

At Neapolis he, like S. Paul, first set foot on the shores of Europe. 
From Neapolis he went to Philippi. The Philippians welcomed and 
escorted on their way Ignatius and others who like himself were 
' entwined with saintly fetters, the diadems of the truly elect ' (Polyc. 


Phil. i). Of these others two are especially mentioned by name, Zosi- 
mus and Rufus (//--. 9). Whether the persons thus named had any direct 
connexion with Ignatius, or whether they were Bithynian Christians who 
had joined his escort at Philippi, having been sent to Rome by Pliny 
the propraetor, and were conducted from that point onward under 
custody of the same 'ten leopards', or what may have been their 
history, we can only speculate. 

Ignatius charged the Philippians, as he had charged other churches, 
to send a letter to the brethren of Antioch (Polyc. Phil. 13). They had 
accordingly written to Polycarp, requesting that their letter might be 
conveyed to Antioch by the same messenger who should be entrusted 
with the letter from Smyrna. It is from Polycarp's extant reply to the 
Philippians that we learn the few scanty facts respecting the martyr's 
sojourn at Philippi which are here given. The Philippians had also 
accompanied this request with another. They desired Polycarp to send 
them copies of the letters that Ignatius had addressed to himself or to 

his church (see the note on § 13 ras €7r60-ToXas...Tas Tre/xe^^eio-as r\\J^iv) 

together with any other letters of the martyr which he might have by 
him. With this request he complied. It is not improbably to this cir- 
cumstance that we owe the preservation of the seven letters of Ignatius. 
Here the curtain drops on the career of the martyr. When Polycarp 
writes in reply to the PhiUppians, he knows nothing about the subse- 
quent movements of Ignatius and his companions, though he suspects 
that the Philippians, as lying some stages nearer to Rome, may have later 
news {Phil. 9). If Polycarp obtained the information which he sought, 
it has not been preserved to us. On everything which happened after 
this point history is silent, though legend, as usual, is busy and loqua- 
cious. He would naturally follow the great Egnatian road from Phil- 
ippi to Dyrrhachium. Whether, when he arrived at the shores of the 
Hadriatic, he crossed over direct to Beneventum and travelled to Rome 
by the Appian way, or took the longer sea voyage through the straits of 
Messina, whether in the latter case he landed in the bay of Naples, like 
S. Paul, or at the mouth of the Tiber, as represented in one of his Mar- 
tyrologies {Mart. Ign. Ant. 6), it is idle to enquire. Rome was at length 
reached. In the huge pile, erected for the colossal display of these inhu- 
man sports by the good emperors of the Flavian dynasty, Ignatius the 
captain of martyrs fell a victim under the good emperor Trajan. 
Tragic facts these, on which it is wholesome to reflect. 

So fought and so conquered this brave general officer in the noble 
army of martyrs. After S. Stephen, the leader of the band, no martyr- 


dom has had so potent an influence on the Church as his. The two 
chief Apostles, S. Peter and S. Paul, (there is good reason to believe), 
died a martyr's death ; but of the circumstances we know nothing 
beyond an uncertain tradition. Their martyrdom was only a small and 
comparatively insignificant incident in their career. It was by their 
lives, rather than by their deaths, that they edified the Church of God. 
But Ignatius was before all things the Martyr. Everything conspired to 
concentrate men's thoughts on his martyrdom— the sudden flash of 
light following upon the comparative obscurity of his previous life — the 
long journey across two continents from the far East to the far West — 
the visits to many churches and the visits from many others — the col- 
lection of letters in which his own burning words are enshrined — the 
final scene of all in the largest, most central, and most famous arena of 
the world. Hence his Episde to the Romans — his paean prophetic of 
the coming victory — became a sort of martyr's manual. In all the 
earliest authentic records of martyrdom — in the letter of the Church of 
Smyrna on the death of Polycarp, in the contemporary account of the 
persecutions at Vienne and Lyons, and in the Acts of Perpetua and 
Felicitas at Carthage — alike its influence is seen. The earliest direct 
quotation from Ignatius (Iren. v. 28. 4) is the passage in which he 
describes himself as the vv^heat-flour ground fine for the sacrificial offering 
{Rom. 4). The diction and imagery of martyrology follow henceforth in 
the tracks of Ignatius. It is quite possible indeed that he himself in 
many points merely adopted language already familiar when he wrote. 
All we can say is, that among extant writings many thoughts and expres- 
sions, current in later martyrologies, occur here for the first time. i 
It is a cheap wisdom which at the study table or over the pulpit desk I 
declaims against the extravagance of the feelings and language of Igna- 
tius, as the vision of martyrdom rose up before him. After all it is only 
by an enthusiasm which men call extravagance that the greatest moral 
and spiritual triumphs have been won. This was the victor}'' which over- 
came the world — the faith of Ignatius and of men like-minded with him. 
The sentiment in Ignatius is thoroughly earnest, thoroughly genuine. It 
does not, as in lower natures, minister to spiritual pride. No humility 
could be more real than his. He felt only as a brave man must feel who 
is leading a forlorn hope. He believed that for himself death \vas life 
and life was death. He was 

Assured the trial fiery fierce but fleet 

Would from his little heap of ashes lend 

Wings to the conflagration of the world, 

Which Christ awaits ere He makes all things new. 


So should the frail become the perfect, rapt 
From glory of pain to glory of joy^. 

He felt that if his friends, kindly cruel, should interpose between him 
and martyrdom, a golden opportunity would be lost and a grievous 
wound intiicted on the Church of Christ. Who shall say that he was 
wrong ? Would it not have been an irreparable loss, if their interces- 
sions had prevailed ? 

But the example of heroic courage was not the only legacy which 
Ignatius bequeathed to the Church. His glory as a martyr commended 
his lessons as a doctor. His teaching on matters of theological truth 
and ecclesiastical order was barbed and fledged by the fame of his 
constancy in that supreme trial of his faith. 

The direct interest of his theological teaching has indeed passed 
away with the heresy against which it was directed. The docetism 
which Ignatius controverted is altogether a thing of the past. Later 
generations marvel that such a form of error could have caused even 
momentary anxiety to the Church of Christ. It seems so very unsub- 
stantial ; it is so directly antagonistic to the bias of later aberrations from 
the faith. To deny the truth of Christ's humanity, to question the 
reality of His birth and life and death in the flesh, is the shadow of 
smoke, is the dream of a dream, to ourselves. Yet all the notices con- 
spire to show that during a considerable part of the second century it 
constituted a very real danger to Christianity. At the same time the 
indirect interest of the theological teaching of this father can never fail ; 
for it exhibits plainly enough, though in rotigher outline and without 
his preciseness of definition, the same insistence on the twofold nature of 
Christ^the humanity and the divinity — which distinguished the teach- 
ing of the great Athanasius two centuries and a half later. 

On the other hand in matters of ecclesiastical order the direct inter- 
est of the martyr's lessons was never more intense than it is at the 
present day. When at the catastrophic epoch of the Reformation 
several communities of Christendom broke loose from the form of 
government which had prevailed throughout the Church from the close 
of the Apostolic age, the notices in the earliest writers bearing on this 
subject came to be narrowly scanned.,. Of all fathers of the Church, 
early or late, no one is more incisive or more persistent in advocating 
the claims of the threefold ministry to allegiance than Ignatius. /Hence 
from that time forward his letters have been the battle-field of contro- 
versy. Yet with himself this subject, prominent as it is, was secondary 

1 Browning The Ring and The Book iv. p. 76. 


to the other. The ecclesiastical order was enforced by him almost 
solely as a security for the doctrinal purity. The unity of the body was 
a guarantee of the unity of the faith. The threefold ministry was the 
husk, the shell, which protected the precious kernel of the truth. 

The frequent echoes of the Epistle to the Romans in various Acts 
of Martyrdom, as well as the direct quotations from his letters in 
Irenteus and Origen, show that his memory was kept alive in the Ante- 
nicene periods ; but the prominence given to his martyrdom and writings 
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius doubtless secured to him from 
that time forward a wider fame. 

It seemed Hkely however for a time that his fame would be 
eclipsed by a younger aspirant to popular honours at Antioch. Babylas 
was a far less considerable personality than Ignatius ; but from nearness 
of time he occupied a larger space in the field of view. Moreover 
recent circumstances had invested his memory with a splendour which 
was lacking to the earlier martyr. 

Babylas had won for himself a name by his heroic courage, as 
bishop of Antioch. It was related of him that on one occasion, when 
the emperor Philip, who was a Christian, had presented himself one 
Easter Eve at the church at the time of prayer, he had boldly re- 
fused admission to the sovereign, till he had gone through the proper 
discipline of a penitent for some offence committed \ He acted like 
a good shepherd, says Chrysostom (p. 545), who drives away the scabby 
sheep, lest it should infect the flock. This anticipation of a later 
and more famous scene between S. Ambrose and Theodosius at Milan 

^ Eusebius {H. E. vi. 34) relates the (C^r^w. /"a^r/z. p. 503sq, ed. Bonn.). He 

incident, but does not name either the stated that Babylas repelled both Philip 

place or the bishop {tov TTjviKade irpoecrTu)- and his wife from the church, and he 

Tos). Philip however would pass through mentioned the crime of Philip. Philip, 

Antioch on his way to Rome immediately when prefect, had been placed in charge 

after his accession (a.d. -244); and ac- of the son of the emperor Gordian ; but on 

cording to the sequence of events in the death of Gordian, he perfidiously and 

the History Babylas would be bishop of cruelly slew this prince, and himself seized 

that see at the time, for his accession the empire. Somewhat later Chrysostom 

is mentioned earlier (vi. 29), and his tells a similar story, which he decks out 

death later (vi. 39). On the other hand with all the luxuriance of his rhetoric; 

in the Chronicon (both the Armenian but he does not mention the name of 

and Jerome's recension) the accession Philip or of Gordian, and he represents 

of Babylas is placed after the death of the victim as the son of a foreign king 

Philip (11. pp. 181, 182, Schone). Leon- handed over as a hostage on the con- 

tius, a successor of Babylas in the see of elusion of peace {de S. Bab. c. Jul. 5 sq, 

Antioch, about a.d. 350, gave the names Op. 11. p. 544 sq). 



was not the only title of Babylas to respect. He was one of the 
sufferers in the persecution of Decius. It would seem that he died 
in prison from the effects of torture undergone during his examina- 
tion'. At all events in some form or other he was crowned with the 
glory of martyrdom. 

But he might have remained a mere name, hardly remembered, 
if remembered at all, in the crowded ranks of the noble army of 
martyrs, had not later events thrown a fresh lustre on his memory. 

During the reign of Constantius, in the year 351, the Csesar 
Gallus, the hapless brother of Julian, an ardent Christian in his way, 
being then resident at Antioch, had devised a more honourable resting- 
place for the reliques of Babylas, than the comparative obscurity of 
his original grave within the city. Daphne, the beautiful suburb of 
Antioch, the seat of the worship of Apollo, was renowned throughout 
the world. Antioch itself, Antioch the Great, though a far more con- 
siderable city than any of its namesakes, was commonly styled ' Antioch 

^ This seems to be the natural inter- 
pretation of the earliest notice of his 
death ; Euseb. //. E. vi. 39 rov BajivXa 
fiera. Trjv 6/jio\oyiav ev ^eafiwr-qpltxi fxerak- 
\a.i_avToz, For the accounts of later 
writers see Tillemont H. E. 11 1. p. 728 
sq. The inference which I have drawn 
from the account of Eusebius is favoured 
by the statement of Chrysostom (p. 554), 
that the chains were lying with the re- 
mains of the saint in his time. He him- 
self supposes that Babylas ordered the 
chains to be buried with him, assuming 
that he was executed. 

As regards the circumstances which led 
to his martyrdom, we may mark the fol- 
lowing stages in the development of the 
story, (i) Eusebius (about A.D. 325) re- 
lates his repulse of Philip and his death 
under Decius, without suggesting any con- 
nexion between the two. (2) Leontius 
(about A. D. 350) says distinctly that 
Decius put him to death to avenge the 
insult offered to his predecessor Philip. 
(3) Chrysostom (about a.d. 382) identifies 
the emperor who was repulsed with the 
emperor who put him to death, obviously 
meaning Decius, though the name is not 
mentioned. See also Philostorgius (H. E. 

vii. 8). On the improbability of Chryso- 
stom's account see Tillemont Ei)ip. in. p. 
645 sq. An attempt is made in the Bol- 
\a.-adis\.Act.Sa7ict. Sept. iv. p. 438 sq to de- 
fend Chrysostom's narrative ; but, though 
some difficulties are raised respecting the 
earlier account of Eusebius and Leontius, 
which represents Philip as the emperor 
who was repulsed, and so far the criticism 
tends to discredit the story altogether, it 
does nothing towards reinstating Chryso- 
stom's version of it. Chrysostom is an 
excellent authority for the events con- 
nected with the removal of the renques 
from Diphne, which occurred only twenty 
years before he wrote; but for the martyr- 
dom, which happened 130 years before, 
he is worthless. 

Another account, mentioned apparently 
with favour by Philostorgius (1. c.) and ap- 
pearing commonly at a later date, makes 
Xumerianus (a.d. 284) the emperor under 
whom Babylas suffered. On the question 
whether there is here a confusion between 
two martyrs called Babylas, or between 
Numerianus the emperor and Numerius 
the persecuting general under Decius, see 
Tillemont H. E. iii. p. 729 sq. 


near Daphne,' as if it were an appendage of the far-famed shrine and 
grove. No place was more highly favoured by nature than Daphne; 
none was more shamefully defiled by man. It was one of those so- 
called sanctuaries, where the grossest profligacy was consecrated in 
the name of religion. Its shameful immoralities are painted in the 
darkest colours by the contemporary historian Sozomen. Its fatal 
allurements are better known to the modern reader through a vivid 
description in the pages of the Decline and Fall, borrowed largely from 
the account of this ancient writer. The bounties of nature, the um- 
brageous foliage above, the flowery carpet beneath, the grottos and 
streams, conspired with the works of man, the porticos and colonnades 
and baths, to invest vice with a peculiar attraction'. It was thought 
disgraceful, says the Christian historian, for any decent man to set 
foot in this suburb ^ To these precincts Gallus translated the body of 
Babylas. By so doing, says Chrysostom, he brought a physician to 
the sick (p. 556). The presence of the martyr would purify the 
place and invest it with higher associations, while his intrusion into 
this chief sanctuary of the heathen religion would be a fatal blow 
dealt at idolatry. So the bones of Babylas were laid hard by the 
shrine of Apollo. A few years later (a.d. 362) the emperor Julian^ 
then preparing for his fatal Persian expedition, paid a visit to Antioch. 
He was assiduous in his attentions to Apollo of Daphne. He con- 
sulted the oracle there, but no answer was vouchsafed. When pressed 
for a response, the god replied that the contiguity of dead men's 
bones was an offence to him and sealed his lips. No name was 
mentioned. The demon was ashamed, so said S. Chrysostom, to 
utter the name of the holy martyr, and thus confess his defeat (pp. 
560 sq, 566). But Julian could hardly misunderstand the bearing 
of this dark hint. It was well conceived as an appeal to one whose 
constant reproach against the Christians was their reverence for dead 

1 For a description of Daphne at this the temple and image: Julian J/wc/. 361 
time see especially Sozom. H. E. v. 19, (p. 466, Hertlein); Liban. Or. in. p. 332 
Chrysost. de S. Bab. c. Jul. 12 sq (il. p. sq ; Chrysost. de Hierom. Bab.., Op. 11. p. 
555 sq), Liban. Or. i. p. 303 sq, p. 351 531 sq, de S. Bab. c. Jul. 12 sq. Op. il. 
sq, III. p. 332 sq (ed. Reiske). p. 555 sq ; Rufin. H. E. x; 35 sq ; Sozom. 

2 Sozom. I.e. eTTi^aiveiP rots eTnelKeaLV H. E. v. 19 sq ; Socr. H. E. iii. 18 sq ; 
o.iax(iov evofii^eTo ; comp. Chrysost. p. Theodt. //. E. iii. 6 sq, Graec. Aff. Cur, 
555 sq. X {Op. IV. p. 964, Schulze); Philostorg. 

3 The following are the authorities for H. E. vii. 8 sq ; Evagr. H. E. i. 16; 
the incidents connected with the removal Theophanes Chronogr. p. 76 sq, ed. 
of the reliques and the conflagration of Bonn. 



bones'. So the younger brother undid the work of the elder. JuHan 
commanded the Christians to remove from Apollo's sanctuary the 
loathsome coffin which Gallus had deposited there^ They did so : 
but they managed to render their compliance more offensive to the 
emperor than their refusal could have been. Men, women, and chil- 
dren, in crowds joined the festive procession which accompanied the 
holy reliques to their resting-place within the city. Along the whole 
route — the Daphnaean sanctuary was four or five miles distant from the 
city^ — they sung the psalm of defiance, ' Confounded be all they that 
worship graven images.' The emperor was furious at these demon- 
strations. Christians were apprehended and put to the torture*; but 
nothing was gained by this severity. He was advised that coercion only 
aggravated the evil which he sought to remove. But a still heavier 
blow awaited the god of the Daphnaean grove. Shortly after the re- 
moval of the martyr's bones, a fire broke out in the shrine ^ The 

1 Julian in Cyrill. c. Julian, p. 335 
(Spanheim) and elsewhere. 

" Ammianus (xxii. 12) says nothing 
about Babylas, but represents it as a 
general purgation by the removal of all 
the bodies buried in the neighbourhood, 
'statim circumhumata corpora statuit ex- 
inde transferri eo ritu quo Athenienses 
insulam purgaverant Delon.' Christian 
writers however, one and all, state that 
the emperor directed the removal of the 
remains of Babylas, and betray no know- 
ledge of a general order; Chrysostom (p. 
562) says distinctly that this one body 
alone was removed (5ta rh \x-r\hiva. rG)v 
dWwv veKpQv, aXXo. fxovov rov fxdprvpa 
/leTaKLvrjdrjvai eKeWev ; comp. also p. 534); 
and so too Theodoret {If. E. iii. 6): and 
their account is borne out by the language 
of Julian himself {Misop. 361 kirel de 
aweTreiJ.\j/dfj.€6a tov veKpov rrjs Adcpvris... 
rots vwip Tuv \eL\{/dv(j)v rjyavaKrriKocn toO 
v€Kpov) and of Libanius (Or. III. p. 333 
viKpov rivoi ipox^ovvTos), so that there 
can be no doubt as to the motive or the 
effect of the emperor's orders, whether 
they were couched in general terms or 

^ Rufinus says 'six,' but this appears 
to be an exaggeration. 

^ One of the chief sufferers, Theo- 
dorus, was afterwards known to Rufinus 
(x. 36), who questioned him about the 
incident; see also Socrates (H. E. iii. 19), 
who mentions this interview with Rufinus. 
It is alluded to also by Sozom. v. %o, 
Theodt. //. E. iii. 7, but they speak of 
' certain persons ' and do not mention 
Rufinus by name. Gibbon seems to 
confuse this young man Theodorus the 
confessor with Theodoretus the presbyter 
and martyr, who was put to death about 
this time at Antioch by the Count Julianus 
the uncle of the emperor (Sozom. v. 8, 
Ruinart's Act. Mart. Sine. p. 605 sq), 
for he speaks in his text of ' a presbyter 
of the name of Theodoret' and in his 
notes of 'the passion of S. Theodore in 
the Acta Sincera of Ruinart.' On the 
confusion of the names 'Theodorus,' 
' Theodoretus,' see Tillemont //. E. vii. 

P- 735- 

^ Gibbon says, ' During the night 
which terminated this indiscreet pro- 
cession, the temple of Daphne was in 
flames,' and later writers have blindly 
followed him. He does not give any 
authority, but obviously he is copying 
Tillemont H. E. ill. p. 407 'en mesme 
temps que Ton portoit dans la ville la 



statue of the god, represented as Musagetes, was reduced to cinders. 
The roof of the shrine also was burnt ; but the columns and walls 
were left standing as a testimony, so insists Chrysostom (pp. 534 sq, 
564 sq, 572 sq, 577). One report represented the fire as accidental; 
the philosopher Asclepiades had been burning tapers at the foot of the 
statue, and the sparks had ignited the dry wood'. Julian not un- 
naturally persuaded himself that the Christians had set it on fire^ 
The Christians gave a different explanation. They averred that the 
flames were declared by the priests in attendance to have broken out in 
the head of the statue, not in the feet ; that the emperor put the priests 
to the torture ; and that nevertheless they persisted in their first state- 
ment. Plainly therefore it was struck by fire from heaven ^ Thus the 
holy martyr Babylas had a double victory. His presence had silenced 
the voice of the evil demon ; his expulsion had been avenged by 
the overthrow of the same*. 

chasse du saint martyr, c'est a dire la 
nuit suivante.' The only passage which 
Tillemont quotes is Ammianus (xxii. 13) 
'eodem tempore die xi Kal. Novembr.,' 
which does not bear him out. On the 
contrary the historians generally (e. g. 
Sozom. V. 20, Theodt. iii. 7) place the 
persecutions which followed on the pro- 
cession, and which must have occupied 
some time, before the burning of the 

1 Ammianus (xxii. 13) mentions this, 
and characterizes it as 'rumor levissimus.' 
Gibbon falls into the error of applying 
this expression to Julian's charge against 
the Christians, and compliments Am- 
mianus on his 'extraordinary candour.' 
The compliment was well deserved, but 
not on this ground. 

2 Ammian. 1. c. In JMisopogon p, 361 
he himself speaks vaguely and not very 
intelligibly, ot hi ehe Xadovres e'ire firj t6 
irvp ^Sei^av iKetvo. 

■^ All those Christian writers who men- 
tion the conflagration account for it in 
this way. They regard it as an answer 
to the prayers of the martyr, who thus 
confounded the demon ; Chrysost. p. 
565, etc.; Theodoret 11. cc; Philostorg. 
1. c. Sozomen (//. E. v. 20) says 156/cet 5e 

ToU XptCTiafots Kara airyjcnv tov /xapTvpos 
OerfKaTov e/MTrecre'lv t<2 dai/xovi irvp, ot 5e 
"EXXTji/es eKoyoiroLovv 'KpLcxTiaviiv etvai to 
dpa/xa K.T.X. Theodoret (If. E. iii. 7) goes 
so far as to state that some rustics in the 
neighbourhood saw the thunderbolt fall. 

It seems probable that the Christian 
account was correct. Chrysostom, Sozo- 
men, and Theodoret, all declare that the 
attendants of the temple were examined 
and even maltreated to induce them to 
inform against some one, but in vain. 
The evidence showed that the statue had 
been ignited from above. There seems 
no reason for questioning the fact of this 
examination. Chrysostom (p. 560) ap- 
peals to his audience, of whom a large 
number were old enough to recollect the 
facts, and asks them to contradict him if 
he makes any misstatement. If this ac- 
count of the ignition be not accepted, the 
alternative would seem to be that the fire 
was owing to some carelessness of the 
priests in attendance, which they did not 
care to confess. Libanius {Or. in. p. 334) 
believes it was the work of an incendiary, 
but does not name the Christians. 

■* The successive resting-places of Ba- 
bylas were as follows; (i) He lay in a 
martyrium within the city, Chrysost. p. 



But, though obscured for a time 
martyr, the memory of Ignatius 

554 sq, 565, etc. ; (2) He was translated 
by the Cresar Gallus to the precincts of 
the Daphncean Apollo, and placed in a 
martyriuvi there ; {3) He was removed 
by order of Julian, and replaced by the 
Christians in his former martyrhiDi within 
the city (Chrysost. p. 564 rCyv lepwv etcru 
■rrepi^oXwi' iv oh Koi npoTepov eruyx"-^^^ 
ixiv wplv eh TTjv Ad(pvriu eXdeiv, p. 565 eh 
r7]v noXcv d<piKeTO, comp. //'. rb jxaprvpiov 
eKarepop, to re ev rfi Aa(pvrj to re iv ttJ 
TToXet) ; (4) A magnificent chirch was 
liuilt soon after, outside the walls of the 
city on the other side of the Orontes, and 
dedicated to the martyr, and in it his 
bones were finally placed ; Chrysost. de 
Hieroin. Bab. p. 535 r/ 5^ toO Geoi! x«P's 
oijK etaffev eKec dnjueKUS fielvai, dWa 
iraXiv avrbv tov vora/j-ov iripav /leT^CTrj- 
aev K.T.X. The bishop (his name is not 
mentioned by Chrysostom, but JVIeletius 
is meant) took an active part in the 
erection of this church ; he even laboured 
with his own hands, pulling ropes and 
carrying stones in the heat of summer ; 
and dying soon after (t 381) he was buried 
by the side of the martyr, for whose 
honour he had been so zealous (comp. 
also Sozom. //. E. vii. 10). This church 
is mentioned by Evagrius nearly two 
centuries later {H. E. i. 16 J'ews ixvt(^ irpb 
T-^s TTo'Xews wa/xfj-eyeOris avio'TaTO 6 Kai 
p.iXP'- WWf auj^oixevos). 

I have thought it worth while to collect 
these facts, because erroneous statements 
are made on this subject in quarters where 
greater accuracy might have been ex- 
pected. Thus Miiller cie Antiq. Antioch. 
p. 105 says of Babylas, 'In ea aede coli 
coeptus esse videtur, quae extra portas 
trans Orontem sita erat. In hac cum 
ossa ejus primum composita essent, postea 
a Gallo principe in Daphnaeum delubrum 
translata sunt, ul)i cum Apollo mortui 
hominis vicinia os sibi occludi questus 
est...Julianus ca ossa in ilhul templum 

by the greater fame of the younger 
burnt brightly still. In the later 

extra urbem reportari jussit etc' But it 
is clear from Chrysostom's account that 
Babylas lay within the city before and 
after his temporary sojourn in Daphne, 
and that the church across the river was 
not built till some time after his return. 
Miiller may have been misled by Sozomen 
(v. 29) who writes, e'CkKvaav tt\v 0-t]K-r]v enl 
TTjv TToXiv wcel (rrdSia TecraapaKcvTa, ov 
vvv 6 /jLapTvs KeiTUi SeSwKws dir avTov Trjv 
irpoarjyoplav tQ tottoj, thus overlooking the 
period when the saint's bones reposed a 
second time within his original mar- 
tyriiim. Again vStephens, Saint Chryso- 
stom etc. p. 107, says ' At the time when 
Chrysostom wrote, some twenty years 
after the occurrence, the mournful wreck 
[of Apollo's temple] was yet standing, 
but the chapel [of Babylas in Daphne] 
again contained the relics of the saint 
and martyr,' etc. On the contrary 
Chrysostom distinctly states that the 
reliques were not taken back to Daphne 
(P- 577 V ^^ Xdpva^ ovk^ti TrdXiv dudyeTai), 
and he sees a divine providence in this. 
But Gibbon is the chief offender. He 
writes 'A magnificent church was erected 
[at Daphne] over his remains.' There 
seems to be a confusion here with the 
final resting-place of Babylas built sub- 
sequently by Meletius, 'un fort grand et 
fort beau temple' (Tillemont //. £. in. 
p. 407). Gibbon further says, 'As soon 
as another revolution seemed to restore 
the fortune of Paganism, the Church of 
S. Babylas [in Daphne] was demolished.' 
This is directly opposed to the statements 
of Chrysostom, who repeatedly mentions 
that this martyrium of Babylas in Daphne 
was left standing even after the fire (pp. 
534. 535. 565. 577' and elsewhere). On p. 
565 Chrysostom says of Julian KaTi<p\e^e... 
TO /xapTvpiop eKaTepov, to re ev Trj Adcpv-Q 
TO re eV rg Tro'Xft, el jxr] tov 6vp.ov 6 (po^oi 
Tjp iJ.eii'up K.T.X., 'He liad burnt both the 
martyria...z/"his fear had not been greater 


decades of the fourth century his grave was shown in the Christian 
cemetery, outside the Daphnitic gate' which led from the city westward 
to the famous suburb. Was it really the resting-place of this early 
martyr? Or did some monumental stone inscribed with the name 
Ignatius— no uncommon name — give rise to the belief by a too hasty 
identification.? This suspicion is not unreasonable. The tradition 
that the reliques were translated from Rome to Antioch cannot be 
traced back earlier than this date ; and it is at least more probable 
than not, that his ashes would be mingled with Roman dust near the 
scene of his martyrdom, indistinguishable from the other countless 
victims of the Flavian amphitheatre. About the same time, and per- 
haps somewhat earlier, we find October 17 assigned to him as the day 
of his earthly death, the day of his heavenly birth'. 

It was on this anniversary that Chrysostom, then a presbyter of 
Antioch, delivered his extant panegyric {Op. 11. p. 592 sq) on this 
father of the Church, this 'good shepherd' who in strict fulfilment 
of the Lord's precept had laid down his life for his sheep (p. 593). He 
accepts fully the story of the translation, and draws an imaginary 
picture of the return of the reliques. They were borne aloft on men's 
shoulders from city to city, like a victor returning in triumph, amidst 
the applause of the bystanders. 'Ye sent him forth,' so he addresses 
the Antiochenes — ' Ye sent him forth a bishop, and ye received him 
a martyr; ye sent him forth with prayers, and ye received him ^\'ith 
crowns.' ' Just as an inexhaustible treasure,' he adds, ' though drawn 
upon from day to day, yet never failing, makes all those who share in it 
the wealthier, so also this blessed Ignatius fiUeth those who come to 
him with blessings, with confidence, with a noble spirit, and with much 
braveness, and so sendeth them home' (p. 600 sq). And in conclusion 
he invites his hearers, in whatever trouble they may be, to 'come hither 
and see the saint,' that they may find relief (p. 601). The homilies 
of this famous preacher were commonly delivered in the ' Great 

than his rage.' Can it be that Gibbon lating to the 'Babylas riots,' I am bound 

read the first clause of the sentence and to say that I have found them full of 

overlooked the second ? Tillemont [H. E. loose and inaccurate statements. 

III. p. 406 sq) correctly describes the ^ Hieron. Catal. 16 'Reliquiae ejus 

successive migrations of the bones of Antiochiae jacent extra portam Daphni- 

Babylas. ticam in coemeterio'; see below 11. pp. 

Gibbon's command and marshalling 377 sq, 431 sq. 
of facts is admirable; and he is gene- " See below 11. p. 418 sq, with re- 
rally credited with exceptional accuracy. gard to the day of S. Ignatius. 
But having examined the two pages re- 


Church ' of Antioch ', which had been built by Constantine on 
the site of the 'Old Church,' the primitive place of assembly in this 
early home of Gentile Christianity, and of which Eusebius has left a 
brief description ^ But the thrice-repeated invitation to 'come hither*' 
seems to show that in this case the orator was speaking in the presence 
of the real or supposed reliques of the saint, and therefore in the 
fnartyrium built over the grave in the cemetery near the Daphnitic 

But in the next generation the saint was transferred to a more 
honourable resting-place than this humble martyr's chapel outside 
the walls. Successive princes had vied with each other in the erection 
of splendid buildings at Antioch — Syrian kings, Roman emperors, 
even foreign sovereigns like Herod the Great. In this long roll of 
benefactors the younger Theodosius held a conspicuous place. Under 
this emperor successive governors of Syria and great officers of state 
contributed to the adornment of this 'eastern metropoHs' — Memno- 
nius, Zoilus, Callistus, Anatolius, Nymphidius. The empress Eudocia 
herself claimed kindred with the Antiochenes and bore her part in this 
labour of love^. In this work of renovation the primitive bishop and 
martyr of the Church was not forgotten. 'The good God put it into 
the heart of Theodosius,' writes the historian, 'to honour the God- 
bearer with greater honours*.' The genius of the city, the Fortune of 
Antioch"^, was represented by a gilt-bronze statue, a master-piece of 
Eutychides of Sicyon, the pupil of Lysippus. A queenly figure, 
crowned with a diadem of towers, rested on a rock, doubtless in- 
tended for the mountain Silpius which formed the lofty background 
of Antioch, while from beneath her feet emerged the bust and arms 
of a youth, the symbol of the river-god Orontes. In her hand she 
bore a bundle of wheat-sheaves, the emblem of plenty. In the fourth 
century of the Christian era we find this statue, which was coeval 
with the building of the city, enshrined in a house of her own, which 
bore her name, the Tychteum or Temple of Fortuned To this 
ancient shrine the remains of Ignatius were borne aloft on a car with 

1 C. O. Miiller de Antiq. Antioch, p. ^ Evagr. H. E. i. i6. The passage is 

103 sq. quoted at length below, II. p. 387, note. 

" Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 50 ; comp. ^ For this deity and her statue see 

Z. C. ix. § 15. Miiller p. 35 sq. 

^ Op. II. p. 601 kvTa.vQa. irapayi- '' Ammian. xxiii. i 'gradile Genii tem- 

vfffdo}, ivravBa irapaylveffdai, iXOuv iv- plum,' Julian ^«^/. p. 546 (Spanheim) r6 

Tavda. TTJs Tvxv^ ri/xevos, Libanius Pro Tempi. 

* Miiller p. 115. II. p. -201 (Reiske); sec Miiller p. 40. 


great pomp through the city by the emperor's order, and there de- 
posited. From that time forward the Temple of Fortune was known 
as the ' Church of Ignatius.' The martyred bishop thus took the place 
of the tutelary genius in whom the past glories and the future hopes 
of Antioch centred. What became of the famous statue of Eutychides 
— whether it had already disappeared or was now removed elsewhere — 
we are not informed. But assuredly the same building could not hold 
the pagan image and the Christian reliques. From that day forward, 
we are told, the anniversary was kept as a public festival with great 
rejoicing. This anniversary was in all probability the 20th of Decem- 
ber, which in the later Greek Calendar is assigned to S. Ignatius, and 
displacing the original 17th of October, came to be regarded as the 
anniversary of the martyrdom, though in fact the anniversary of the 
translation to the Tychseum'. The time — the crowning day of the 
Sigillaria — may have been chosen designedly by the emperor, because 
he desired to invest with a Christian character this highly popular 
heathen festival'. 

It was in this ancient Temple of Fortune, thus transformed into 
a Christian Church, that on the first of January, the day of S. 
Basil and S. Gregory, Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop 
of Antioch, styled par excelleyice '■the patriarch,' year after year 
during his episcopate used to deliver his homilies on the two saints, 
taking occasion from time to time to turn aside from his main text 
and commemorate, as a man of like spirit, the apostolic martyr whose 
reliques reposed in the building^. It was here too that towards the 
close of the sixth century the Antiochene patriarch Gregory added 
fresh dignity and magnificence to the rites, already splendid, which 
graced the anniversary festival of Ignatius himself^. 

From the close of the fourth century the glory of Ignatius suffered 
no echpse in the East. His reputation was sustained in other ways 
than by popular festivals. The epistles forged or interpolated in his 
name are a speaking testimony to the weight of his authority on theo- 
logical questions. The legendary Acts of Martyrdom, professing to 
give an account of his last journey and conflict, evince the interest 
which was excited in his fate in the popular mind. The translation 
of his letters into Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic, rendered them ac- 
cessible to all the principal nations of Eastern Christendom. With the 
Monophysites more especially he was held in high honour. His theo- 

1 See below, 11. p. 434. 3 ggg below, 11. p. 420 sq. 

- See Mart. If^n. Ant. 6, with the ■* Evagr. H. E. i. 16, quoted below, 

note. II. p. 387, note. 




logy seemed to lend itself readily to their peculiar tenets. Hence the 
frequent quotations from his letters in Monophysite writers. To his 
fame also may probably be ascribed the fact that for some centuries 
past the Jacobite patriarchs of Antioch have regularly assumed the 
name of Ignatius on their accession to the see'. The popularity of 
the name Clement with the bishops of Rome presents a partial ana- 
logy to this fact. In like manner, just as an ancient Greek liturgy 
(perhaps written for the West) is ascribed to Clement as its author, 
so also a Jacobite Hturgy, though obviously late in date, bears the 
name of Isjnatius'. 

In the West on the other hand he seems never to have been a 
popular saint. It will be shown elsewhere (ii. p. 429 sq) that his foot- 
hold in Western calendars was precarious. Yet his fame must have been 
widely spread through the Latin Versions of the Greek Epistles, through 
the Acts of Martyrdom, and through the forged correspondence with 
the Virgin. At all events for some reason or other the name was not 
uncommon in Spain, even at an early date^: and in the sixteenth 
century it acquired an unwonted prominence in the founder of the 
most powerful order in Christendom. 

^ See Assemani Bibl. Orient, il. pp. 
381, 382, and also his Dissertatio dc 
Mo7iophysitis (which is unpaged). From 
the close of the i6th century the practice 
has been constant. I have not how- 
ever found any notice which connects 

it with Ignatius the apostolic father. 

^ See Renaudot Litiirg. Orient. 11. 
p. 214 sq. 

^ Yonge's History of Christian Naines 
I. p. 401 sq. 

IGN. I. 



Notices relating to persecutions under Trajan. 


C. Plini et Trajani Epistulae 96, 97. 


SoLLEMNE est mihi, domine, omnia de qiiibus dubito ad te referre. 
Quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere vel ignorantiam 
extruere ? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam : ideo nescio 
quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri. Nee mediocriter haesitavi 5 
sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus 
differant, detur poenitentiae venia an ei qui omnino Christianus fuit 
desisse non prosit, nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia 
nomini puniantur. Interim [in] iis qui ad me taraquam Christiani defere- 
bantur hunc sum secutus niodum. Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani. 10 
Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus : perse- 
verantes duci iussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod 
faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. 
Fuerunt alii similis amentiae quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in 
urbera remittendos. Mox ipso tractatu, ut fieri solet, diftundente se 15 
crimine plures species inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine auctore 
multorum nomina continens.. Qui negabant esse se Christianos aut 

4. extruere] This seems to have 'to be led to execution,^ as e.g. Seneca ^/^ 

been the reading of the MS, since it ap- Ira\. 18 'Cum iratus duci jussisset eum... 

pears in Avantius, though Aldus has conscendit tribunal furens Piso ac jubet 

'instruere.' If it be correct, the metaphor duci utrumque... ipsum centurionem, qui 

is taken from the erection of a building in damnatum reduxerat, duci jussit... Te, 

a vacant area; e.g. Cic. Resp. ii. 11 inquit, duci jubeo, quia damnatus es.' 

'aream sibi sumpsit in qua civitatem ex- So the Greek d7rd7ea-^at, e.g. Acts xii. 19 

strueret arbitratu suo.' eKiXevffev airaxOrivaL, where there is a 

Cognitionibus] ' the jitdicial enquiries.'' v. 1. (a gloss) diroKTavOrjvai. 
Whether the proceedings to which Pliny 13. obstinationem] This is the charge 

here refers took place in Trajan's reign or brought against the Christians by M. 

before, docs not appear ; see above, p. Aurelius xi. 3 /li.7] Kara \l/i\riu irapdra^iv, 

15. Pliny was pra;tor in A.D. 93 or 94, ws ol Xpi-ffnavol (see Gataker's note), 
but there is no reason to suppose that any 15. ipso tractatu] i.e. the mere handling 

prosecutions of Christians took place in of the affair led to a multiplication of 

Rome during his year of office, or that, if charges (diffundentese crimine) and thence 

such had taken place, they would neces- to the discovery of various types of incri- 

sarily have come before him. minated persons. 

12. duci] i.e. ad supplicium, ad mortem. 



fuisse, cum praeeunte me deos appellarent et imagini tuae, quam 
propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris numinum adferri, ture ac vino 
supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil posse cogi 
dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani, dimittendos esse putavi. Ahi ab 
5 indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt ; fuisse 
quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante 
viginti. [Hi] quoque oumes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra 
venerati sunt et Christo male dixerunt. Adfirmabant autem banc fuisse 
summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante 
10 lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, 
seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, 

I. praeeunte] '■dictating the. coords,' as 
in a similar case related Ep. x. 60 (52) 
'praeivimus et commilitonibus jusjuran- 
dum more sollemni. ' 

9. stato die] i.e. on Sunday; comp. Jus- 
tin Mart. ApoL i. 67 (p. 98) rij tov rjXiov Xe- 
yonivTj TjiJ-ipq. Trdi'TOJi'...€irl t6 avrb avp^Xev- 
ffis yiverai, and in the context he gives the 
reasons for the selection of this day. See 
also Barnab. 15, Ign. Magti. 9. For 
Pliny's account of these services of the 
Christians generally see Harnack's Christ- 
licher Gemeindegottesdienst p. 215 sq, 
with the references there given. 

10. carmenque] The word does not ne- 
cessarily imply a metrical composition, a 
song or hymn, but is used of any set form 
of words (e.g. Paneg. 92 ' sanctissimum 
illud carmen pracire dignatus es'). Yet 
here probably it is used in this more re- 
stricted sense, as the words seait?i invicem 
seem to show. See Hamack /. c. p. ■219 
sq, Probst Lehre u. Gebet p. 276 sq, and 
my note on Col. iii. 16. 

quasi deo] As Pliny is a heathen 
writer, the words should not improbably 
be translated 'as to a god' (comp. Acts 
xii. 22) ; but it does not follow that Ter- 
tullian and Eusebius so understood them. 
For the fact comp. Anon. [Ilippolytus] 
in Euseb. //. E. v. 28 \pa\fj.ol di 6croi Kai 
ifiSal dSeXcpup dir apxv^ i^tA iricrTwv ypa- 
<pe2(7ai TOV Aoyov rod QeoO tov "KpiaTov 
v/xvou<TL 6 eo\oyovi'Tes. Of such an 

early hymn we have perhaps an example 
in I Tim. iii. 16 (though Geos is not the 
correct reading). 

secum invicem] ' antiphonally ' : see 
Ilarnack /. c. p. 223 sq, Probst /. c. p. 
278. Compare the legend of Ignatius 
considered above, p. 31 sq. 

1 1 . sacramento] The word sacramentuiti 
in early Christian writings has two senses, 
(i) It is the equivalent of the Greek 
fxv(XT-r}piov, of which it is a rendering in 
the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate ; 
and thus it signifies 'a sacred ordinance 
or doctrine or fact,' more especially 
where a deeper verity is hidden under 
some familiar external form. Thus it is 
applied to the Old Testament, to the In- 
carnation, to the Cross, etc., and to 
parables and types generally : see the 
indices to Tertullian and Cyprian, and 
comp. Probst Sakramcnte u. Sakrainen- 
talien p. i sq. (2) It is used in its clas- 
sical sense of 'a solemn obligation or 
pledge or oath.' In both senses it was 
applicable to the two ordinances which 
we call sacraments (TertuU. adv. Marc. 
iv. 34 'ad sacramentum baptismatis et cu- 
charistiae admittens ') , though in the latter 
sense it was more appropriate to baptism, 
which involved a direct vow, than to the 
eucharist, where the pledge was implied 
rather than expressed. In classical lan- 
guage it was used especially of the oatli 
of allegiance taken by soldiers. The ap- 




ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum 
appellati abnegarent : quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rur- 
susque [coeundi] ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium ; 

plication to the Christian entering upon 
his spiritual warfare was obvious (■2 Tim. 
ii. 4 tVa Tip (TTpaToXoyrjaavTi apicrri, Ign. 
Polyc. 6 dpiffKere u arpaTeveade /c.r.X.) ; 
see TertuU. ad Mart. 3 ' Vocati sumus ad 
militiam Dei vivi jam tunc, cum in sa- 
cramenti verba respondemus,' Scorp. 4 
' Huic Sacramento militans ab hostibus 
provocor, ' Cypr. de Laps. 7 ' Christi 
sacramentum temeritate praecipiti sol- 
veretur,' ib. 13 ' Sacramenti mei memor 
devotionis ac fidei arma suscepi,' Anon. 
de Rcbaptism. 16 'perinde ac si quis sa- 
cramento miles dicto desertis suis castris 
in hostium diversissimis castris longe aliud 
sacramentum velit dicere, hac ratione 
constat eum vetere sacramento exaucto- 
ratum esse.' 

It would seem as if Pliny had here con- 
fused the two sacraments together. The 
words 'se sacramento obstringere' seem 
to refer specially to the baptismal pledge, 
whereas the recurrence on a stated day 
before dawn is only appropriate to the 
eucharist (Tertull, de Cor. 3 ' eucharistiae 
sacramentum . . . antelucanis coetibus . . . su- 
mimus '). This confusion he might easily 
have made from his misunderstanding his 
witnesses, if these witnesses related the 
one sacrament after the other, as they are 
related e.g. in Justin Martyr Apol. i. 65, 
and in Tertullian de Cor. 3 ; more espe- 
cially as it was the practice to administer 
the eucharist immediately to the newly 

It is possible however, that Pliny's 
witnesses, whose account he repeats, 
were not referring to either sacrament, 
but to the moral obligation which was 
binding on the Christian by virtue of his 

2. rursusque] The account here supposes 
two meetings in the course of the day : 
(i) Before daylight, when a religious ser- 

vice was held ; (2) Later in the day, pro- 
bably in the evening, when the agape was 
celebrated. In one or other therefore of 
these meetings a place must be found for 
the eucharist. The later meeting how- 
ever was suppressed after the issue of 
Trajan's edict forbidding clubs. The only 
possible alternative therefore is this : either 
the eucharist had been already separated 
from the agape and was celebrated before 
dawn, so that the agape could be sup- 
pressed or intermitted without serious 
injury; or it remained hitherto con- 
nected with the agape, and now was 
separated from it and placed at the early 
service in consequence of Trajan's edict. 
If the view that I have advocated of 
the drift of 'se sacramento obstringere' 
be correct, the former is the true account. 
This is also the opinion of Probst (Lehre 
u. Gebet p. 350 sq) ; but he assumes with- 
out any evidence that the change took 
place in S. Paul's time in consequence of 
the Apostle's denunciations of the irregu- 
larities at Corinth. Rothe also, in his 
programme De Primordiis Cnltus Sacri 
Christianoruni (185 1), attributes the sepa- 
ration of the eucharist from the agape to 
the Apostles themselves. On the other 
hand Harnack (/. c, p. 230 sq) advocates 
the view that it was due to the edict 
of Trajan. In some parts of Asia Minor, 
and probably at Antioch, the two were 
still connected when Ignatius wrote ; see 
Smyrn. 8 oure dyaTrrjp ivoi.€v with the 

3. coeundi] The word is not in the 
ed. princ, but appears in Aldus. 

innoxium] This is an indirect reference 
to the charges of 'Thyestean' banquets 
and 'CEdipodean' profligacies brought a- 
gainst the Christians in connexion with 
their celebration of the agape and the 
eucharist : Justin. Apol. i. 26 \vxviai /J-iv 


quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata 
tua hetaerias esse vetueram. Quo magisnecessarium credidi ex duabus 
ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenla 
quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam immodicam. 
5 Ideo dilata cognitione ad consulendum te decucurri. Visa est enim 
mihi res digna consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium numerum. 
Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, vocantur 
in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque civitates tantum sed vicos etiam 
atque agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est ; quae videtur 
lo sisti et corrigi posse. Certe satis constat prope iam desolata templa 
coepisse celebrari et sacra sollemnia diu intermissa repeti pastumque 
venire victimarum, cuius adhuc rarissimus emptor inveniebatur. Ex 
quo facile est opinari quae turba hominum emendari possit, si sit 
poenitentiae locus. 

15 Trajanus Plinio. 

Actum quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in excutiendis causis eorum qui 
Christian! ad te delati fuerant secutus es. Neque enim in universum 

avarpoTTrjv Kal rds aviS-qv fil^eis Kal avdpu}- 
ird<j}v aapKCiv §opds (comp. §§ 10, 23, 29, 
Apol. ii. 12, Dial. 10, 17), Ep. Vienn. et 
Lugd. 14 (in Eus. H. E. y. i) KaTe\pev- 
ffavTO Tj/xuv Qviffreia Seiirva Kai Oldnro- 
delovs fil^ei^ k.t.X. (comp. Iren. Eragm. 
13, p. 832 Stieren), Athenag. Leg. 3 
rpia eTn<prifi'i.^ovaw t}ixIv eyKKruxara dOed- 
T-qra, Qviareia ddirua, Oidnroddovs fxi^eis 
(comp. § 31), Theoph. ad Autol. iii. 4, 15, 
Tertull. Apol. 7, ad Nat. i. 7. These 
calumnies were repeated by Fronto of 
Cirta, the tutor of M. Aurelius (of whom 
see Teuffel Gesch. d. Rom. Lit. § 333) ; 
Minuc. Fel. Octav. 9, 31. Origen, reply- 
ing to Celsus (<-. Cels. vi. 27), accuses the 
Jews of circulating these very slanders 
/caret T7]v dpxk" tV^ toO xP"'"''"*''"''/"*''^ 5t- 
dacTKaXlas. They will explain the epithets 
used by Tacitus when speaking of the 
Christians, Ann. xv. 44, ' per fiagitia 
invisos...per urbem etiam quo cuncta un- 
(Vique a/roci'a [Ovicrreia deiirua] etpitdcnda 
[OionrodeioL fMl^eis] confluunt celebrantur- 

2. hetaerias] On the emperor's hostility 
to clubs or guilds see above, p. 18 sq. 

For their connexion with forbidden re- 
ligions in the heathen mind, see Dion 
Cass. Iii. 36 Kaivd riva Sat/nowa ol tolov- 
TOi ai/rea^iipovTes iroWovs dvaireidovai.v 
dWoTpioi'Ofj.eii', KaK toijtov Kal avvconocrlai 
Kal avardaeiS eTaipeiai re yiyi/ovrai, direp 
TJKiaTa fiovap-xlq. avfupipei, Philo in Flacc. 
I (11. p. 518) Ta.% re tracpeias Koi ffvvo- 
80VS, at dd eirl irpofpdaei dixnwv eicmwPTo 
TOis trpa.yp.aaLv ipiTr apOLvovcxai, S^cXue. Ro- 
man guilds are the subject of a mono- 
graph by Th. Mommsen de Collegiis et 
Sodaliciis RomanoriDii (Kiliae, 1843). 

3. quae ministrae dicebantur] This 
is doubtless Pliny's own translation of the 
Greek tuaKovoi 'deaconesses' (comp. Rom. 
xvi. I, I Tim. iii. 11), which he heard. 
The word viinistra is not, so far as I 
remember, used as an equivalent for dia- 
conissa in the Latin ecclesiastical lan- 

1 1, pastum] i.e. fodder is sold for the 
cattle which are waiting to be sacrificed. 
The ed. princ. has passuin, which is 
corrected by Beroaldus. Aldus boldly 
corrects passimque venire victimas qua- 


aliquid quod quasi certain formam habeat constitui potest. Conquirendi 
non sunt : si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt, ita tamen ut qui 
negaverit se Christianum esse idque re ipsa manifestum fecerit, id 
est supplicando dis nostris, quamvis suspectus in praeteritum, veniam 
ex poenitentia impetret. Sine auctore vero propositi libelli [in] nuUo 
crimine locum habere debent. Nam et pessimi exempli nee nostri 
saeculi est. 

The correspondence of Pliny and Trajan is commonly designated the tenth book 
of Pliny's letters, being so treated by the early editor Aldus. This however is a wrong 
designation. It is a separate work, and Keil in his edition has accordingly reinstated 
it in an independent position. He has also restored the original order of the epistles 
as found in the MS. This order has been shown by Mommsen {Hermes iii. p. 53 sq, 
1869) to be chronological. It had been changed, apparently by H. Stephens, who 
placed first those letters of Pliny to which Trajan's answer has not been preserved. 

The earlier editions of PHny's letters did not contain this correspondence. It was 
first published in the beginning of the sixteenth century from a MS in France, now no 
longer extant. The editio princeps by H. Avantius (1502) contained only the later 
letters from the 42nd onward. Avantius was followed by two other editors (Ph. 
Beroaldus 1502, and Catanaeus 1506), who introduced some corrections of their own, 
but made no use of the MS. At length in 1508 Aldus Manutius, having obtained pos- 
session of the MS, published the whole. For the earlier letters (i— 41) he was entirely 
dependent on the MS, but the later he appears to have taken from Avantius and pre- 
vious editors, introducing some emendations of his own, with little or no consultation 
of the MS. Thus the only authorities for the text of the letters relating to the Christians 
are the editions of Avantius and Aldus, the latter being of very secondary importance. 
The history of the text of this correspondence is given by J. C. Orelli Historia Critica 
Epistolariim Plinii et Trajani usque ad Ann. MDLii (Turici, 1833), and in the 
preface (p. xxxiii sq) to Keil's edition of Pliny (Lips. 1870). To Keil I am indebted 
for the information which I have given. Variot (de Plin. Jim. etc. p. 58 sq) seems 
not to have read Keil's preface, and gives a less correct account of the early editions. 

This correspondence, thus appearing suddenly, was received at first with some 
slight hesitation; but the preface of Aldus Manutius silenced doubts. From that 
time forward the genuineness of these letters does not appear to have been disputed. 
Indeed, after Mommsen's investigations on the chronology of Pliny's life, it could 
only be questioned by a scepticism bordering on insanity. Whether we regard 
the style or the matter, they are equally inconceivable as the invention of a 

With the two letters however, which relate to the persecution of the Christians, 
the case has been different. With characteristic recklessness Semler in his Ncrjae 
Observationes Hist, et Relig. Christ, etc. saec. ii. p. 37 (Hallae, 1784) took the 
initiative in the attack on the genuineness of these letters. But he has not 
succeeded in enlisting many followers. Quite recently however Aube in his 
Histoire des Persecutions de V Eglise etc. p. 215 sq (1875) has marshalled in detail 
the misgivings to which he had already given expression elsewhere {Revue Contempo- 
raine, 2e Serie, Lxviii. p. 401). He does not however definitely decide against 
their genuineness, but contents himself with setting forth the objections which might 


be urged against them. They are such as any fairly ingenious person might raise 
against the most authentic document. Aube has found a follower in E. Desjardins 
Revue des Deux Mondcs ler Decembre 1874. The objections are answered by Variot 
de Plinio Juniore et Impcratore Trajano apud Christianos etc. (Paris, 187S), and again 
in \hQ Revue des Questions Historiques ler Juillet 1878, p, 80 sq; by Boissier in the 
Revue ArchMogiqiie Fevrier 1876, p. 114 sq; and by Renan Les Eva)igiles p. 476, 
and Journal des Savants, 1876, p. 721 sq. The still more recent attack of Hochart 
{Persecution des Chretiens sous Neron p. 79 sq, 1885) is only part of an attempt to 
discredit all the references to the Christians in early heathen writers. 

These objections hardly deserve serious refutation. Thus much however may be 
said generally; (i) These two letters cannot be separated from the collection in which 
they appear. In style and character they are in entire harmony with the rest. Of the 
style Renan {Les Evangilcs p. 476) says truly, 'On ne croira jamais qu'un faussaire 
Chretien eut pu si admirablement imiter la langue precieuse et raffinee de Pline.' And 
if from the style we turn to the character and purport, such a forgery is equally incon- 
ceivable. Any reader for instance, who will refer to what has been said above (p. 18 
sq) respecting Trajan's hostility to clubs or guilds, will see how exactly they fit into 
the place which they occupy in the series, and will recognise the extreme improbability 
that this appropriateness could have been the result of an adventitious forgery. (2) They 
are attested by the references in Tertullian. Hence Aldus in his preface was justified 
in regarding their presence as a testimony to the genuineness of the correspondence 
between Pliny and Trajan generally. The evidence of Tertullian is not indeed 
infallible in itself; but it has been unduly discredited. It is a mistake for instance 
to suppose that he quotes the extant spurious Acta Pilati as genuine (Apol. 21 'ea 
omnia super Christo Pilatus...Caesari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit'). Tertullian, like his 
predecessor Justin Martyr {Apol. i. 35, p. 76, dvvacrde ixaOelv e/c tQiv eirl JIovtIov 
IltXdrou yevo/xefuv atcTuv. comp. Apol. i. 48, p. 84), assumes that the Roman archives 
contained an official report sent by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius. He is not referring to 
any definite literary work which he had read. The extant forgery was founded on 
these notices of the early fathers and not conversely. After all deductions made for 
possible error, the attestation of Tertullian to these letters has the highest value. 
(3) The pictures of Trajan and Pliny on the one hand and of the Christians on the other 
are alike unfavourable to the idea of a forgery. The confessedly spurious documents 
relating to this reign, such as the Acts of Ignatius or the Letter of Tiberianus, paint 
the emperor and his subordinates in the darkest colours, which contrast strongly with 
the studious moderation and the inherent sense of justice here attributed to them. 
Again what Christian writer, if bent on a forgery and therefore unfettered by any 
scruples of veracity, would have confessed that crowds of his fellow-believers had 
denied their faith, that all alike had abandoned their agapK at the bidding of a heathen 
magistrate, that the persecution was already refilling the heathen temples which 
before were empty, and that there was good hope, if the same policy was pursued, 
of a general apostasy ensuing? What Christian writer could have so far re- 
strained himself, as not only to be silent about bishops and priests, about sects and 
heresies, about the doctrines of the faith, but even to betray those misapprehensions 
or half-apprehensions, which appear in such expressions as 'se Sacramento obstringere,' 
'ad capiendum cibum,' 'duabus ancillis quae ministrae dicebantur'? The passage 
which has excited the greatest suspicion is that which relates to the numbers of the 
Christians; but, if Tacitus {Ann. xv. 44) nearly half a century earlier can speak 
of 'a vast multitude' as suffering at Rome in the Neronian persecution, the language 


of Pliny's letters, relating to the era of Trajan and to a part of the world where the 
spread of Christianity had been exceptionally rapid, ought not to create any surprise. 
Nor again is there suiificient reason for adopting the suspicion of De la Berge [Essai 
sur le Eigne de Trajan p. 209) that Trajan's reply, as we possess it, is 'only an extract 
from a longer letter or from several letters which issued from the imperial chancery'. 
It is true that the emperor does not in so many words reply to Pliny's query, whether 
tender age should be more leniently treated ; but he says generally tliat no universal 
law can be laid down, and in fact refers all such matters to Pliny's common sense. 
And again, though he does not directly reply to the question whether the mere 
profession of Christianity ('nomen ipsum') was a sufficient ground for punishment 
or not, yet indirectly he gives the answer. Pliny had acted as if Christianity were 
forbidden in itself— independently of any oflfences which individual Christians might 
have committed — and Trajan tells him that he had acted rightly. 

Pliny's letter was written in the autumn or winter of a.d. 112, as Mommsen 
seems to have shown; see the note on Mart. Igii. Rom. 11. His title was 'Lega- 
tus pro praetore provinciae Ponti et Bithyniae consulari potestate' (see Marquardt 
Romischc Staatsver-cualtung I. p. 194; Gsell Melanges d' Archcol. et d'Histoire vii. 
p. 376 sq, 1887), and he was entrusted with this province because its condition was 
such as to need special attention at that time {Plin. et Traj. Ep. 41 [32], 118 [117]). 
On his government generally see De la Berge I.e. p. 119 sq. 

Like his master Trajan (see above, p. 4sq), Pliny has been claimed as a Christian 
convert on the strength of his comparative leniency and moderation of language. 
The late and unauthentic Acts of Titus, ascribed to Zenas (Tit. iii. 13), so repre- 
sented him (see Fabricius Bibl. Latin. Ii. p. 418 sq, ed. Ernesti, Cod. Apocr. Nov. 
Test. II. p. 831 sq); and in accordance with the story there told we read in the 
spurious Chronicon of L. Flavius Dexter s. ann. 220 ' Is Titus converterat ad fidem 
Plinium Juniorem, ex Bithynia Pontoque redeuntem, in insula Creta ubi jussu Trajani 
Jovi templum extruxerat. Nee desunt qui putent septima Sextilis ad Novocomum 
esse passum.' These representations -cannot be unconnected with a notice on the 
Martyrol. Roman, under the 7th of August, ' Novocomi passio sanctorum martyrum 
Carpophori, Exanthi, Cassii, Secundi, et Licinii, qui in confessione Christi capite 
truncati sunt.' This notice may have been the cause of the story about Pliny. The 
Secundus here mentioned might then be supposed to have been a freedman of the 
family of Pliny. But in older authorities the place of martyrdom is differently given. 
Thus in the Liberian Catalogue we have among the depositions 'vii Id. Aug. 
Secundi, Carpophori, Victorini, et Severiani, Albano et Ostiense,' and in the Hiero- 
nymian Martyrology 'vi Idus Aug. Romae, natalis sanctorum Secundini (sic), Seve- 
riani, Carpofori, Victorini, et Albini, etc.'; while in an addition to Usuard it runs 
' In Italia Cumis passio sanctorum martyrum Carpophori, Exanti, Cassii, Severini, et 
Secundini, qui passi sunt sub Maximiano tyranno sacrilego.' This last form suggests 
that the identification of ' Secundus ' with Pliny may have arisen from a confusion of 
'Cumis' and 'Comi,' which has a parallel in the text of Hermas, Vis. i. i, ii. 1. The 
whole matter might perhaps repay further investigation. 

For the literature connected with these letters relating to the Christians see Fabri- 
cius Bibl. Lat. I.e., Mayor Bibliographical Cine to Latin Literature p. 148 sq. 



Tertullianus Apologdicuin 2. 

Atquin invenimus inquisilionem quoque in nos prohibitam. Plinius 
enim Secundus cum provinciam regeret, damnatis quibusdam Christianis, 
quibusdam gradu pulsis, ipsa tamen multitudine perturbatus, quid de 
cetero ageret, consuluit tunc Trajanum imperatorem, adlegans praeter 
5 obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de sacramentis eorum 
comperisse, quam coetus antelucanos ad canendum Christo ut deo et ad 
confoederandam disciplinam, homicidium, adulterium, fraudem, per- 
fidiam, et cetera scelera prohibentes. Tunc Trajanus rescripsit, hoc 
genus inquirendos quidem non esse, oblatos vero puniri oportere. O 

10 sententiam necessitate confusam! Negat inquirendos ut innocentes, et 
mandat puniendos ut nocentes. Parcit et saevit, dissimulat et animad- 
vertit. Quid temetipsam, censura, circumvenis ? Si damnas, cur non et 
inquiris ? si non inquiris, cur non et absolvis ? Latronibus vestigandis 
per universas provincias militaris statio sortitur; in reos majestatis et 

I c publicos hostes omnis homo miles est ; ad socios, ad conscios usque, 
inquisitio extenditur. Solum Christianum inquiri non licet, offerri licet, 
quasi aliud esset actura inquisitio, quam oblationem. Damnatis itaque 
oblatum, c^uem nemo voluit requisitum ; qui, puto, jam non ideo meruit 
poenani, quia nocens est, sed quia, non requirendus, inventus est. 

3. de cetero] "■ for the future'' : comp. is one point more certain than another, it 

ad Scap. 3, with Oehler's note. is that Eusebius derived all his informa- 

6. ut deo] There can be no question tion respecting this persecution from a 

about the reading, though the Mss have Greek translation of Tertullian. 

et deo, which is retained by Oehler: see 7. confoederandam] i.e. ' to strengthen 

the note on Act. Ign. Rovi. 1 1 . To and consolidate by a common pledge and 

the arguments there urged it should be league.' 

added that Jerome in his edition of the 14. militaris statio] Sueton. 7)7'. 37 'In 

Chronicon (ii. p. 165), having the text of primis tuendae pacis a grassatoribus ac 

Tertullian before him, writes 'Christo ut latrociniis seditionumque licentia curam 

deo.' Variot [Reinte des Questions Histo- habuit : stationes militum per Italiam 

riques, ler Juilkt 1878, p. 142) strangely solito frequentiores disposuit' (comp. Oc- 

argucs that Eusebius and Jerome must tav. 32). For the Roman police arrange- 

have consulted the original of Pliny, be- ments see Marquardt Komische Staats- 

cause they read 'Christo ut deo,' whereas vcrwaltung \. 521, 11. 468. 
Tertullian has 'Christo et deo.' If there 

Tertullian doulitless derived his information entirely from the same correspondence 
between Pliny and Trajan which we possess. Ulpian indeed, in his 7th book de 
Officio Procousulis, collected all the imperial rescripts issued against the Christians 
(Lactant. Div. Inst. v. 11); but this work can liardly have been in existence when 



the Apologeticum was written. In one respect only Tertullian goes beyond the 
information contained in the letters. His statement 'quibusdam gradu pulsis' is 
unsupported by Pliny; but he was probably quoting from memory and so ascribed 
inadvertently to the age of Trajan procedures with which he was familiar in his 
own day. This statement is a wholly insufficient ground for postulating a lost 
letter of Pliny, as De la Berge (Sur le Eigne de Trajan p. 209, note 1) is disposed 
to do. 

EusEBius Historia Ecdesiastica iii. 32, 33. 

Mem Nepwva koX AofxeTiauou, Kara tovtop ov vvv tov; 
^6vov<; i^erdl^oixev, jxepLKois /cat Kara 7ro.\et9 e^ iTrapaaToicrecj^ 
Srj[JiO)p TOP Ka6' i^jxcov fcare^et Xoyo? dvaKivrjOrjvaL Stcoyixop, 
iv w SvfJLecova top tov KXcond, op SevTepop icaTao-TrjvaL rr^? 
ip 'lepocroXvfjiOL^ iKKXrjcrias iTricrKOTrop iSTjkcoo-ajxep, jxapTvpuo 5 
TOP I3lop d.vakv(j(xi Trapeikrj^aixep. kol totjtov ^odpTv^ aurog 
eKelpos, ov SLa(f)6poL<i yjor) irpoTepop iy^prjadjxeBa (j)COpals, 
'Hyijcmnros' os Si} nepi tlpcop alpeTLKcop laTopa)P iTn<l)epeL 

I. TovTov] i.e. Tpa'Cavof, as appears 
from the sequel. 

3. Karex^i- Xo7os] Comp. //. E. ii. 7, 
iii. II, 18, 19, iv. 5, vi. 34, etc. A com- 
parison of these passages shows that- the 
expression is not confined to oral tra- 
dition but may include contemporary 
written authorities, and that it implies 
authentic and trustworthy information. 

5. e57?Xw(ra|Uei'] The succession of 
Synieon after the martyrdom of James 
the Just is related H. E. iii. 11, where 
it is introduced with the same expression 
KOLTix^i X070S, which occurs here. 

7. rfSr; irpoTepov] //. E. ii. 23, iii. 11, 
16, 19, 20. This writer is also quoted 
several times afterwards. 

8. T'ip'i- TLV03U alperiKuiv] Hegesippus 
speaks more than once (//. E. ii. 23, iv. 
22) of 'the seven sects' (aipetrets). The 
names of these are given ; Essenes, Gali- 
leans, Ilemerobaptists, Masbotheans, Sa- 
maritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees [H. 
E. iv. 22). They were mainly Jewish 
(twc ivTO. aipiatwv rCiv iv T(^ Xay), as 

their names imply, and as the narrative 
of Hegesippus supposes. Hegesippus 
ascribes the death of James the Just to 
members of these seven sects {//. E. ii. 
23), and his persecutors were evidently 
anti-Christian. He also assigns to them 
(i¥. E. iii. 19 tQv aipeTiKuiv rtvas) the 
persecution of the grandsons of Judas ; 
and in the passage before us he describes 
them as the authors of the martyrdom of 
Symeon. Elsewhere [ff. E. iv. 22) he 
mentions one Thebuthis, who was sprung 
from the seven sects, as having been dis- 
appointed of the bishopric when Symeon 
was elected, and having in consequence 
corrupted the Church with heretical 
teaching ; but he does not (at least in 
the extracts preserved by Eusebius) con- 
nect his name directly with the death of 
Symeon. In the Chron. Pasch. p. 471 
(ed. Bonn.) Symeon is represented as 
being accused utto tQiv ttJs fj-oipas Krj- 
pluOou Kol tQiv Xiyofxeviov l^LKoKa'CrCiv. 
An explanation of this will be given 
below (p. 66). 



S-qXajy, C(J9 apa vno tovtcop Kara rovoe tov y^popou vvro/xeiVas 
Karr^yopiav, TroXvTpoTro)^ 6 SrjXovixevo'? ojcrav Xpi(TTiapo<; inl 
TrXaVrat? alKLaOel^ T^fxepai^;, avTov re tov SiKao'Trji' koI tov<; 
dfx(fi avTov eis m /xeytcrra KaTaTr\y]^a<;, tco tov Kvplov TrdOei 
5 TTapaTrhfjcnov ro ri\o<; aTTr^viyKaTO. ovhev Se olov /cat tov 
avyypacfieois eTraKovcraL, avTo, Brj TavTa Kara Xe^Lv cSSe ttcu? 


SyMewNoc toy KAoonA, cbc ontoc And AAyeiA kai XpicTiANoy, 


^T^crl 8e o auTos, cJ? apa /cat tov<; KaTrjy6pov<; avTOv, 
^r)Tovixep(oi> Tore tmv diro Trjs (3acnXiKrj<; ^JovSaicov (^vXtJ?, 
(0(rdv i^ avTTj^ oVras dXcovat awe/Br}. Xoyicrp-(o S' dv /cat 
15 TOV Svixeojva raiv avTOiTTOJV /cat avTrjKOCJU etTTOt aj' rt? yeyo- 
vivai TOV ^vpiov, T€Kjxr]pia) rw /xry/cet rov ^povov Tr)<; avTov 
l,o)rj<; ^(oixepos, /cat rw ixvrjp.oveveiv tt^v tcou evayyeXicov ypacfyyjv 
Mapuas Trj'i tov KXcjud, ov yeyovivai avTov /cat rrpoTepov o 
X6yo<5 iSifjXojcrev. 6 S' avTos crvyypa(l)ev<5 /cat eTepov<; ano yevov<i 

2. (ha-av] 'as l>ei)ig,' a favourite ex- ii. irTrartKoiJ] The word came to be used 
pression in Eusebius (see below uxrai' i^ in the second century especially of /rt^z^m- 
avTrjs oPTas) not however implying any cial govcrmvs who had held the consul- 
doubt of the fact which it introduces. ship, and at a later date of such governors 

5. dTrijy^YK-aTo] 'irar;7V(/ ()//,' as if it were even though they might not have been 
a prize. Forthisuseof aTro^^pecr^aicomp. consuls: see Marquardt J\d>nisihe Stiials- 
Mart. Polyc. 17 ^pa^ewv avavrlpp-qTov verzvaltung I. p. 409, and conip. the in- 
a.Trevrjveyfji.evoi', where again it is used of dex to Boeckh Corp. /nsrr. Graec. p. 44. 
martyrdom. See also Tatian rto^ G'rafc. 33. Here kirl virariKov 'Attikov means 'when 

6. (I>5e TTws] Used even of vcrbatiiii Atticus was governor'; whereas below ctti 
quotations, //. E. i, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 'ArTtKoii tov viraTiKov is 'before Atticus 
ii. 10, 12, 20, 25, iii. 7, 19, 23, 31, 39, etc. the governor,' the difference being due to 

10. iMapTvpd] See the note on Clem. the absence or presence of the article. 

Rom. 5. 'Attikov] See II. p. 452. 

eVt Upa'iavov] The preposition, applied 17. Tr/v tQv evayyeXioju ypac/irju] 'the 

to Trajan, can only signify 'in the time passage in the gospels,'' i.e. John xix. 25. 

of,' and it must have this same meaning 19. 60' ai/ros k.t.X.] The reference is 

here as applied to Atticus: see the next to H. E. iii. 20. The account there is 

note. On the mistakes which have arisen generally printed as if Eusebius gave it 

from its ambiguity see n. p. 444 sq. throughout in Hegesippus' own words; 


euo's Tcjv cfiepoixeucou dSeXcfyaJv tov cro)Trjpo<;, w ouofxa 'lovOas, 

TrpoTepov l<TTopr]6eicrau avTOJV vwep Trjs ets top KpiCTTOV 
TTtcrrew? eVl ^ofxeTiavov ixaprvpiav. ypdcfteL he ovtcjs' 


TYpec KAI Ano reNoyc toy Kypioy, kai peNOMeNHc eipHNHc 


Mexpic of o eK eei'oY toy Kypioy, 6 npoeipHMSNoc SyMeoiN 
Yidc KAootta, cyKO(t)ANTHee'ic yno to3n AipececoN, cocAyTOic 
KATHropH9H KAI AyToc 6ni Tco AyTO) Aofw eni 'Attikoy toy i'-> 
ynATiKoy. KAI eni noAAAic HMepAic AiKizoMeNoc eMApTy- 
pHceN, a)C HANTAC fne p AY/MAze I N KAI TON ynATiKON, nwc 
eKATON efKoci Tyrx<5^N^N eTOJN yneweiNe- kai eKeAeycOn 


• ••••■• 

TocrovTO'; ye p.r]v Iv TrXetocrt T67T0i<i d ko-O" rjp.oJv iveTdOr] 15 
rore Stwy/xds, ojs UXlulov HeKowSov emcrrjiJiOTaTov rjyeijiopcov, 
eTrl TO) TrXijdeL tcov jxaprvpcju KiviqdevTa, /Bacnkel kolvco- 
(Taadai, Trepl tov ttXtJOov; t(ov vnep tt]<; Trtcrreo)? avaipov- 
ixeuojv, dfxa 8' ev t(xvt(o ^iqvvcrai, p^iqhev dvocriov fxirjoe irapa 
Toi)^ v6p.ov^ rrpaTTeiv avTov<; /careiXr^^eVat, irXrjv to ye ajxa 20 
Tfi ew SLeyeLpoixevov<; tov Xptcrrdi^ ©eou hiKriv vjxvelv, to 
Se ixoi^eveiv koX (^oveveiv koX ra avyyeurj tovtols dOejxcTa 
TtX'iqp^p.ekrjp.aTa koX avrovs drrayopeveiv, iravTa. re TrpaTTetv 

but the change to the infinitive, elra U ' the whole church,' as some take it ; for 

KOI rds x-'^pas ras eavrOiv eTn.5et.KPvvaL, this is an ungrammatical rendering: see 

shows that from that point onward Euse- the note on Ign. Ephes. 12. 

bius does not profess to quote vci-batiin. 8. oeKdelovl't/usonofamincle^coxn^. 

Moreover he has here preserved in tlie H. E. iii. 11 tov yap oSc KXtiOTrav dSeX^oV 

writer's direct words, epxovTai ovv koI tov 'Iwcttj^ virapxei-v 'E.yrjffLTnros IcrTopu. 

Trpo-ijyouvTai...KaLaapoi, the same part of On the relation of this statement to the 

the account which is there given in the notices in the EvangeHcal records see 

oblique narration, rovs 5k airoXvOevTas... Galatians p. 256 sq, 267 sq, 277. 

Ti^ /3iw: and the difference between the 10. eTrt ry ainQ X67y] 'on the same 

two is considerable. account^ as the grandsons of Judas, who 

5. tca-a-ri^ tKKKy]<}'ia.%\'eziery church yi.ii. have been mentioned just before (He- 

injudsea; paraphrased by Eusebius(^..£'. gesippus in H. E. iii. 20 oCs kh-r\Ka.Tb- 

iii. 20) Twv kKKKriCiQiv. It cannot mean pevffav ws eK yeuovs ovras Aaveid). 


aKoXovdcoq rots uojxol^;. tt/jo? a tov Tpa'iavov Soy/xa tolgpSc 
TeOeLKevai, to XpLcrTtavcou cfivXov [xyj iKl^-qTeicr 6 at fjJv, ifxire- 
(Tov Se Kokat^ecrOai' ov yevofxevov 7TOcr(o<; jxeu tov ^Lcoyixov 
a/^ecrOrjvaL rrju d-rreikrjv crc^oSporara iyKeLixevrjv, ov ^eipova<; 
5 ye ixrfv rot? KaKovpyelv Trepl rj^aa? edeXovcn XetVecr^at irpo- 
(pacrei'^, ecru onr) [xev rcov o'qp.oiv, eau onr) oe /cat tcov 
/caret -^(opa^ ap^ovTOiv ras KaO* rjixcou avcTKevatfiixevoiv em- 
fiov\d<;, oJs /cat dvev npocfyavcov hicjyp^cjv jxepuKOvq /car' 
enap-^iav i^aTTTecrdaL, TrXetov? re t&i^ TnaTcou OLa(fi6poLs 
lo ivay(iivit,e(Tdai fxaprvpioi';. elX-qirrai 8' 7)/Atv t^ IcTTopia eg 
T^S dvcoTepo) SeSrjXcoKafxev tov TepTvWiavov Pa)fiaLK'rj<; awo- 
Xoyta?, rjq r) epixrjveia tovtov e)(€t rov TpoTTOv 




Toj nAt-iBei AmrNoei ti ayto) AoinoN eTn npAKxeoN. TpAiANco 


AYTOYC eiAcaAoAATpe?N ofAeN anocion gn aytoIc eypHKeNAi. 

eMHrJYe Ae kai toyto, ani'ctacGai eooOeN toyc XpicxiANOYC, kai 

20 TON XpicTON 0eoY Ai'khn ymnsTn, kai npdc to thn enicTHMHN 

AyTooN AiA(|)YAACceiN, KcoAYec6Ai 4)0NeYeiN, MOixeYeiN, nAe- 


M6N, ewnecoN Ae KoAAzec9Ai. 
25 KoX TavTa p.ev ev tovtol<; iqv. 

11. T] ip/iTivela] Eusebius is here quoting of Caesarea). This version of Tertullian 
from a Greel< translation of Tertullian's which he used was translated by some 
Apology. This translation is mentioned one who had a very inadequate know- 
in //. E. ii. 2 Tep7i/XXia«'6s...ev r^ ypa- ledge of Latin. For instance in the pas- 
(peicrri fief avTw Vuifxaiui' (fxiivrj, /Mera^Xr]- sage quoted //. £. ii. 25, the translator 
deiffTj 5i Kai eirl ttjv 'EXXdSa yKwTTav betrays his ignorance of the common 
virip XpuTTiavwv diroXoyiq., and is quoted Latin idiom cum viaximc, which he 
both here and in H. E. ii. i^,, iii. 20, v. 5. renders T/ft'/ca \iA\iaro., thus throwing the 
Eusebius was imperfectly acquainted with whole sentence into confusion. In the 
the Latin language and very ignorant of passage before us he is occasionally very 
the Latin fathers (see Smith's Diet, of loose, but not essentially wrong. 
Christ. Biogr. 11. p. 314, s. v. Eusebius 


The chapters which are given here have been preceded immediately (c. 31) by 
a notice of the deaths of the Apostles John and Philip, who settled in Asia Minor. 
Having thus, as he tells us, given an account of the Apostles and of the sacred 
writings, genuine, disputed, or spurious, Eusebius proceeds to the subsequent history 
{eiri TTjv Tu>i> e^jjs Trpow,u€v IffTopiau); and accordingly he commences this narrative of 
the persecutions under Trajan. 

They are followed immediately by brief notices of the succession of Euarestus 
to Clement at Rome in the third year of Trajan (c. 34), and of Judas Justus to 
Symeon at Jerusalem, no date being given for this latter event (c. 35). Upon this 
notice follows the account of Ignatius and his writings (c. 36), which will be quoted 
in a later chapter of this introduction. 

The chronological inferences drawn from the sequence of these notices in Eusebius 
are considered in their proper place (11. p. 448 sq). 


Joannes Malalas Chronographia xi. p. 269 sq (ed. Bonn.). 

'EttI 8e T-179 ^acrtXeta? tov (Xvtov Tpa'Capov St&)y/>t09 /xeya? 
Ta)V 'KpiO'Tiapcov eyeVero kol ttoXXoI enixoiprjOrjaav, iv tS 
^povco iTTia-Tparevcra^ avrjXde TroXejxaiv fxera Svvdfjiea}^ 7ToW7J<; 
Kara 'Voijxavia<; eV yevov<? UdpOojv /BacriXevs Hepcrcov, 6 

ctoeX^o? 'OcrSpoov ^aa-iXeo)^ 'Apjxevioiv kcu ravra 5 

aKov<Ta<; o deiOTaro^ Tpdiavo<i ^acriXev'; ev^ew? eTrecTTod- 
Tevcre tco lj3' erei Trj<; /3a(TtXeta9 avTov, e^eXOwv /car' avTOJv 

fXTjVL oKTOij^pio) TM KoX vTrep/SepeTaLO) aTTO 'Pcu/xTy? /cat 

KarecfiOacrey iv XeXevKta Trj<; Svpta? fjiT]!/! drreXXaia) rw kol 


Kat KaTrjXBev 6 avro<i /3aaLX€v<s Tpa'iav6<; diro Ad(f)vr}<; 
/cat elarjXOev eV 'A^rto^eta rrj^ Svplaq Stct tt^? ^pufrea? Trj<; 
Xe'yofxepr}<;, rovTecm Trj<i Aa(f)vyjTLK7]S, (f)opo)v eV rrj avTov 
Ke(f)aXrj crre^avov diro iXaiOKXdScop, fxrjvl avSr^vaio) t(o /cat 
lavovapio) el3S6(xrf rnxipa e , ojpo- yjfJiepLvy S\ 15 

9. aTre\\al(x}] Here and below (p. 63, X^wi, differing from the correct form only 
1. 22) the MS has dirpiW^m. This may be by itacisms, 
explained by an intermediate word dwaiX- 


'Ev Tw Se hiarpi^eiv tov ovtov Tpa'iavou ^acrtXea iv 

^AuTiO)(€La Trjs Svptag /^ovXevojxevov ra nepi tov noXeixov 

eixrivvaev avTov TL/3epLav6<;, yjyeixcop tov rrpoiTov IlaXatcr- 
Tivoiv eOvovs, TavTa' 



MeNOY AorMATOC" KAI AH A I oj KO/ue N 1 y' nAYONTAi. 8ecnicAi 



KOL eKekevorev avTco 6 avro? TpoXavos navaaaOat tov (fioueveiv 
15 tov<; Xptcrrtayov?' o/xotw? Se Kai Tolq navTa-^ov ap^ovaiv 
TovTO cKeXevaep, [xrj (povevecv tov Xolttov tov<; Xeyofxivov^ 
XpL(rTiauov<;' koI iyeveTo eVSocrt? fXLKpa rots XpLCTLavol^. 
/cat i^rjXdep diro 'Az^rto^eLa? Trj<; ixeydXy]<; TroXefxov KaTa 

T\ep(T(^v lamjaaq o avro? Tpa'iavo^. 

.... . • 

20 'EttI Se Trjs /3acrtXeta9 tov avTov OeioTaTov Tpdiavov 
enaOev 'AvTLO-^eLa t] fxeydXr) -q irpo^ Ad(f)vy]v to TpiTov 
avTrj<; irdOo^ ixtjvI diTeXXaio) rw /cat SeKejx^piq) ly , rip^epa 
a , [xerd dXeKTpvova, eTov<; ■^(^piiip.aTit.ovTO^ p^S' /cara Tovq 
avTOV<? 'Az^rto^etg, /xera Se ^' eTrj Tr}<? TrapovaCaq tov Oeto- 

25 TdTov /Sao-tXe'oj? lipaiiavov Trj^ eVt T'qu dvaToXrjV. 

• • • • t • • 

o Se avros /^acrtXev? Tpatavo? eV ttj avTrj noXei Sirjyev 
ore tJ OeojxrjvLa eyevdTo. ipuapTvprjaev Se e77t avTov tote 
6 dyio<; 'lyvctrto's o iiTi(TK0TT0<; Trj^ TroXew? Atrto^eta?" 
-qyavdKTiqare yap /car' avTov, ort e'XotSopet avroz^. avuea)(ev 


Ttj3e,otav6s] Reasons for condemn- £m/>. 11. p. 578. 

ing this document as spurious are given 21. Trpos] The P^IS has vpo. 

below, II. p. 439 sq. See also Dodvvell 27. (ttI aiirov rore] See below, 11. p. 

Dissert Cyprian, xi. § 23, 24, Tillemont 444 sq. 


Se TOTe Kol TreVre ovojxara XpicTTLai'Mv yvvaiKcov Xvtlo- 
y/iCTcrcov koI i^rjraa-ev avm? \eyo>v, Tt? idTiv rj cXtti? vjxcov, 
ort ouTOJS e/cStSore eavras et? Odvarov ; at Se aTreKpiOrjcrav 
Xeyovcrat ort <J>ov€VOjaeVa9 TJ/xa? Trap' v/xojv avlcTTacrBai 
r /Acig ttoXlv o>9 C)(Oiiev crw/iart ets aloiviav ^(orjv. /cat 5 
iKe\ev(rev avrcts Trvpt/caucrrovs yepecrdat Kat tov ^ow rwt' 
oo-rea)^' avrw/v crwe/x-t^e -^aXKO) kol iTrolrjae tov ;i(aX/coi/ 
ets o iiroirjcre Srjfjioo-Lov -)(aXKLa tov OepfJLOv. /cat ore rjp^aTO 
iTape)(eiv to SrjixoaLov, et rt? ectv eXovero et? auro to Srjfxo- 
(Tiov, iaKOTOvTo /cat eiTiTrTev koX i^-qpyeTO ^acrray/xw, /cat 10 
jxaOoiV 6 ySacrtXe?)? Tpai'ai'o? tovto -qXXa^e ret avra )(d\Kia 
/cat iiTOiyjcrev aXXa (xtto Kadapov )(aX/cov, Xeycov otl Ov /caXw? 
iTTOLTjcra ■)(ovv acoixaTOiv avyiyii^a^ avTols /cat /cotvojcras ra 
Bepjxa vSara. ravra Se ekeyeu, eVetS?) ot X/otcrrtavot fiyTre'^t- 
^ovf Tot9"EXXi7o-t Kav^(i>p,evoL. m Se irpcoTa ^aXKua ctva^covev- 15 
eras inoL-qo-e o-TT/Xa? ^aX/ca? TreVre rat? avrat? yvvai^i, \eyoiv 
fVt 'iSou e'yoj avras dvicTTiqcra Ka6o)<; etnov, /cat ov;)(t o ^eo5 
aOrcfJV. atrtve? cTTrjXai ets auro ro Sr)ix6(Ji0v \ovTpov 
tcrravrat ecu? aprt. inoirja-e Se /cat Kajjuvov 7rvp6<;, Kat 
e/ce'Xevcre rovs l3ov\ojxeuov<; Xptcrrtavovs ^aXXetv eavrovs 20 
eV TrpoOecreL. /cat ttoXXoI e/3aXXov eavrovs /cat ip.apTvp-qcrav. 
ilxapTvprjcre Se rore 17 ctyta Apoaivrj /cat aXXat TrapOevoL 

4. dvlffraadai ^/iSs] sc. e\7rfs eo-Tic, if Chilmead conjectures vTru^i^ov, i.e. 'were 

the text be correct ; but the repetition of somewhat sour' (comp. Athen. in. p. 

^/xSs excites suspicion of some corruption. 114 c), but this could hardly stand. 

12. Oi) xaXws] So the MS, but the 15. drnxwcei/cras] So the MS, but the 

negative is omitted in the printed text. printed texts have ai^axciKTaj. 

14. viri^t.^ov] An unintelligible word. 

This work is only known to exist in one MS (Bodl. Barocc. 182). My thanks are 
due to Mr F. Madan, of Brasenose College, Sub-librarian of the Bodleian, for a colla- 
tion of these extracts with the ms itself (fol. 166 a sq). 1 have thus been enabled to 
correct one or two important errors in the printed editions. Mere varieties of spelling 
and accentuation I have not thought fit to record. 

On the date of this writer, on his blunders generally, and on his account of 
Trajan's doings in Antioch more especially, see below, 11. pp. 409, 413, 436 sq, 
in which last passage his statement that Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Antioch is 


fully discussed. Just so much of the context is given here as will enable the reader 
to trace the chronological connexion. 

For the parallel account of John Madabbar, Bishop of Nikiou, see below, 11. 
p. 446 sq. 


Chronicon Paschale p. 470 sq (ed. Bonn.). 
'IvS. a'. ^'. V7T. '^vptavov to ^' koI MapKeXXov. 

k . • • • • • 

'Etti tovtoju tcoz/ vTraTcov Stwy/Lto? XpLcrTtai/c^p iyeuero, 
KOL TToXXol ivSo^cos ifxapTvprjCTav Sta t^v ei? Xptcrrov 
5 'EttI tcov irpoKeiixevoiv VTrdrcov <^acn. tov aycov liodvvrjv 
yevoixevov ircav p' koX fxyjvcov t^ KOLjxrjdrjvaL. 

'Ey TOvT(i) T(p -^povoj K\T][JLr]^ o Voj[xr)<; iTricrKOTroq 

reXevToi. Kara tov amov ^povov /cat Xl[xcov o Kavaftrr;? 

o i7nKXr}0el<; 'lovSas 'la/cw^ov, d yeuo^epos eTTi(TKOTro<i jxeTa 

10 ^laKco^ou TOP dSeXffiOP tov Kvpuov, Ipjaa^; eTT] pK, iaTavpcodrj. 

'EttI tovtov tov Tpaiavov Kol MapKo^ o evayyeXicTTr)^ 

KoX eVior/coTTO? 'AXe^avSpctag yev6ix€vo<;, KoXoiP Xa^cop kol 

crupets (XTTO T(op KaXovfJievcop tol BovkoXlcjp ew? tcop XeyofiepoiP 

'AyyeXcop, eKelae irvpl KaT€Kavdrj (jyapfJiovOl rrpajTr), kol 

15 ovTO)<; ifxapTvpyjcrep. 

KpyjaKT]'; Kr)pv^a<; to evayyeXiOP tov Kvptov r]ixo)p 
^Irjcrov XpLCTov ip FaXXtai? inl Nepo)Po<; (XTroOvYjaKei, 

/cat iKELcre ^ctTrrerat. 

(TKa 'OXu/xTTtag. 
20 'IpB. /3'. f] . VTT. Kai'StSou Kat KovaSpctrov. 

Tpa'tWov Kord XpiaTiapojv Sioyixop KLpy]aaPTo<;, SifxcDV 
6 TOV KXeojird tyJ'? iv 'lepocroXv/xot? e/c/cXi^crta? iTria-KOTTOf; 
yepofxevo'; ifxapTvprjcrep, yep6fJiepo<; i.Tcov pK , iim Attlkov 
vTTaTLKOv Si,a/3Xr)6eh vtto tcop Trj<; jJLoipaq K-qpipOov /cat tcop 
25 Xeyofxepcop Nt/coXa'trwi^, cu<; ov [jlopop XpLcrTLaPO<;, aXXa /cat 
w? aTTO TCOP TOV yipov^ AaueiS virdp^cop, o? eTTt TrXetcrra? 
rjixepa^ at/ctcr^ets, /cat avTOP top SiKaaTiqp /cat tov<; trepi 
IGN. I. 5 


avTOV TO, /xeytcrra KarairXTj^a^;, tw tov crTavpov Trddet 
TTapaTrXyjcTLOv tov Kvpiov TeXo<; dTrrjviyKaTO. djaotw? Se kol 
'lymrtos ^KvTio^ioiv eVto-KOTTOs ev Pc^fir) ifxapTvprjo-eu. 

The two years here intended are: 

A.D. 104, Sex. Attius Suburanus II. 

M. Asinius Marcellus. 
A.D. 105, Ti. Julius Candidus Marius Celsus II. 
C. Antius A. Julius Quadratus II. 

For the Consuls of the first of these two years see the note on Afar/. Ign. Rom. i. 

On this writer's reckoning by Indictions see Smith's Diet, of Christ. Antiq. s. v. 
'Indiction' (i. p. 833). 

The compiler of the Chronicon Paschale probably lived in the reign of Heraclius, 
not long after the year 630, with which the history terminates (see Smith's Diet, 
of Christ. Biog. I. p. 510 s. v. 'Chronicon Paschale'). He derives his information 
from different sources. Here he has given two different accounts of the martyrdom 
of Symeon the second bishop of Jerusalem under two successive years. Under the 
first he has identified him with Simon Cananites, and then with Judas Jacohi 
in S. Luke's list of the twelve Apostles, probably remembering that the lists of 
S. Matthew and S. Mark substituted some other name for Jiidas Jacobi, but blunder- 
ingly forgetting that this name was Leblmus or Thaddaus, and substituting Simon 
the Cananrean. The latter of the two accounts is evidently taken from Eusebius, 
but the compiler has ventured to describe the heretical antagonists of Symeon as 
Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, and has gone wrong in doing so (see above, p. 58). 
The explanation of his error is not difficult. Eusebius has mentioned the Cerinthians 
and Nicolaitans in the preceding chapters {H. E. iii. 28, 29), and the compiler, 
seeing the words d7r6 tovtwu tQv aiperiKwv, supposes them to refer to the heretics 
who were mentioned by Eusebius. ' He forgets that these are the words not of 
Eusebius himself, but of Hegesippus whom he quotes. Generally it may be said 
that our chronicler has taken the sequence of events from Eusebius, inserting how- 
ever notices from other sources. 

On the chronology of Ignatius' martyrdom, as here given, see below, 11. pp. 
410, 448. 


Acts of Sharbil p. 41 sq, Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents. 

' In the fifteenth year of the Autocrat Trajan Caesar, and in the 
third year of the reign of King Abgar the viith, which is the year 416 
of the Kingdom of Alexander, King of the Greeks, and during the high- 
priesthood of Sharbil and of Barsamya, Trajan Csesar gave command to 
the governors of the countries of his dominions, that sacrifices and 
libations should be increased in all the cities of their administration, 
and that those who did not sacrifice should be arrested and be delivered 



over to stripes and lacerations and to bitter inflictions of all kinds of 
tortures, and should afterwards receive the sentence of death by the 
sword. And when this edict arrived at the city of Edessa of the Par- 
thians, it was the great festival on the 8th of Nisan, on the third day of 
the week.' 

[Sharbil is the chief priest of the heathen gods ; Barsamya is the 
Christian bishop. The Acts go on to relate how Sharbil was converted 
by Barsamya and arraigned in consequence before the judge Lysanias. 
He confesses himself a Christian. He is in consequence subjected to 
the most excruciating tortures. He is scourged with thongs ; is hung 
up and torn on his sides and face with combs ; is bent backward and 
bound hand and foot with straps and scourged on the belly while in 
this position ; is hung up by his right arm until it is dislocated ; is burnt 
with fire between his eyes and on the cheeks ' until the stench of the 
cautery rose in smoke'; is hung up, and torn with combs on his former 
wounds, salt and vinegar being rubbed in ; is burnt again with lighted 
candles 'passed about his face and the sides of his wounds'; has nails 
of iron driven in between his eyes ; is hung head downward and beaten 
with whips ; is thrown into an iron chest and scourged with thongs 
'until there remained not a sound place in him'; has pieces of wood 
placed between his fingers and pressed till the blood spurts out ; with 
several other tortures of a like kind. Between each torture there is an 
altercation between him and the judge. At length sentence is given 
' that he be sawn with a saw of wood, and when he is near to die, then 
his head be taken off with the sword of the slayers.' Accordingly he 
is executed with every aggravation of cruelty. His sister Babai catches 
up his blood. She is seized by the executioners and dies in their hands. 
The bodies are stolen by the brethren and buried ' on the fifth of Ilul 
and on the sixth day of the week.' The document then proceeds as 
follows ;] 

'I wrote these Acts on paper, I Marinus and Anatolus, the notaries; 
and we placed them in the archives of the city, where the charters of 
the kings are placed.' 

' But this Barsamya the bishop converted Sharbil the high-priest. 
But he lived in the days of Fabianus [v. 1. Binus] bishop of Rome, etc' 

Acts of Barsamya p. 6s sq. 

'In the year 416 of the Kingdom of the Greeks, which is the fifteenth 
year of the reign of the Autocrat, our Lord Trajan Caesar, in the Con- 
sulship of Commodus and Cyrillus, in the month Ilul, on the fifth day of 



the same, the day after Lysinas the judge of the country had heard 
Sharbil the high-priest' [Barsamya is accused of perverting Sharbil and 
is ordered to be tortured]. 

'And at that moment letters came to him from Alusis [Lusius] the 
chief proconsul, father of emperors. And he gave command, and they 
took down Barsamya, and he was not torn with combs, and they took 
him outside the judgment hall'... 

'And it was found that the emperors had written by the hands of 
the proconsuls to the judges of the countries'; 

'■Since our Majesty gave orders that there should be a persecution 
against the Christians, we have heard and learned from otir Sharirs 
which we have in the coimtries of the dofninioti of our Majesty, that the 
people of the Christians are men who avoid murder and sorcery and 
adultery and theft and bribery and fraud, and those things for which even 
the laws of our Majesty require pu7iishment from such as do the?n ; 7oe 
therefore by the justice of oiir Rectitude have given commajid that oji account 
of these things the persecution of the sword should cease from thejn, a7id 
that there shall be rest and quietness in all our dominions, they cofititming 
to minister according to their custo?n, and that no man should hinder them. 
But it is not that we show affectiofi towards thetn, but towards their laws 
which agree with the laws of our Majesty ; and, if any man hinder them 
after this our decree, that sword which is ordered by ns to pass upon those 
7vho neglect our decree, the same have we ordered to pass upo7i those 
who slight this decree of our Clemency.^ 

[Accordingly Barsamya is released ; and Lysinas is dismissed from 
his office.] 

' But I Zenophilus and Patrophilus are the notaries who wrote these 
things, Diodorus and Euterpes, Sharirs of the city, bearing witness \^^th 
us by setting to their hand, as the ancient laws of the ancient kings 

' But this Barsamya, the bishop of Edessa, who converted Sharbil 
the high-priest of the same city, lived in the days of Fabianus the 
bishop of the city of Rome. And the hand of priesthood was received 
by this same Barsamya from xAbshelama who was bishop in Edessa; and 
Abshelama, the hand was received by him from Palut the former ; and 
Palut, the hand was received by him from Serapion bishop of Antioch ; 
and Serapion. the hand was received by him from Zephyrinus bishop of 
Rome ; and Zephyrinus of Rome received the hand from Victor,' etc. 

[So the succession of the bishops of Rome is traced back to our 
Lord through Simon Peter.] 


The Acts of Sharbil and of Barsamya were first published in Cureton's posthu- 
mous work, Ancient Syriac Docziinents (London 1864), where also they are trans- 
lated. From his translation the above extracts are taken. Cureton used two MSS, 
Brit. Mus. Add. 14,644, and Brit. Mus. Add. 14,645, the former written in an 
Edessene hand of the vth or vith century, the latter dated A.G. 1247 (=A.D. 936); 
see Wright's Catal. of Syr. MSS pp. 10S3, iiii. A Latin translation of them was 
given by Moesinger, Acta SS. Martyruin Edessenoruiii (Oenoponti 1874), where also 
he adds a Latin version of the Armenian Acts published by Aucher. The Armenian 
Acts appear to be merely a free abridgment from the Syriac. 

It seems unnecessary to attempt a serious refutation of their authenticity. 
They carry their own condemnation on their face, as will have appeared from the 
extracts and abstracts given above. The gross exaggerations, the flagrant ana- 
chronisms, and the inexplicable historical situations, all combine to denounce them 
as a crude forgery. The wholesale cruelty of the first edict, and the wholesale 
protection of the second, are alike alien to the age and temper of Trajan. Never- 
theless Moesinger argues at length in favour of their genuineness, and even Cureton 
comments on them as if they were trustworthy history. The latter even goes so 
far as to say (p. 186) that 'we have here probably the most authentic copy of the 
edict of Trajan, respecting the stopping of the persecution of the Christians.' 'In 
these Acts,' he proceeds, ' we have, as it would appear, the words of the edict 
itself, as they were taken down by the notaries at the time.' If this were so, 
the history of the early persecutions would have to be rewritten. What Christian 
father ever heard of this edict, not of toleration, but of protection? Constantine 
himself did not go so far in this respect, as Trajan is here represented to have gone. 
The spuriousness of this edict is shown by F. Gorres Kaiser Trajan u. die Christliche 
Tradition p. 39 sq in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. xxi (1877). The whole story 
indeed, like the parallel narrative of Tiberianus in John Malalas, is founded on the 
correspondence of Pliny and Trajan, and is disfigured by the worst exaggerations of a 
debased hagiology. 


THE questions respecting the original form and the genuineness of 
the Ignatian Epistles are so closely entangled with the history of 
the text, that a knowledge of the manuscripts and versions becomes a 
necessary preliminary to the consideration of this more important 
point. I shall therefore reverse the usual order and commence with a 
full account of the documents on which the text is founded. 

Of those Ignatian Epistles with which alone we are here concerned, 
three different forms or recensions exist. The first of these con- 
tains three epistles alone ; to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the 
Romans. It is extant only in a Syriac version. The second presents 
these three epistles in a fuller form, and adds to them four others, to 
the Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, Philadelphians, and Trallians. Besides the 
original Greek, this form is found in Latin, Armenian, Syriac, and 
Coptic translations, though in the last two languages only fragments 
remain. The third of these recensions contains the seven epistles 
already mentioned in a still longer form, together with six others, a letter 
from one Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius, and letters from Ignatius to 
Mary of Cassobola, to the Tarsians, to the Antiochenes, to Hero, and to 
the Philippians. This recension is extant in the Greek and in a Latin 
translation. These six additional letters, it is true, have been attached 
afterwards to the epistles of the second form also, and have been 
translated with them into the several languages already mentioned ; but 
they are obviously of a much later origin, as will be shown hereafter, 
and seem to have emanated from the author of the third recension. As 
some definite nomenclature is convenient, I shall call these three forms 
of the Ignatian Epistles the Short, Middle, and Long forms or recen- 
sions respectively. It has been customary hitherto to speak of the two 


latter as the Short and Long recensions; but the publication of the 
Syriac Version of the three epistles in a still shorter form by Cureton 
some years ago (1845) has antiquated this mode of distinction, which 
should accordingly be abandoned. It will be remembered therefore 
that, when I speak of the Greek or Latin of the Middle or Long form, 
the terms correspond to what editors have hitherto called the Short or 
Long Greek or Latin respectively. * 

Thus it appears that of the twelve Ignatian Epistles (excluding the 
Epistle of Mary to Ignatius), three (Polycarp, Ephesians, Romans) occur 
in three different forms ; four (Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, Philadelphians, 
Trallians) in two forms ; and the remaining five (Mary, Tarsians, 
Antiochenes, Hero, Philippians) in one form only. 

Besides these twelve epistles, others bearing the name of Ignatius 
are extant entire or in fragments, in Latin, yEthiopic, or Arabic ; and 
I shall have occasion to refer to them hereafter. But, as they are quite 
distinct from the twelve and have no bearing on the textual or historical 
criticism with which we are immediately concerned, they may be dis- 
missed for the present. 

Of the three forms thus enumerated, the Long recension is now 
universally condemned as spurious. The dispute of late years has lain 
between the remaining two. For reasons which will be stated here- 
after, the Middle form has the highest claim to consideration as 
exhibiting the original text of Ignatius. But at present the decision 
must not be anticipated. 

In describing the several authorities for the text, a somewhat new 
notation is here adopted, which, I venture to hope, will commend itself 
by its simplicity'. The Greek character (2) is restricted to the Short 
form ; the Roman capitals (G, L, C, A, S) represent the Middle, and 
the Roman small letters (g, 1) the Long form. The letters themselves 
describe the language of the authority. Thus the Syriac Version of the 
Short form is denoted by 2, and of the Middle by S ; the Greek of the 
Middle by G, and of the Long by g. Where any of these authorities is 
represented by more than one ms presenting different readings, the mss 
are discriminated by a figure below the line to the right of the letters : 
e-g, 2i, X, I3 ; Li, Lo ; gi, g„, gs, g^ ; etc. 

' Zahn's notation is a great improve- apparatus criticus constructed long before 

ment on any which preceded it, and for his edition appeared. It would therefore 

the sake of uniformity I miglit perhaps have been very inconvenient to go back 

have contented myself with it ; but my from my own system of notation, even if 

own introduction was written and my it had not seemed preferable in itself. 



This is represented only by a Syriac Version [2], which was 
pubUshed for the first time by Cureton in 1845 ^^'oni ^^iss recently 
brought from the Nitrian desert and deposited in the British Museum. 
In his later volume, the Corpus Ignatianum (London 1849), he reprinted 
the Syriac Epistles with copious notes and dissertations ; and from the 
description which he there gives (p. xxviii sq), together with Wright's 
Catalogue of Syriac MSS in the British Museum since published 
(1870 — 1872), the following account of the mss is derived. 

1. British Museum Add. 121 75 [2i] ; see Wright's Catalogue 
p. 657 sq. On the last leaves of this ms (fol. 79 b) is written, 'The 
Epistle of my lord Ignatius the bishop,' i.e. the Epistle to Polycarp. 
From certain indications ' we may safely conclude,' says Cureton, ' that 
this copy was transcribed in the first half of the sixth century, or before 
A.D. 550.' Wright suggests that it was wTitten by the same hand as 
no. dccxxvii, 'in which case its date is a.d. 534.' It belonged to the 
convent of S. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Scete, and was obtained 
for the British Museum byTattam in 1839. 

2. British Museum Add. 146 18 [So] i see Wright's Catalogue 
p. 736 sq. Among other treatises this ms contains (fol. 6 b sq) ' Three 
Epistles of Ignatius bishop and martyr' in this order, i ' The Epistle of 
Ignatius' [to Polycarp]. 2 'Of the same the Second, to the Ephesians.' 
3 'The Third Epistle of the same Saint Ignatius' [to the Romans]. 
At the end is written ' Here end (the) three Epistles of Ignatius bishop 
and martyr.' ' The date ' of the MS, says Cureton, ' appears to me to be 
certainly not later than the seventh or eighth century,' and the same 
date is ascribed to it by Wright. It was brought from Egypt by 
Tattam in 1842. 

3. British Museum Add. 17 192 [Ss] ; see Wright's Catalogue 
p. 778 sq. This ms also contains among other treatises the three 
Epistles of Ignatius (fol. 72 a sq) in the same order as before, i 'The 
Epistle of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch' [the Epistle to Polycarp]. 
At the end is written, 'Here endeth the First.' 2 'The Second Epistle, 
to the Ephesians ' ; at the close, ' Here endeth the Second Epistle.' 
3 'The Third Epistle'; at the close, 'Here endeth the Third.' They 
are followed by two anonymous letters, which however Cureton has 
identified as the writings of John the Monk ; and at the end of these is 


added ' Here endeth (what is) of Ignatius.' This ms 'has no date, but 
belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931' for 
the monastery of S. Mary Deipara, 'and was written apparently 
about three or four centuries earlier.' Wright however ascribes it to the 
9th century. It was procured for the British Museum by M. Pacho in 
1847, after Cureton had pubUshed his first edition. 

These mss, which I have designated 2i, X., ^3, appear in Cureton's 
notation as a, /3, y, respectively. The text of this version is edited 
below (ill. p. 75 sq) by Prof W. Wright, who has collated the three 
MSS anew and given their various readings. A translation is also ap- 
pended, III. p. 86 sq. 


The Latin version of this recension was published first by Ussher 
{Folycarpi ct Ignatii Epistolae etc, Oxon. 1644) from two mss dis- 
covered in England ; the original Greek two years later by Isaac Voss 
{Epistolae Ge?iuinae S. Ignatii Marty ris, Amstelod. 1646) from a Medi- 
cean MS, with the exception of the Epistle to the E.omans, which was 
published afterwards by Ruinart {Ada Martyrum Sincet-a, Paris 1689) 
from a Colbert ms. The Armenian version was first printed at Con- 
stantinople in 1783. The fragments of the Syriac version are included 
in Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum (p. 197 sq), though Cureton himself 
failed to perceive that they were taken (as I shall show presently) from 
a complete version in this language, and supposed that the collections 
of extracts in which they occur were translated immediately from the 
Greek. The important fragment from the Copto-thebaic version 
was made use of for the first time in the former edition of my work, 

(i) Greek [G]. 

I. Laur. PI. Ivii. Cod. 7 (described in Bandini's Catal. MSS Grace. 
Bibl. Laurent. 11. p. 345 sq), the famous Medicean ms at Florence, from 
which Voss published the editio princcps of this recension. The Ignatian 
Epistles occupy from fol. 242 a— 252 b. They commence toy atioy 
irNATioY enicTo. cmypnaioic. The epistles contained here are (i) Smyr- 
ngeans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephesians, (4) Magnesians, (5) Philadelphians, 
(6) Trallians, (7) Mary to Ignatius, (8) Ignatius to Mary, (9) Tarsians 
(a fragment). They are numbered &, B, r, etc, in the margin prima 


manu. The Epistle to the Tarsians breaks off abruptly in the middle 
of a word, aveTricn-aToi ya/u €tcriv tov kl- (§ 7)'. These words form the 
last line of fol. 252 b, which leaf is also the end of a quaternion. Thus 
it is plain that the imperfection of the ms was caused by the loss of 
some sheets". It was doubtless originally complete and, like the 
corresponding Latin Version, contained all the twelve epistles (excluding 
the Epistle to the Philippians), the Epistle to the Romans probably 
being embedded in the Martyrology, as in Colbert. 460. This MS 
has been collated more or less imperfectly from time to time since the 
appearance of Voss's edition, and recently with greater care by Jacob- 
son. Still more recently Uressel himself and his friends for him 
'inspected it again in the principal places with scrupulous care' (p. Ixii). 
I myself also have collated it throughout the six genuine epistles for 
this edition, and have found a few not very serious omissions in 
previous collations. This ms is ascribed to the eleventh century. It 
contains no iotas either subscript or (with one or two exceptions, e.g. 
Trail, inscr. tQh TrXiypoj/xari) adscript. 

Casanate?isis G. v. 1 4, in the Library of the Minerva at Rome ; first 
collated by Dressel for his edition (1857). The volume (it is a paper 
ms) contains several tracts written by different hands, at different dates, 
and on different sized paper, bound up loosely together. The Ignatian 
Epistles may have been written in the 15th century. In a later part of 
the volume the Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas are found ; but they 
have no connexion in handv/riting or otherwise with the Ignatian 
Epistles, and owe their proximity to the accident of binding. Dressel at 
first supposed rightly that this ms was copied from the Medicean ; but 
he afterwards changed his opinion, because ' ex comparatione amborum 
mss accuratius inter se instituta apparet notabilior lectionum discre- 
pantia,' adding ' Credibile tamen est utrumque codicem ex eodem 
vetustissimo archetypo, per ambages quidem, emanasse ' (p. Ixi). I 
think that few who compare Dressel's own collations will agree in this 
opinion. The differences are very trifling, being chiefly blunders or 
corrections of the most obvious kind, such as the alteration of itacisms, 
the interchange of e and at, and the like. The most important diver- 
gence that I have observed is the reading ottov fxkv for ottov 8e in 
Philad. 2. The headings of the epistles also are copied from the Medi- 

' The language of Dressel (p. 262) on 'A7a^o7roi;s, Tars. 10, he writes {Ap- 

leaves the impression that this MS reads pcndix p. 103) ' desideratur hoc nomen in 

aj'tTTicTTaTot 7ap etVi TO\J vov tov kl- with Graeco Mediceo.' The end of the epistle 

others. This is not the case. is altogether wanting in this MS. 

^ Ussheris misled and misleading, when 


cean ms, but this is not always intelligently done ; e.g. the transcriber 
has misread the contraction lincno. (for eTrio-ToXcoi/) at the head of the 
first letter and gives tov dyiov iyvariov iirLO-KOTrov a-[JivpvaioL<;. In the 
margin of Polyc. 6 the transcriber himself copies the gloss apyo? (for 
BeaepTwp) from the Medicean ms. Otherwise the marginal notes are in 
a much later (17th cent. ?) hand, and on Jlfagn. 8 ovk d-n-o o-ty^s irpoeX- 
6o}v there is a reference to a printed copy of the Long recension, iv 
dvTLypdcjiw TCTVTrw/ACvo) OS i(XTiv avTOiJ Xoyos ov prjTO? k.t.X. But in fact 
the appearance of the two mss shows plainly that the one is a copy of 
the other mediately or immediately, and I can hardly understand how 
any one who has inspected both can entertain a different opinion. Both 
end in the middle of the same word, but with this difference. In the 
Medicean, the words aveTrco-TaTot yap elcrlv TOV KL- close the final line of 
the final sheet of the ms, pointing obviously to the fact that the 
conclusion of the MS has been lost ; whereas in the Casanatensian they 
occur in the middle of a line in the middle of a page, followed by 
several blank leaves, showing not less plainly that the ms from which 
it was copied ended abruptly. The extreme improbability that two 
distinct MSS, each by a several accident, should have ended in the 
middle of the same word, is so great, that we are forced to the conclu- 
sion that the Casanatensian is a lineal descendant, perhaps an imme- 
diate copy, of the Medicean. Dressel's attempt to overcome these 
speaking facts is wholly unintelligible to me. Being a mere transcript 
therefore, this MS has no independent value, and in consequence I have 
not recorded its readings. 

Barber. 7 and Barber. 501 (in the Barberini Library at Rome) also 
contain the Ignatian Epistles transcribed wholly or in part from the 
Medicean MS by Lucas Holstenius. The first also gives the Epistles 
of Polycarp and Barnabas, and will demand attention hereafter, but 
neither has any independent value for the Ignatian letters. 

2. Paris. Graec. 1451 (formerly Colbert. 460), in the National 
Library at Paris. On fol. 109 a begins maptyrion toy AfioY {sic) iepo- 
MApTYpoc irNAjfoY TOY 6eO(})opOY- "Apri 8taSe^a/x,eVou k.t.X. These 
Acts of Martyrdom are printed in the present work (11. p. 477 sq). They 
incorporate the Epistle to the Romans, and were first published by 
Ruinart (see above). The Epistle to the Romans begins on fol. ma. 
The commencement of the epistle is not marked by any title, illumi- 
nation, or even capital letter, but the writing is continuous... uVoTeVa/cTat. 
lyvarios o kox 6€o</)opos k.t.X. The Epistle cnds.-.tu ^ afxr/. KaTapTtWs 
TOLvvv K.T.X. This MS may be ascribed to the loth century, the date 
assigned to it in the printed Catalogue. It is written clearly and in 


double columns, has uncial characters occasionally intermixed with 
the cursives, even in the middle of a word, and is without iotas 
subscript, but has breathings and accents (which however are very 
frequently wrong). This i\is was collated again by Jacobson, and 1 
myself have recoUated it. 

3. Paris. Grace. 950, a paper ms of perhaps the 15th century, 
contains (fol. 165 sq) an extract from the Epistle to the Ephesians, § 18 
d ydo ©cos Tj/jLijjv... § 19 OavaTov KaraXvatv. I have collated it anew. 

As Laur. Ivii. 7 and Faj'is. Grace. 1451 supplement each other, the 
latter supplying the Epistle to the Romans which is wanting in the 
former, so that they do not clash, I have used the same letter G to 
designate both. The fragment in Paris. Grace. 950 I have called G'. 

(ii) Latin. 

The history of this version is especially interesting to Englishmen. 
Ussher observed that the quotations from S. Ignatius in three English 
writers, Robert (Grosseteste) of Lincoln (c. a.d. 1250), John Tyssington 
(c. A.D. 1 381), and William Wodeford (c. a.d. 1396), while they difiered 
considerably from the text of this father as hitherto known (the Greek 
and Latin of the Long recension), agreed exactly with the quotations in 
Eusebius and Theodoret {Polyc. ct Ign. Epist. p. xv). He therefore 
concluded that the libraries of England must somewhere contain MSS of 
a version corresponding to this earlier text of Ignatius, and searched 
accordingly. His acuteness and diligence were rewarded by the dis- 
covery of the two MSS, which will be noticed below. When at length 
he saw this Latin version, he expressed a suspicion that Grosseteste 
was himself the translator. He noticed that Grosseteste's quotations 
were taken from this version. He found moreover in one of the two 
MSS several marginal notes, in which the words of the translation were 
compared with the original Greek', and which therefore seemed to come 
from the translator himself One of these marginal notes however (on 
Polyc. 3) betrayed the nationality of their author; 'Incus est instrumen- 
tum fabri \ dicitur Anglice anfeld [anvil].' But if the translator were an 
Enghshman, no one could be named so likely as Robert Grosseteste 
(p. cxlii). Usshei's suggestion has been worked out by Churton, the 
learned editor of Pearson {Vind. Ign. p. 109), who has shown that this 
view of the authorship is in the highest degree probable. The Ignatian 
Epistles are not quoted (except at secondhand from Rufinus or Jerome 
by Gildas and Bede) by any English writer before the time of Grosse- 
teste, or included in any patristic lists. Grosseteste himself was one of 

' See below, p. 84. 



the very few Greek scholars of his age. Among his followers were 
John of Basingstoke, archdeacon of Leicester, who studied at Athens, 
and Nicolas, a prebendary of Lincoln, who was himself a Greek. The 
former of these brought back with him from Athens a number of Greek 
Mss' ; the latter is known to have assisted the bishop in translating the 
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs'^. Among other Greek works of 
which the bishop caused a Latin version to be made were the writings 
of the supposed Dionysius the Areopagite^; and, as these writings are 
found frequently in mss bound up with the Ignatian Epistles, it 
seems not improbable that the latter were imported from Greece in 
the same or a companion volume, and translated by these or other 
Greek scholars under Grosseteste's direction \ It may further be 
observed, as strengthening this circumstantial evidence, that Grosseteste 
left his books to the convent of the Franciscan Order at Oxford', and 
that John Tyssington and William Wodeford, who quote these epistles 
in the latter years of the fourteenth century, belonged to this convent". 

1 Leland in Tanner Bibl. p. 431; see 
Pegge's Life of Grosseteste pp. 15, 67, 345. 

^ Matthew Paris Chron. Maj. s. a. 
1242 (iv. p. ■232, ed. Luard) '■Testametita 
Duodecim Patriarchartim de Graeco fideli 
interpretatione transtulit in Latinum... 
coadjuvante magistro Nicolao Graeco, cle- 
rico abbatis S. Albani.' John of Basing- 
stoke informed Grosseteste that he had 
seen the book while studying at Athens ; 
whereupon the bishop sent to Greece 
and procured it; Matthew Paris Chron. 
Maj. s. a. 1252 (v. p. 285). See also 
Pegge's Life pp. 163, 289 sq, 345 sq. 
This version is conveniently accessible in 
Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 
p. 519 sq. 

* See Pegge I. c. p. 290. 

* Funk {Echtheit etc. p. 143) sees so 
much difference in style between the 
Version of the Testaments and that of 
the Ignatian Epistles, that he hesitates 
to assign the latter to Grosseteste, and 
thinks it may even have been some 
centuries earlier. But Ussher probably 
does not mean more by the attribution to 
Grosseteste than that it emanated from, 
the band of scholars who were gathered 

about him, and this Funk allows to be 

5 Pegge p. 230 sq. 

^ For the quotations see Churton in 
Pearson's Vind. Ign. p. 1 1 1 (comp. p. 90). 
Tyssington cites Smyrn. 7 (comp. § 4), 
Ephes. 20, and Rom. 7. In the first of 
these passages he writes 'Considerate 
qualiter anthropomorphi, i.e. illi haere- 
tici contrarii sententiae Dei, a commu- 
nione et oratione sanctorum recedunt, 
propter non confiteri eucharistiam etc,' 
where he combines an expression in § 4 
(rCov 6r\piwv tQiv a,v9p(i}Trofi6p(ptii)v ' beasts 
in human form') v.'ith a passage in § 7, 
and entirely misapprehends the meaning 
of 'anthropomorphi.' The verbal agree- 
ments in Tyssington's quotation leave 
no doubt that he is citing our version, 
and he refers to the Epistle to the 
Ephesians as the third in number, which 
agrees with the order as found here. 
At the same time the differences seem 
to show that he is quoting it from 
memory. Wodeford alludes to the same 
passages, Smyrn. 7 and A'om. 7, but evi- 
dently takes his quotations directly from 


It should be added also, that this version does not appear to be quoted 
except by English writers, or to have been known out of England'. 

Ussher's theory as to the authorship of this version has been con- 
firmed in a curious way. After my first edition appeared, my attention 
was directed by a correspondent to a ms in the library at Tours 
professing to contain the Epistles of Ignatius translated by Robert of 
Lincoln ; and I followed up the clue. This ms (formerly no. 247, now 
no. 244) is described in A. Dorange's Catalogue des Manuscrits de la 
Bibliotheque de Tours (1875) p. 137. It contains various theological 
tracts of different ages from S. Augustine downward. In the Catalogue 
it is ascribed to the xiiith century, but this is afterwards corrected 
to the xivth ; nor indeed can it be much earlier, as it contains a work by 
Joannes de Rupella (f a.d. 1271). At all events it is some centuries older 
than Ussher. ' Au xv*^ siecle', we are told, 'ce ms a appartenu a Yves Mes- 
nager,' and afterwards it belonged to the Cathedral of S. Gatien at Tours. 
On fol. 484 is the title "Epistole beati Ignacii,' and after the title comes 
this colophon ; ' Has epistolas transtulit de greco in latinum magister 
robertus grossa testa linconiensis episcopus', written with contractions. 
Then follows the spurious correspondence with the Virgin and S. John, 
beginning ' Johanni sancto seniori etc' I took special pains to satisfy 
myself that the handwriting of this colophon was coeval with the context, 
and could not be a later insertion. The librarian, M. Duboz, was kind 
enough to send me a transcript which satisfied me of this fact ; but to 
make doubly sure, the Rev. J. Armitage Robinson at my request 
inspected the ms itself, so that no doubt might remain. 

What then is the meaning of this colophon? Obviously in the 
archetype, from which this Tours ms was copied, the Ignatian Epistles 
(translated from the Greek) were followed, as we find them in the mss 
Caiensis and Montaaitianus^ by the spurious Latin correspondence, with 

^ Turrianus Defens. Can. Apost. 1 says found in the Vatican: see below, p. 130, 

' Ignatius in vetere interpretatione Latina and comp. Ussher p. cxxii sq. Turrianus 

manuscripta epistolae ad Philadelphenses, however quoted the Greek. of the genuine 

quae in Vaticano est, non habet quod in Ignatius from the Medicean MS, before it 

Graeca epistola nuper in publicum emissa was published by Voss. 

legitur de Paulo inter eos qui uxorem Pearson (on Smyrn. 3) strangely con- 

habuerunt.' Hence Smith infers {Ign. jectures (p. 13) that our translator was 

Epist. praef.) that Turrianus must allude older than Jerome and led him into the 

to a manuscript of our Latin Version error of translating ol^a. by vidi. The 

(' plane cum nostra eadem esse mihi vide- converse (see Zahn /. v. A. p. 402, 

tur'). But some mss of the Latin of note) is possible; that the translator was 

the Long recension omit the name of led astray by the well-known passage in 

S. Paul in Philad. .1, and one of these is Jerome. 


this note separating the one from the other and referring to the 
preceding epistles. The preceding epistles have disappeared, but the 
appended note, assigning the translation to Robert of Lincoln, has 
survived. We have thus nearly contemporary testimony to the author- 
ship of the version. 

The value of this version for critical purposes consists in its extreme 
literalness. To this end the construction of the Latin is consistently 
sacrificed, as for instance in Philad. lo eis to o-uy;(ap-^i'ai avrots eTri to 
atiTo yevojiteWs 'in congaudere ipsis in idipsum factis,' Smyrfi. 5 to. -qixf.- 
T€pa Ttoi/ Kar avSpa iraOrjixaTa ' nostrae eorum qui secundum virum 
passiones,' 2l>. 1 1 eis to yevofnevov ccos Suptas (TvyxaprjvaL avrois (i.e. ' that 
he may visit Syria and congratulate them') 'in factum usque Syriam 
congaudere ipsis,' Polyc. 7 lav Trep om tov iTa9a.v ©eoij e7rtTu;^oj eis to 
evpiOrjvaL /xe ev ttj dvacrTua€L v/xwv jxaOrjTtjv, 'siquidem per pati Deo potiar 
in inveniri me in resurrectione vestri discipulum,' Tra//. 12 Trj jx€t dW-qXwv 
■n-poa-cvxrj ' ea quae cum adinvicem oratione,' Mar. Ign. 3 <^opdv e^oi'Ta 
(i.e. 'pouring down') 'lationem habentia.' Thus also new or unusual 
Latin words are introduced to correspond as exactly as possible to the 
original ; e.g. Folyc. 5 ' ingloriatio ' {dKavxqo-La), Magn. i ' multibona 
ordinatio' (to TroXveuTaKTov), ib. 14 ' superindigeo ' {iTTLhiop-ai), Ro?ii. 5 
' injustificatio ' (aStKry/uta), Mar. Ign. 5 ' subrememorans ' (vTroixLfxvij- 
aKova-a), Ign. Afar. 3 ' scriptibilis ' (ypat^tKo's), Ant 3 ' potestativus ' 
(c^oDo-iacTTr/'s), //;. 1 1 ' amaricatio ' {Trapo^varp.6?), etc. And again, par- 
ticles are scrupulously reproduced in violation of Latin idiom, such as 
dv, which is rendered utique^ e.g. Trail. 1 1 l(^a.ivovTo av ' apparerent 
utique,' Magn. 12 oTav 'quando utique.' Even as regards the order of 
the words it may be treated as an authority ; for in this respect also 
with very rare exceptions the Greek is rigidly followed without any 
regard for Latin usage. 

Moreover the ms which the translator used was evidently superior 
to the existing mss of the Greek {Laur. Ivii. 7 and Paris. Grace. 145 1). 
Thus it is free from several interpolations in these mss (mostly found also 
in the Long recension, and frequently quotations from the N. T.) ; 
e.g. Ephes. I tou vizXp r^p.(av eavTOv avevcyKoVTOS 0c<3 7rpocr<f)opav Kat Ovcriav, 
ib. 2 KaTrjpTtCTfJLiVOL T<3 auTO) vo\ K.T.X.., RoM. 3 Ttt yttp ^X^TTO/xiva TrpocTKaipa 
K.T.X., lb. 4 KO(T[XLKov ^ //.ciTatov, lb. 5 dvarofxal Staipeaei?, lb. 6 t6 yap 
(tifjiiXeLTaL avOpwTTo^ k.t.X,, lb. lO TOvriaTiv Avyovarov eixaSt TpiT?^. Smil- 
larly it is free from the omission of y\o'yo? afier @eov and the substitu- 
tion of Tpe'xwv for cfiuiv-q in Rom. 2. Again, in several instances it gives 
words and clauses which have dropped out of these mss through inad- 


vertence ; e.g. Ephes. i ' videre festinastis,' Trail. 7 ' qui vero extra 
altare est, non mundus est,' Philad. 7 ' Dei voce,' Ro7n. 6 ' neque per 
materiam seducatis,' Mart. 5 'justitiae per tale.' Again in many places, 
where the reading is changed or corrupted, it preserves a correct text ; 
e. g. Polyc. I ' consuetudinem ' (o/xot; ^€iav for fio-qdeLai'), Philad. 5 
'imperfectus' (ctvaTrapTto-Tos for avapTrao-ros), Roni. 3 'suasionis' (ttcio-- 
fxovrj<; for (THi)Trr}<; fxovov), lb. 6 ' termini ' {Trepara for repirva), Mart. 6 
' ab impiis ' (Tropa twv a^eW for Trapa tw va.^. Again, it is free from 
some glosses which disfigure the Greek text ; e.g. Magn. 8 ' secundum 
Judaismum ' (for Kara voii.ov 'loiiSatcr/xoV), ib. 9 ' secundum dominicam ' 
(for Kara KvpiaK-qv t,<jy>]v), Rom. 6 ' homo cro ' (for OF^pwTros ©eov 

At the same time, though much superior, it belonged to the same 
family with these. This is clear from the arrangement of the epistles 
and the presence of the confessedly spurious letters, as well as from 
other decisive indications. Thus the one marginal gloss of Laur. Ivii. 7, 
apyos (for Seo-e'pTojp) in Polyc. 6, is translated in the text of the Latin, 
' nuUus vestrum otiosus inveniatur,' and has displaced the original word; 
and in like manner the confusion of the subscription of the letter to 
Polycarp with the superscription of that to the Smyrnreans, which 
appears in this Greek MS, is reproduced and worse confounded in 
the Latin (see 11. p. 331). 

This close relationship moreover is confirmed by the presence of the 
same corrupt readings in both. Thus we find that the Latin text con- 
forms to the Greek in Ephes. '7 'in immortali vita vera,' Magn. 8 
' verbum aeternum non a silentio progrediens,' Trail. 3 ' diligentes quod 
non parco ipsum aUqualem,' Mar. Ign. i ' et Sobelum ' (koX ^6j3r]Xoi' for 
Kaa-aoftrjXov or Kaaa-ofiyjXwv), and Other passages, where the readings 
are in some cases demonstrably, in others probably, false. 

At the same time the advantage is not always on the side of the 
Latin text, as compared with the Greek mss. Thus in Smyrn. 6 
o ytapQiv x^petTo) • tottos fj.y]Siva (/)DcriovTw, the Latin rendering, ' qui capit 
capiat ; qualiter nuUis infletur,' arises obviously from a corruption x^pet- 
T(ii[To]Trw<; for ^wpetTwroTros. Thus again in Ephes. 3 for iv tw ovo/xari it 
has ' in nomine Christi,' where ' Christi ' is an obvious gloss ; and in 
Smyrn. 10 'PeW 'Aya^oVow becomes ' Reum et Agathopum,' thus 
making two men out of one. So also in Rom. 7 the Latin ' ignis amans 
aliquam aquam, sed vivens ' is certainly corrupt, while the Greek irOp 
<j)iX6v\ov, vSwp 8e Iwv may perhaps give the original reading. But the 
passages where the text of the Greek mss contrasts favourably with that 
of the Latin Version are very few in all. 



The following are the two mss of this version, to which reference 
has already been made. 

I. Caiensis 395 [L,] (see the Catalogue of MSS in Cams College p. 
193)'. This MS was given to Gonville and Caius College (then called the 
College of the Annunciation of the B. V. Mary) by Walter Crome D.D., 
formerly a fellow of the College, 'a.d. 1444 in festo S. Hugonis.' This 
fact is recorded on the fly leaf in Crome's own handwriting. 

The main part of the volume is taken up with letters and other 
writings of S. Ambrose. After these come the Epistles of Dionysius the 
Areopagite, and after these again the Epistles of S. Ignatius. These 
last are followed by another letter of S. Ambrose, ' Epistola brevissima 
sed optima,' which with a few blank leaves at the end concludes the 
volume. The whole is in the handwriting of Crome himself, who 
records the date at the close of the works of S. Ambrose and before the 
commencement of the letters of Dionysius in these words (fol. 164 a); 
' Expliciunt epistole Beati Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi. scripte 
per Crome et finite anno domini millesimo cccc'"°xl primo in festo 
sancti Swithuni episcopi sociorumque ejus.' This notice has been over- 
looked by previous collators^, and baseless conjectures have in con- 
sequence been hazarded respecting the date of the ms^ On fol. 74 also 
the writer has given his name ' Crome.' 

The Ignatian Epistles commence on fol. 174 a, and occur in the 
following order; (i) Smyrn^ans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephesians, (4) Magne- 
sians, (5) Philadelphians, (6) Trallians, (7) Mary of Cassobola to Igna- 
tius, (8) Ignatius to Mary of Cassobola, (9) Tarsians, (10) Antiochenes, 
(11) Hero, (12) Acts of Martyrdom (numbered as 'epistola duodecima'), 
incorporating (13) the Epistle to the Romans described as 'epistola 
terciadecima.' After this comes a colophon giving a list of the preceding 
letters (see below iii. p. 69); and then follow (14) 'Epistola eiusdem ad 

^ Cureton in several passages {Corp. 
li^n. pp.291, 308, 338) mentions a 'Corpus 
Christi MS,' apparently mistaking Jacob- 
son's notation C. C. {'Codex Caiensis'); 
for no such MS exists at Corpus Christi 
College in either Oxford or Cambridge. 
On p. 338 he speaks of 'the two copies 
of the... Latin Version belonging to Caius 
College Cambridge and Corpus Christi 
College Oxford.' 

- This is the case also with Funk, 
whose collation (see ill. p. 12) was made 
after my own. He still treats the date 

IGN. I. 

as a matter of opinion (Echtheit etc. p, 
144, note 5). 

^ Thus Smith, whose work was pub- 
lished in 1709, speaks of this ms as 'ante 
quadringentos annos aut circiter, ut ex 
characteribus et figuris literarum coniec- 
turam facere libet, scripto' {.S". Ignat. Epis- 
tolac pra^f.), thus ante-dating it by more 
than a century and a quarter; and Russel 
a i^w years later (a.d. 1746) describes it 
as 'abhinc quingentos annos scriptus' 
{Patr. Apost. i. prref. p. xvii), thus ex- 
panding the error to two centuries. 


johannem evangelistam,' (15) ' Ignacius johanni evangeliste,' (16) 
' Ignacius sancte marie,' and (17) ' Ignacio sancta maria'; the whole 
terminating with ^ExpHciunt epistole ignacii martiris numero decem et 
septem.' It will be observed that the Epistle to the Philippians is 
wanting in this version. 

Ussher does not appear to have used the ms itself for his edition. 
In his correspondence with his friend Dr Ward, the Master of Sidney 
College, he negociates about procuring a transcript, which at length he 
mentions as having been received by his agent (Elrington's Life ajid 
Works of Ussher xv. pp. 482, 504, 540, 542). Ward distinctly says 
that ' the ms cannot be let out of the college ' (xv. p. 504) ; and a 
Mr Foster of Emmanuel College is mentioned as a likely person to 
transcribe it, having 'taken some pains already in it' {ib.). The task 
however seems ultimately to have been assigned to one Younger, a 
scholar and librarian of Gonville and Caius College '. 

A transcript of this ms also exists in the library of Caius Coll. 
(ms 445). It is thus described in the Catalogue (p. 212); 'This seems 
to be the transcript from ms 395 made for Archbishop Ussher's edition 
of Ignatius. It is very neatly and on the whole accurately written.' Of 
its accuracy I shall have something to say presently ; but this was cer- 
tainly not the transcript which Ussher used. He makes arrangement 
for defraying the costs of transcribing {Life and Works xv. pp. 482, 
540), and evidently looks on the transcript, when made, as his own 
property ; nor is there any reason why it should have been returned to 
the college, where it was least of all wanted. 

In fact the transcript which Ussher used is still in the library of 
Dublin University, where it is marked D. 3. 11. On the second page 
(the first is blank excepting the date) is written in Ussher's handwriting; 
' Hoc Ignatianarum Epistolarum apographum ex Bibliotheca Collegii 
GunwelU et Caii apud Cantabrigienses descriptum collatum est a me 
cum alio ms membranaceo, ex Bibliotheca D. Richardi Montacutii 
Norwicensis episcopi petito.' This manuscript is written in the same 
handwriting with the Caius transcript (445). It contains the same 
prefatory instructions with regard to certain symbols which the tran- 
scriber uses, the same marginal notes, and (for the most part) the same 
misreadings. On the first, otherwise blank, page the transcriber dates 

^ This may be inferred from the fol- wrighting out Ignatius Epistles and a 

lowing extract from the Liber Bursarii Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the 

1609 — 1634 of the College, sent to me by Library xiii^. 4''.' This W. Younger is 

Prof. Bensly; 'Ad Festum Mich. 1631... described in 1632 as 'prius scholaris et 

Item to S'" [i.e. Dominus] Younger for bibliothecarius hujus collegii.' 


his work 'Junii 20" 1631." After the first leaf, several leaves (apparently 
four) have been lost; and the second existing leaf commences 'in 
orationibus vaca indesinentibus etc' {Polyc. i), so that the whole of 
the Epistle to the Smyrnjeans and the opening of the Epistle to 
Polycarp are wanting. 

The exact relation between these two transcripts might probably be 
made out, if it were worth while to do so. For the most part the same 
omissions and misreadings appear in both; but on the whole the advan- 
tage is slightly in favour of the Dublin transcript, which adheres more 
nearly to the spelling of the MS. It is not easy to say which was the 
earlier of the two ; but if the Dublin transcript was written after the 
other, the transcriber must have had the MS itself before him, while 
copying out his previous work. 

Both transcripts are full of inaccuracies. These arise sometimes 
from indifference to spelling on the part of the transcriber, sometimes 
from mere carelessness and inattention, but most frequently from igno- 
rance of the contractions, which in this MS are numerous and perplexing. 
The very name of the donor is wrongly given 'Brome' for 'Crome'^ 
Such various readings as 'panem qui' for 'passionem quae' {Smyrn. 5) 
and 'oratione' for ' resurrectione ' {Polyc. 7) are entirely due to the 
transcriber's inaccuracy ; and minor errors are very numerous. Using 
this very incorrect transcript, Ussher frequently mentions a discre- 
pancy in the mss of this Latin Version, when in fact the two have the 
same reading. 

2. Montacutianus [Lg], a parchment MS from the library of Richard 
Mountague or Montacute, Bp of Norwich. Bp Mountague himself 
quotes from this MS, while yet in his possession ; but he confuses the 
version there given with the Latin of the Long recension which was 
much more widely known ^. Ussher points out the mistake {Polyc. ei 
Ignat. Ep. p. cxli). Since it was in Ussher's possession, it has dis- 
appeared. 'Ubi iam reperiendus sit,' writes Smith in 1708, 'ne investi- 
gando quidem expiscari possum' (.5". Ipi. Epist. praef.). I too have 
angled for it in many waters, but enquiries made in all likely quarters 

' On July 28, 1 63 1, Ussher writes to - See Ussher Polyc. et Ignat. Epist. 

Ward, 'The copy of Ignatius Mr Bur- p. cxli, from whom the error has been 

nett writeth unto me he hath received, transmitted to later writers (e.g. Zahn 

but it is not yet come into my hands' /. v. A. p. 552). 

[,Lifc and Works xv. p. 54'2). This ^ <9;-?>. .ffcf/. p. 457 (a.d. 1640) 'Hanc 

transcript is mentioned by Ussher on (lectionem) sequitur vetus interpres Adone 

Aug. 9, 1632 with approbation: 'The Viennensiantiquior; vertit enim j5'^<? «;?;« 

copy was well taken out and servelh me et post resurrectionem in ca7-ne ipsutn 

to singular good use' {ib- xv. p. 559). vidi.'' 



have proved unsuccessful. It would not improbably be in the possession 
of Ussher at the time of Bp Mountague's death (April 1641); and, if 
so, it may have disappeared in the confusion and depredations which 
attended the confiscation and seizure of his books by the Parliament, 
A.D. 1643 {Life and Works i. p. 229). At all events the many vicissi- 
tudes which his library underwent at this time and after his death, 
when it was again plundered {Life and Works i. p. 303), will easily 
account for the loss of the ms ; and its recovery now seems almost 
beyond hope'. 

I have however been able to supply the loss to a great extent 
from Ussher's transcript of the Caius ms already mentioned {Dublifi, 
D. 3. 11), which has been strangely overlooked by previous editors. It 
contains a collation of the Montacute ms between the lines or in the 
margin. As mere variations of spelling are frequently recorded, Ussher 
seems to have intended this collation to be full and exact. At all 
events it contains very much which cannot be gathered from his printed 

Of the antiquity of this ms we can form no very definite opinion, 
now that it is lost. It was plainly quite independent of the Caius ms, 
since the correct reading is preserved sometimes in the one and some- 
times in the other. We may infer also that it was the more ancient, as 
it was certainly the more accurate, of the two. The simplicity of the 
headings, compared with those of the Caius ms, where they sometimes 
expand into a table of contents, points to its greater antiquity. Moreover 
it most frequently preserves the exact order of the words, as they stand 
in the Greek original, whereas in the Caius ms more regard is paid 
to Latin usage, and the order has often been changed accordingly. 
Again, it alone preserves a number of marginal glosses which show 
a knowledge of the Greek, and which therefore (we may presume) are 
due to the translator himself, who had the original before him. Thus 
on Smyrn. i ' sapientes fecit ' this annotator writes, ' unum est verbum 
in Graeco [o-o<^tcravTa], Latine sapientificavit'' (Ussher Annot. ad loc. 
p. 46). Thus again on Smyr7i. 5 twv ko.t dvSpa he gives a gloss, 'Grnsci 
dicunt secundum virum pro singuluvi vel singillatim ' {A?inot. ad loc. 
p. 49). Again on Folyc. 8 'in et ipsos facere' he explains the grammar, 
'regit hsec propositio [1. prjepositio] in more Graeco hoc totum ipsos 
facere.^ Again on Ephes. i 'dilectum tuum nomen quod possedistis 

1 In a series of interesting letters in this MS, with others, was taken to Italy 

the Acadeviy XX. pp. 10, 53, 404 (July — by Mountague's chaplain Mileson, who 

December 1881), the late Rev. J. H. became a Jesuit. 
Backhouse gave reasons for thinking that 


natura iusta ' he writes, ' ephesis Grsece, desiderium Latine ; Ephesii 
desiderabiles dicuntur.' Again on Philad. 6, after explaining the last 
sentence 'Oro ut non in testimonium etc.', he adds 'Graece bene dicitur.' 
Again Antioch. 6 the animals intended by ^Aeos {thoes) are thus 
described, 'bestiae sunt ex yena et lupo natae, et dicuntur licopantiri; 
veloces enim sunt, licet habeant tibias breves", where the clause 
' veloces etc' refers to the derivation of (9ojs from ^e'w, ^oo's. This gloss 
is translated from the Greek lexicographers ". Again on Mart. 2 ' cum 
et alteros persuadere ' he is careful to state that the government of the 
infinitive by ' cum ' follows the Greek regimen. These glosses appear 
to have come from the hand of the original translator or one of his 
friends ; for it is highly improbable that any later annotator before the 
revival of learning would have possessed the knowledge of the Greek 
language and of the epistles in the original, which these glosses 

There is therefore good reason for believing that this ms with its 
marginal glosses closely represented the version in the form in which it 
came from the hands of the translator. At the same time it cannot 
have been the archetypal MS of the version; for the text, though 
generally intact, is already disfigured by a few corruptions and omis- 

In order and arrangement it entirely agrees with the Caius ms. The 
glosses, with one or two exceptions (where they are still retained in the 
Caius ms), are peculiar to it. The more important of these have been 

1 This is one of the very few excep- on the part of the translator at the coni- 

tions where notes are presei-ved in the pletion of his task. Prof. J. Rendel 

Caius MS also. It appears there with Harris however has pointed out {Journal 

slight variations. of Society of Biblical Literature and Ex- 

' Suidas QQx%- drjpia i^ vaivyjs Kal \6- egesis, Dec. 1886, Ignatiana, p. 90) that 

Kov yevvufieva: Etym. Gudian. Sues' oi it is a translation of the Greek line, t(J5 

\vKOTra.vd-r\poc rax^s yap elai, Kalnep avvreXecrTy tuv koXCji' Qe<^ X'^'P'^i ^ form 

/Spaxi'O'KeXeis 6vTf$ ; see Gaisford, Etym. of subscription which (with modifications) 

Magn. p. 459. It is worthy of notice appears in several Greek Mss. Thus in 

that Suidas is mentioned among the Cod. Paris. Reg. 2458, which is dated 

Greek works of which Grosseteste made a.d. 1286, this subscription appears ver- 

use; Pegge pp. 284, 291, 346. batim. It is therefore the thanksgiving 

^ After the table of contents at the of the scribe, not of the translator; but 

end of the Acts of Martyrdom and be- it serves equally well to show that the 

fore the Correspondence with the Virgin Correspondence with the Virgin has no 

and S. John, are the words 'Consum- connexion with the Ignatian Epistles 

matori bonorum Deo gratias.' In my which precede, and was not contained 

first edition I had suggested that this in the MS which the translator used, 
might be an ejaculation of thanksgiving 


already given. Others are paraphrases of the author's meaning, or 
explain the^ construction, or call attention to the importance of the 
subject matter. 

(iii) Armenian [A]. 

With characteristic penetration Ussher had foreseen the probability 
that an Armenian version of the Ignatian Epistles would be found {^Life 
and Letters xvi. p. 64 sq). This version was first printed at Constanti- 
nople in 1783; see Neumann Versuch einer Geschichte der Armenischen 
Literatur p. 73 sq (Leipzig 1836), who translates from PI. Sukias Somal 
Quadro dclle Opere di vari aiitori anticamente tradotte in Armcno p. 10 
(Venezia 1825); see Cureton C. I. p. xvi. More recently it has been 
rendered accessible to others besides Armenian scholars by Petermann, 
who has reprinted and translated the whole, paragraph by paragraph, in 
his edition of Ignatius (Lipsiae 1849). This version contains the 
epistles in the following order: (i) Smyrnasans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephe- 
sians, (4) Magnesians, (5) Trallians, (6) Philadelphians', (7) Romans, 
(8) Antiochenes, {9) Mary to Ignatius, (10) Ignatius to Mary, (n) Tar- 
sians, (12) Hero (here called Urio), (13) Philippians. It was printed 
from five mss, which appear to be no longer extant or at least ac- 
cessible ; but only three various readings are given in the margin, and 
these on the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. The editor Minas, an Arme- 
nian bishop, states in the preface that he corrected some errors by a 
comparison of the mss. Thus the editio princeps is wholly uncritical ; 
and as Petermann, not being able to consult any mss, was obliged to 
reprint it as he found it, the value of this version for textual purposes 
is very seriously impaired. 

The golden era of Armenian literature was the fifth century. It was 
especially rich in versions from the Greek and Syriac, scholars having 
been despatched by the famous Mesrob far and wide to collect manu- 
scripts in both languages for the purposes of translation^. To the fifth 
century accordingly the Armenian version of Ignatius is attributed by 
Somal, and the same is also the opinion of Petermann (p. xxv sq). 
The latter critic gives this as the common tradition of the Armenians, 
and considers that the internal evidence is favourable to its truth. The 
following are his reasons, (i) The language— more especially in the 
forms of the proper names — points to an early and pure stage in its 
development. He allows however that there are several exceptions, 

^ The order is correctly given by Peter- delphians, (6) Trallians, as in the Greek, 
mann (p. vi). Somal, followed by Neu- ^ See S. Clement of Rome i. p. 213 

mann, transposes and gives it, (5) Phila- (2nd edition). 


which he supposes to have been introduced by transcribers at a later 
date, (ii) With one exception (certain Martyrologies translated by 
command of Gregory Martyrophilus, the catholicus of Armenia) no 
translations are known to have been made from Syriac into Armenian 
at a later date, (iii) The Biblical quotations have no affinity to the 
Armenian version of the Scriptures, and appear therefore to be prior in 
date to that version. Though these arguments seem to me to be 
inconclusive, I cannot venture, with my very slender knowledge of the 
language, to question the result. I will only mention one objection 
which appears to me to be formidable. This early date seems hardly 
to allow sufficient time for the successive stages in the history of the 
Ignatian literature. If (as seems to be assumed) all the epistles were 
translated into Armenian at the same time, room must be found for 
the following facts: (i) The forgery of the confessedly spurious letters, 
which can hardly be placed earlier than the middle of the fourth 
century ; (2) The attachment of these to the epistles of the Middle 
form, for they originally proceeded from the same hand as the Long ■ 
recension ; (3) The translation of the two sets of letters, thus com- 
bined, into Syriac, for it will be seen presently that the Armenian 
version was made from the Syriac; (4) The corruption of the Syriac 
text, for it is found also that very numerous and very considerable 
errors had crept in before the Armenian version was made; (5) The 
translation into Armenian. 

One important fact — important not only as gauging the textual value 
of the Armenian version, but still more as having a direct bearing on 
the Ignatian question — has been established irrefragably by Petermann. 
It cannot be doubted, after his investigations, that the Armenian transla- 
tion was made, not from the Greek original, but from a Syriac version. 
The arguments may be ranged under three heads, (i) Syriac construc- 
tions and phrases appear in an Armenian dress, where otherwise 
the translator would naturally have followed the Greek. Thus the 
idiom of the indecUnable relative in the Shemitic languages is copied, 
though in Armenian, as in Greek, the relative is declined. Finite 
sentences are substituted for participial clauses, though the substitution 
is not reciuired by the genius of the Armenian language, as it is by that 
of the Syriac. The degrees of comparison are rendered in the Syriac 
way. Assertions are strengthened by prefixing the infinitive absolute 
(with the sense of the Latin gerund) to the finite verb after the manner 
of the Shemitic tongues, though there is nothing corresponding in the 
Greek; e.g. Afagu. 7 ' tentando tentate,' Jvom. 4 'provocando pro- 
vocate,' Smyrn. 4 ' orando orate,' etc. The forms ' est mihi,' ' est illi,' 


etc, are frequently used for 'habeo,' 'habet,' etc, as in the Syriac. 
Certain characteristic Syriac expressions are reproduced ; e.g. ' son of 
man' for avOpwiros (frequently), 'sons of the city' for TroXTrai (Tars. 2), 
' by the hand of ' for Sia (frequently), ' our Lord ' for d Kvptos (fre- 
quently). (2) Syriac ambiguities are wrongly taken by the translator. 
Thus m. Ephes. 8 rots atwo-iv is rendered 'omnibus ethnicis,' the link 
being the Syriac r<lsai^ which signifies either 'age' or 'world.' See 
also II. pp. 223, 256, for other examples. (3) Corruptions or mis- 
readings of the Syriac text are very frequent sources of error. These 
will occur either in the diacritical points or in the letters. Of the former 
the constant substitution of a plural for a singular and conversely, owing 
to the insertion or omission of the plural sign ribui, will serve as an 
instance. So again in Philipp. 10 KoiXwv 'funem' is rendered 'corrup- 
tionem ' from the ambiguous Syriac r^ilauM, which has either meaning 
as differently vocalised. Two other remarkable examples of wrong 
vocalisation appear in one chapter alone, Magn. 6 (see 11. pp. 119, 
121). Of the confusion of letters numberless instances occur. Among 
others, more or less convincing, which Petermann gives, are the follow- 
ing ; Bouppos [Eph. 2)\ne% Buerdos (jaoo.iioja for jtoaiios); 
KpoKos ib. is changed into Markos (jaoCCoijsa for .floCUaijo); Tlo\v- 
/8tos {Hero 8) into Polekhes (jaa&^x\^ for fv».-^.\<\ ^ ; to ovoixa 

vfiwv {Ephes. i) is translated ' salus vestra' {^^ fy «v **i \ v. for 

^^_a^2ax.); ctTTo T^s dcr/x.i7s {Magn. 10) 'a spiritu ejus' (cviMoi for 
ca4jt*i); Ivo. Kar€voSw6r]T€ {Magn. 13) ' ut splendeatis' (^.^OjolSO-.^! 
for ^__Ajja^^.T ; comp. Nero 9); 6 tok€tos {J^om. 6) 'dolores mortis' 
(rf^OSa for K'."Ua»j); rpofftfi (f>dopS.<; {Rom. 7) 'lac' (kC-sIm for 
f<ljLajj) I at lyyuTTa iKKkqaiaL {Philad. 10) ' sanctae ecclesiae' (t^^vzaHa 
for K'^vau'ixj) ; otto tov Tra'^ous {Smyrn. i) *a signo' (rdxu for relrw; 
see the note on Ephes. i) ; tov \x.kWovTo. {Polyc. 8) 'eum fratrem qui 
paratus est' (r^LMK* Oco.T for kIi^t^ oorj.i); ttj o-eo-a)o-/x,6vTj iKKXqaia 
{Tars, inscr.) ' egregiae ecclesiae' (r<lx»ia for rtLn^ia); e^avAtcra 
{Antioch. 10) 'obtegebam' (^ujact-^ for Aujao-rj); oiKrjTijpLov {Herod) 
•discipulus' (ni'.'usa^^ for K'Hiio^.^). See also below, 11. pp. 31, 
58, 66, 171, 190, 191, 199, for other instances; but indeed examples 
might be very largely multiplied. 

Thus the proof -is overwhelming. But it will amount to abso- 
lute demonstration, if we can show (as will be shown hereafter) 


that parts of a Syriac version, which the Armenian translator might 
have used, are still extant, exhibiting the same blunders and running 
parallel to the Armenian in a remarkable way. 

At the same time Petermann supposes (pp. xiv, xxvi) that the 
Armenian version was compared here and there with the original Greek 
by scribes and readers, who interpolated and corrupted it accordingly. 
The instances however which he gives do not bear out this judgment, 
since the phenomena may in every case be explained in other ways. 
Thus his chief example is Antioch. 9, where for the Greek at ywatKcs 
TijuuTwo-av Tous ai/8pas ws crapKa iStav, the Armenian has ' mulieres hono- 
rent vires suos, sicut Sarra Abrahamum.' He supposes that the trans- 
lator read %dppa tSiov for a-dpKa iBtav, and that ' Abraham ' was an ex- 
planation of lSlov. Even if this solution be correct, and if the change 
be not rather due (as seems more likely) to a reminiscence of i Pet. 
iii. 6, still there is no difficulty in supposing the corruption in the Greek 
text to have occurred before the Syriac version was made and to have 
been transmitted to the Armenian through the Syriac. Again he appeals 
to the three various readings (Smyrn. i, 2, 6) given by the Armenian 
editors, and lays stress on the fact that they are closer to the Greek 
than the corresponding readings in the text. But in the only one of 
these three passages where the Syriac is preserved Smyrn. 2 (' ad vivifi- 
candum nos' in the text of the Armenian, 'ut salvemur' in the margin), 
the Syriac corresponds exactly with the Greek iVa o-w^w/xei/, and this was 
probably the case with the other two. Thus the marginal readings 
seem to represent the original Armenian rendering, while those which 
now stand in the text were later manipulations. 

It will be seen from the history of the Armenian text, which has 
been given, that in using it for critical purposes we must make very 
considerable allowance for the vicissitudes through which it has passed. 
The points for which allowance must be made are these, (i) The 
corruptions of the Greek text before it reached the hands of the Syriac 
translator. (2) The changes which would be introduced in the process 
of translation into Syriac — changes partly demanded by the genius of a 
wholly alien language and partly introduced by the faults of the transla- 
tion. (3) The corruptions of the Syriac text before it reached the 
hands of the Armenian translator. These, as we have already seen, 
were very considerable. (4) The changes again introduced by conver- 
sion into a language so widely separated from the Syriac as tlie Arme- 
nian. These to a certain extent were inevitable, but in the present case 
they have been largely increased by the ignorance or carelessness of the 
translator, who moreover appears to have indulged in glosses and peri- 


phrases with much caprice. {5) The corruptions, emendations, and 
interpolations of the Armenian in the course of transmission through 
many centuries. (6) The careless and uncritical mode of editing the 
printed text. Of these six sources of corruption, the third and fourth 
appear to have been by far the most fertile, but all have contributed 
appreciably to the total amount of change. 

Yet notwithstanding all these vicissitudes, the Armenian version is 
within certain limits one of the most important aids towards the forma- 
tion of a correct text. The Greek, from which the prior Syriac transla- 
tion was made, must have been much earlier and purer than any existing 
text of these epistles, Greek or Latin ; and, where this can be discerned 
through the overlying matter, its authority is highly valuable. Happily 
this is almost always possible, where the variation of reading is really 
important. On the other hand in minor matters, such as the connexion 
of sentences or the form of words, no stress can be laid on this version. 
Its readings are only recorded in the present edition, where they have, 
or seem to have, some value in determining the original text. 

Armenian Acts of Martyrdom [Aj, containing the Epistle to the 
Romans. For the editions of this work see 11. p. 367. A full account of 
the contents of these Acts will be found below, 11. p. 371 sq. At present 
we are only concerned with the epistle incorporated in them. They 
were translated immediately from the Greek, and at a date subsequent 
to the Armenian version [A] of the Ignatian Epistles. But though he 
translated afresh, the translator was evidently acquainted with the ex- 
isting Armenian version, or at least with extracts from it ; for the coin- 
cidences are far too numerous and too striking to be accidental : see 
e.g. the renderings of § 7 fjirjSeU ovv k.t.X. (p. 170, Petermann), § 8 8l 
oXiywv K.T.X, (p. 176), ib. ov Kara crapKa k.t.X. (p. 1 77)) § 9 /Avr/yMoveuerc 
K.T.X. (p. 178), il?. eyw Se k.t.X. (pp. 178, 179), etc. Alternative render- 
ings are frequently given (e.g. pp. 149, 156, 157, 165, 180); and else- 
where various readings are noted (e.g. pp. 132, 135, 141, 144, 162 (?), 
166, 172 sq, 175). It is not clear whether these latter may not in some 
instances be due to the editor Aucher. 

Zahn (/. V. A. p. 21) questions the opinion of Aucher and Peter- 
mann that this version was made from the Greek, and supposes it to 
have been rendered from a Syriac translation. His reasons however do 
not seem valid. Thus the rendering of 6eo(f)6po^ by 'God-clad' is in- 
conclusive, since this was already a familiar designation of Ignatius in 
Armenian, as the version of the Epistles shows. Again the influence of 
ribtii'in the plurals, Rom. 7 'cogitationes mese,' and Rom. 9 'in precibus 


vestris,' where the Greek has singulars, cannot be pleaded, since in both 
cases the plurals accord with the Armenian idiom. Again the coinci- 
dence of the plural gubcrnaculis for the singular otuKt {Mart. Ant. i), 
which appears also in the Syriac Acts [S„], proves nothing, since it is 
easily explained by the fact that the ancients commonly had two rudders 
(Acts xxvii. 40 Twv TTTjSaXiW). Nor does there seem to be any more 
force in his other arguments. In this respect the phenomena of the 
Armenian Acts [A^,] present a marked contrast to those of the 
Armenian Epistles [A]. 

(iv) Syriac [S]. 

This version is represented only by a few collections of fragments. 

(i) Paris. Bibl. Nat. Syr. 62, formerly ^//^^r/;/. 38 [Si]. A collec- 
tion of canons and dicta of different councils and fathers. On fol. 
173 a — 175 b are extracts from the Epistles of S. Ignatius. These frag- 
ments were transcribed by Munk for Cureton, and are pubHshed and 
translated by the latter in the Corp. Ign. pp. 197 sq, 232 sq. They 
have been collated afresh for the present work (in. p. 93 sq) by M. 
Zotenberg. The ms itself is described by Munk ib. p. 342 sq, and by 
Zotenberg Catal. des MSS Syriaques etc. p. 2 2 sq. 

This collection contains the following passages : 

Ephes. 5, 6 O"7rou8ao"aj/x,ev ouv-.-Set TrpocjSXeTreiv. 

13 o"7roi;8a^eT€ ovv...Kai eTriyet'wi/, 

15 a/x€iro'v €aTiv...o A.€ywv ttoi^. 
Magn. 5, 6 01 airtcrTOL Toi3 koct/xou . . . twv BiaKOvuiV. 

6, 7 aXA. ivw6T]T€...i8La vfuv. 
Trail. 2, 3 OTav yap tw £7rio"K07ra) . . . ou KaXctrai. 

5, 6, 7 Kat yap iyta . . .<f)vXa.TT€(x6e oSv tous tolovtovs. 

8 v/u,£ts ovv TTpaviraOuav . . .aifxa 'Ir^trou XptcTou. 

9, 10, II KwffiwOrjTe o^v...ovTas fJi€Xr] avTOv. 
Polyc. 3 o\ SoKoCvTcs. ..T/zxas uTTO/jteivr;. 

6 Tw iTnaKOTTio ■!rpo(Te)^€T€...a)(€lv irapa ©ew. 

7 TrpcVei, HoXvKapire. . .aTraprCarjTe. 
Philad. 3, 4 oVot yap ©€o£i uisiv . . .rov alfJiaTO<; avTov. 

7 iKpavyaaa jjiiTa^v wv...iXT]8iv ttouItc. 
10 diT-qyyiXr} /xot. . .Trpecr/JuTcpous Kai StaKOVous. 
Smyrn. 8, 9 ovk e^oV i^niv ...t^ SiajSoXta Xarpevei. 

These extracts are headed, 'Dicta selected from the Epistles of Saint 
Ignatius the disciple of the Apostles, God-clad and Martyr, the second 
bishop of Antioch; which have the force of ecclesiastical canons.' They 


occur in the following order; Ephes. 5, 6 ; 13 ; 15; Magn. 5, 6; Trail. 
(written as if Titilians) 2, 3 ; 5, 6, 7 ; Folyc. 3 ; 6 ; Philad. 3, 4 ; 7 ; 10; 
Smyrn. (called ' the Church of Asia ') 8, g ; Magn. 6, 7 ; Trail, (again 
Titilians) 8; 9, 10, 11 ; Polyc. 7. At the close are the words, 'Here 
end these [passages] of Saint Ignatius, the God-clad and Martyr.' As 
some of the Cyprianic documents included in the collection are stated 
{Catal. p. 24) to have been translated first from the Latin into Greek, 
and afterwards from the Greek into Syriac in A. Gr. 998 (i.e. a.d. 687), 
and as the last extract (fol. 273 sq) in the handwriting of the original 
scribe (or at least the last remaining extract, for the original MS is muti- 
lated at the end, and other matter is added in a later hand) contains 
questions proposed to Jacob of Edessa in this same year a.d. 687 by a 
certain presbyter Addai with Jacob's answers thereto, it may be inferred 
with some probability that this was about the date of the collection. 
Of the MS itself Cureton (p. 345), who however does not appear to have 
seen it, considers that ' although ancient, it is probably considerably 
later,' while Zotenberg says that it ' semble etre du ix^ siecle.' 

(2) Brit. Mus. Add. 14577 [S J ; see Wright's Catal. of Syr. MSS 
p. 784 sq. A congeries of short fragments huddled together. They 
are written on the vellum lining and blank page of the first leaf of a 
Syriac volume brought from the Nitrian desert in 1842 and numbered 
as above. It is described by Cureton {Corp. Ign. p. 348 sq), who 
assigns it to the eleventh or twelfth century. From Wright's account 
however these extracts appear to have been written by one Moses about 
A.D, 932; see Catal. p. 787 sq. These fragments, which are published 
and translated by Cureton (pp. 201 sq, 235 sq), are headed, 'From the 
writings of Saint Ignatius, the God-clad, bishop of Antioch,' and occur 
in the following order ; 

Rom. 4 €yw ypd({i(D...TOv crw/AaTos fJ(.ov. 

5, 6 <TvyyvM{jir]v fxoL e)(^eTe...auOp(jnros eaofJiai. 
Ephes. 15 ov^\v \av6dv€i...dyaTrwfJLCi/ avTOV. 

20 iv jXLa 7rtcrT€t...Kai vlm @€0v. 
AfagU. 10 droTTOv ©eov awtj^Or]. 
Smyrn. 4, 5 ^i y^P ''"o 8oKeiv...')]pv7]6r]aav VTT avTov. 
Hero I TrapaKaXw fs^ irpoaOilvaL tw Spofjua arov. 
vqfxrf.iai'i . . . aavTov KaTa/3dXrj<;. 

They have been collated anew by Dr Wright for the present work 
(hi. p. 100 sq). 

(3) Brit. Mus. Add. 17 134 [S3]; see Wright's Catalogue p. 330 sq. 
This MS is dated a.d. 675, and there is good reason for believing that 


it was written by the famous Jacob of Edessa himself (see p. 338 sq). 
It contains Hymns by Severus of Antioch, translated into Greek by 
Paul bishop of Edessa in the early decades of the sixth century (see 
P- 33^)- Among these is one in honour of Ignatius (fol. 48 a), and 
a marginal note contains extracts illustrating the references in the text. 
They are headed ' From the Epistle of the same Ignatius to the 
Romans,' and are as follows ; 

Rom. 4 eyw ypdcfi(D...TOv o"w/AaTos fjiov. 
XiTav€v(TaTe...iv avTw iX€v6epo<;. 
6 a<ji€T€ fi€ KaOapov . . .TOV 0€Ol! ixov. 

These marginal notes, which accompany the hymns, appear to have 
emanated from the scribe himself, presumably Jacob of Edessa. The 
Hymn on Ignatius will be printed for the first time lower down ; the 
extracts from the Epistle to the Romans were published by Cureton 
C. I. p. 296, and have been collated anew for the present edition by 
Dr Wright (see iii. p. 102 sq). 

(4) Cajitabr. S. P. C. K, 26 [S^]. This group of fragments came 
into my hands while I was passing this second edition through the 
press, in time to enable me to use them for the apparatus criticus to 
the text, but not to print them where S, S^ S3 are printed, and where 
they would otherwise naturally have had a place, among the Syriac 
Remains in the Appendix, in. p. 93 sq. They are therefore given in 
full on the next page. 

The MS containing them is one of those presented to the University 
of Cambridge by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge ; and, 
as they are not yet fully catalogued, the numbering {S. P. C. K. 26) 
which I have given must be regarded as provisional. This MS is partly 
described in Dr Wright's Notulae Syriacae (Christmas 1887) printed for 
private circulation ; but he has permitted me to see in manuscript a 
fuller notice which will appear in the Catalogue of these MSS which he 
is preparing for the University. It was written 'apparently by two 
hands of the xiiith century' and contains 'a large coUeclion of eccle- 
siastical canons and extracts from various writers relating to eccle- 
siastical law.' At the beginning of the volume is a hitherto unknown 
recension of the laws of the emperors Constantine, Theodosius, and Leo, 
described by Wright Not. Syr. p. 3 sq. Among the other contents are 
(fol. 259 a) the same 'Questions of the priest Addai' with the 'Answers 
of Jacob of,' which appear likewise in the volume containing S, 
(see above, p. 92). Altogether it contains much interesting matter, 
e.g. large extracts from the Clementmc Rcco<^)iitio7is., and a short fragment 


of the Epistle of Barnabas. If Wright is correct in assigning the treatise 
'On the holy Chrism,' fol. 159 a, to Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who was 
still living a.d. 1209 (Assem. Bibl. Orient, iii. p. 156), the collection 
cannot have been completed very many years before this manuscript 
was written. 

The Ignatian fragments begin on fol. 77 a, and comprise the following 
passages ; 

Sinyrn. 9 evXoyoV €crm'...©€oi/...etS€vai. 

Polyc. I T^s ei'wcrccos . . . TToXi) Ke'pSos. 

2 KoXovs ixa6r]Ta<; . . . iv TrpavrrjTL i/TToracro'e. 

3 (TTrjOi eSpaios-.-iy/Aas Sei k.t.X. 

6 avyKOTTtaTe d\\TJ\ot<;...vix(ov 8ta iravTo's. 
Ephes. 13, 14 ov'Sc'v ecTTtv a/;ietvoi'...TOv Kapirov avrov. 

15 a/xeivoV i(TTLV...TOv Trarpo's eoriv. 

16 /at} 7rAavao-^e...XpicrTOS idTavpwOr]. 
Magn. 6 Travre? ovv 6fJio-^6€iav...ayaTraTe. 

II raura 8e, dyairr]TOi fj.ov...Trj avacrrao-ci. 

The transcription and editing of these Syriac fragments I owe to the 
kindness of Dr Wright. 

fYi<^. Vri^^ V/'*' r^-x-.t-o.! (sic) r<'^'i.^^ ^_sa ^cv^ 
V K'caArelX .2h..'VJ.i AjtTicn r^nm ^m r^^ii°>T, .T^craXr^ 

^r^.l cvco ►SO T»Au rtlL^CU39 Ar^Lx. .^r^h\r^ T<'^aA^3 
.^vj»r< r^V D r^L^2«3 Kill reLwoi."! i i s^, ^UaOon -vvA 

i^ \^ T<lajr<' . T^jajsa_x JS3 t^ y^A^K* vyK* . ."^ J^ .y t\«v^ 

^.. T^ .Klii^o^ Ai<' 003 .i^cy) rt'V sa Si ocn ^^^.1 

.vA AuA cv -ii\^ ..lawA . r t 'p.^^h\ r<^-i \^ r^.i i *jn \^ 


.r<'^vo(Xjaa-^r<' .^^aiao^ caJLJsn:^ .^cdcujAAo oqA iax- 

__ oocoJko ,r<ll»\ coAa wK* r^^coiajjaoJSJO .rd^v^ 
* \ . .. 

^ i^viSQi ^."Wsa AvA •:• ,.^_o-aa Auk* ^Acn vyr^*.!© 
^t . «»« V ■^ (^IraH-c ^ .i-'\y nAvJSq cojai o'cn .T^sn \ t. 

K'A\U*'i»T<' ^cal^O .000 T<'orA»<' K'A^cuoKla ^.^oaoni ."u> 
K'.io^uLJsn.t JUr<' ^vA .^salx. ^ooi^ r^'^iji^o r<'^viA^ 

oco.ire' ^rdi.i r^-uajt. .>i:u»j o^t<' reA .1^ .\\*w m 
oco .t<Li_aA_»j At^co aoa .1-** ..1 i s i^r^.i r^Lx^r^ 


A.x^or3 .^j;^ .^^i_» t<l1 r<'ca_lr<'.i cn^a a\. nq .K'iv-ii 

»<'^cuar^.i t<'^CL:sa.i ^.^^ aA a a gn AjLa^cn ,._a-%\ ^ 
Kllcv ..t-M ^J^ X.JJ ^j.i>j[,i\AvJ50 «__o^oq30 .K'oo-lr^.l 

^r^.l ^V^IW.I A^^ K'OCO r<lA ..t3,il.>j ,_CX^ rtJJK' 
ia^.t (sic) vyr^ vyr^ .rdASkco ^.ixmK'.i ^^_aaisa ^aibr<' 
rdX.T ..0:^= icn.'Hr^'o Too.Tar^.T reLJr<' Kla^ ,,<\M rq 

•:• T^h\snxxi3cs rtLxjjoa Jbi.ii^.i K'.'uoisaz) ^iix^sn 

Again, from the Epistles of Saint Ignatius. 

// zs right therefore thai we should be wakeful^ 7ahile we have the 
time, tozvard God. This is seemly therefore, that 7ve should hio^v God 
i^Smyni. 9). 

Be concerned about union ', for there is nothing that is better tha?i it. 
Bear every man, as our Lord hath borne thee. Be long-suffering with 
every man in love iti whatsoever thou doest. Be constant in prayer. Ask 
more understatiding than that which thou hast. Be wakeful, for thou pos- 
sessest the spirit that sleepeth not. Speak'' with every man according to 
the will of God. Bear the maladies^ of all men, as a perfect athlete ; 
for 7vhere the toil is great, the gain too is great {Folyc. i). 

If thou lovest good disciples'^ only, grace is not thine ; but rather subdue 
by gentleness those^ who are bad {Folyc. 2). 

1 For T^OXoA\_*r^ essence read * Write '■'^ "^ V K'.lJL.Sal^ for 

r^C\O^CkT^ union. ^-^V r^: ^i*^ \^ 

•-• For rdA» read AiSJ 5 Yor ^ 1 i'tre'A ozir brothers read 

3 Write rell oaS CA for rdi CO i OA ^1, ^ those. 


Stand up then in the truth as a strong man who is smitten ; for it is 
the part of an athlete to be smitten and to conquer. But especially for 
God^s sake it behoveth us to endure everything, as He also did {Polyc. 3). 

Toil together with one another, struggle together with one another, suffer 
together 7vith one another, as stewards of God and children of His house 
a?id His ?ninisters. Be pleasing^ unto Him and serve Him, from whom ye 
shall receive' pay. Let none of you rebel (or desert); and let fait Ji abide 
7aith you as a zaeapon, and hope as a helmet, and love as a spear, and pa- 
tience as all armour. And let your works be good, that ye may receive the 
gift of God as is fitting. Be ye long-suffering toward one another, as God 
is toward you. I rejoice at all times icihefi these things and such as these 
are yours {Polyc. 6). 

There is nought that is better than peace, whereby are abolished the 7vars 
of tJiose in heaven and on earth ; whereof 7iothitig escapeth you, if ye have 
Jesus Christ completely, the faith and love which is the begi?ming and the 
end. At the begin?iing then He bindeth faith ; the end is love. When the 
two of them become one in unioJi, it is God, and all other things become in 
harmony with those things that are good and fair. There is no man who 
pr of esseth faith and sinneth, nor who possesseth love and hateth. The tree 
is knotvn by its fruit [Ephes. 13, 14). 

This is better, that a man should be silent when he is something, rather 
than that he should be speaking 7vhen he is riothing. It is good that he 
should teach, if he practiseth 7vhat he saith. There is then one teacher. He 
that saith and it is, and though silent doeth the things that are worthy of 
His Father {Ephes. 15). 

Forget not, my brethren, that those who corrupt^ houses shall not in- 
herit the kijigdom of God. If the?i those who do these'^ cardial things die, 
how much more tliose 7vho corrupt with false doctrines the true faith^, for 
the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified {Ephes. 16). 

All of you therefore take to yourselves the likeness of the unity of God ; 
a?id be ye ashamed one before atiother ; and let not one of you look on his 
fellow after the flesh, but be with one another at all times in Jesus Christ 
{Magn. 6). 

But these things which I write unto you, my beloved, it is not because 
I know that there are men a7nong you who are so minded. As one 7vho 

^ iajL = oi^X. » For ^^rXM^ read ^oi^-MSn 

■* Strike out the second ^^00 
^' Strike out :i before r<'o\CVl£XL»Ct3 

rhe Syr. text has carry off, but 4 strikeout the second ^cn 

_^-jLJ30d\ seems an error for 
IGN. I. 


is less than you, I desire to take heed of you heforehajid, that ye fall not 
with the falling of vain glory, but that ye may be confirmed in the neiv 
birth a7id in the passion a7id in the resurrectio7i {Magn. ii). 

Cureton, apprehensive (it would seem) of the consequences which 
would follow from the admission, will not allow that these fragments 
(S,, S^, S3) formed part of a complete Syriac Version. Of the collection 
which I have designated S, he says ; ' It is plain that the whole collec- 
tion has been translated from the Greek ; and from the place which 
these Ignatian extracts occupy, it seems almost certain that they formed 
a part of the original Greek collection, which was afterwards translated 
into Syriac. There is no ground to conclude that these extracts were 
taken from a Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles previously existing ' 
etc. p. 345. This statement will not bear examination. Of the other 
documents included in this collection, the last at all events (the questions 
of Addai and answers of Jacob of Edessa; see above, p. 92), and 
probably some others, were originally written in Syriac. And, although 
nothing appears on the face of these Ignatian extracts which is in- 
consistent with their direct translation from the Greek, yet considering 
them in connexion ^vith other facts, we are led irresistibly to the con- 
clusion that they formed part of a Syriac version then existing. The 
following considerations are decisive on this point. 

(i) In the three collections, Sj, Sg, S3, the passages quoted are all 
different with two exceptions. The exceptions are J^om. 4, 6, of which 
parts are common to both S, and S3. Now in these passages there are 
remarkable coincidences between S^ and S3, which are inexpUcable as the 
result of accident. With some trifling exceptions they agree for the 
most part both in the words and in the order. The only important dif- 
ferences are Rom. 4 r^^i^oA 'the mouth' in S3 for p^Lix. 'the teeth' 
in S2, and Ro7n. 6 r^icoAla S2 'in the light' for Kls-iia S3 'son 
of man' ( = 'man'). In the first case S3 has quoted loosely; in the 
second S„ has a corrupt text, the corruption being explained by the 
fact that r^icoCU occurs in the immediate context. These extracts 
however cannot have been borrowed the one from the other, as they 
are not co-extensive, each containing something which is wanting in 
the other ; so that we must look to some Syriac progenitor from which 
both were derived. 

The group S^ occupies the same ground as S, at three points, Sniyrn. 
9, Folyc. 3, Ephes. 15, though the area is small in each case. In the 
first and third passages, short as they are, the resemblances are so close 
that they can hardly be regarded as accidental; while in the second 


the coincidences are quite decisive as to identity of origin. Thus aT-fjOi 
iSpaios is translated ' sta autem in veritate ' in both, and clkijuov is ' vir 
fortis ' in both. 

(ii) The solution thus suggested is confirmed by a comparison 
of our Syriac extracts with the Armenian version. It has been shown 
already that this version was derived through the medium of a pre- 
vious Syriac translation ; and the coincidences show that the fragments 
before us (Sj, S,, S3, SJ belonged to this missing Syriac version. 

In Ephes. 5, 6, the comparison leads to no important results. In 
Ephes. 13 at 8wa/i,€ts becomes a singular in SjA; and for o 6Xe0po<; 

avTov Si has cnJ^iMOr^ ' dominio ejus', which appears to have been 
corrupted from coirirsr^ ' pernicies ejus', and has itself apparently 
been corrupted into cai.imo^k. 'memoria ejus', as rendered by A, 
In Ephes. 15 no decisive resemblance appears. 

In Magn. 5, 6, the coincidences are very striking. For toZ 
Kocr/xoi; toutou SjA have 'principis hujus mundi,' and for ^apaKrrjpa 
[Ixouo-tv] ' imago sunt ' ; at the beginning of § 6 hrCi nvv ev rot? 
TTpoycypa/Aju-cVots Trpocrwn-ots is translated in Si ^_CUcai3.i ^.1 A\ -> | 
^_j\cn»\s. oxraovSk oxtn.To.i f^l^o^H^, ' sed quoniam in iis 

personis de quibus ( iis) antea scripsi ', but the words were 
displaced in the text used by the translator of A, so that he has put 
T<l^a— H^ 'persons' back to the end of the former chapter, 
translating as best he could, <vitam ejus non habemus in personis. 
Et quoniam de eo quod antea scripsi' etc. Again S, inserts in the 
text a gloss on Trpoo-wTrots, ' episcoporum videlicet et presbyterorum ct 
diaconorum', and this gloss is inserted also by A. For TrapaivcG S,A 
have 'peto a vobis' ; and 7rpoKaOrjfx.4vov is translated by Sj .shu .t^ 
»__aAx»i3 ' quum sedeat in capite vestro ', which becomes in A 
'et sedeat in capitibus vestris'. Again the existing text of S, for 
»cai Twv 7rpecr(3vT€pwv eis Tvirov (v. 1. tottov) avveSpLOV twv d-rroa-ToXwv koi 

Twv SiaKovwv has K^Aitq .x^Kl\sb.i r^Lfio^CV^Ls T<LnxDO 
K^ . UiAa ..! r^at *\CU^ r^Llx.S»ixJS30 ' et presbyteri in forma 
(typo) angelorum consilii et diaconi in forma (typo) apostolorum ', 
while A renders it 'et sacerdotes tanquam angeli (legati) regis ct 
diaconi in formis (specie) apostolorum'. Here the coincidences are 
decisive : for (i) The Armenian translator is misled by an ambiguity 



in the Syriac rtJ-sA^fl, which differently vocalised signifies either 
'counsel' or 'king,' and the second sense is wrongly given to it. (2) The 
rendering ' angeli regis (consilii),' common to both, would not be sug- 
gested independently by the Greek. (3) In the Greek there is nothing 

corresponding to the final r^ljjuax. .1 KLoo^oi^ua 'in forma apo- 

stolorum ' after the mention of the deacons. The explanation seems 
to be that eh tvttov crweZpiov twv aTrocrroAtov was at first wrongly 
translated ' in forma angelorum consilii ', and the words ' in forma 
apostolorum' were a correction perhaps written in the first instance 
on the margin but afterwards inserted in the text, not in their right 
place as a correction, but elsewhere as a substantive addition. The 
Armenian translator has taken the whole passage as he found it in 
his Syriac copy. In MagJi. 6, 7, again some curious coincidences 
appear. The preposition in TrpoKaOrjixevtDv is translated in Sj as before, 
and so it again becomes ' in capitibus vestris ' in A. Moreover in 

rendering tuVos the word adopted in S^ is K'icu*, which differently 
vocalised signifies either ' the form ' or ' the sight ', and accordingly 
the corresponding words to eis rvirov are ' in conspectum ' in A. 
Again the words yvwfievo's wv are omitted by both Sj and A. Again 

the Syriac ^.__QfifT yc\ o^saxsi 'tentando tentate' is reproduced 
in the Armenian, where the Greek has simply Tretpao-r^rc. Again toto, 
vfuv in S, is craXo coX-Sn - „.__aAA_:sn .t» .TmA , literally ' uni uni 
e vobis ab ipso et ad ipsum ', and in A ' unusquisque e vobis a se ipso '. 
In Tra//. 2, 3, likewise, S,A keep very close together. Thus both 
render Kara avOpuiirov ' in corpore '. Again the reading of A, ' quando 
creditis ortum ejus et mortem ', for TriCTTcwavrcs els t6v OdvaTov avrov, 
must be explained through the Syriac. Sj has ^iX-Sa^coJ^ ."U^ 
en ^020=3 ^^_o^T<' following the Greek; but the Syriac ms from 
which A was ultimately derived must have had a corrupt reading 
cn.iXcCQ 'his birth' for cn^CW^ 'his death', whence, owing 
probably to a marginal correction, both v/ords got into the text 
which was used by A. Lower down SjA have ' presbyteris ' ('sacer- 
dotibus ') for t<3 Trpea-fSvTepiiD. Again S, translates ixvarrjpiwv by 

r^tr^i -«^-i ' filii mysterii ', i.e. 'the initiated', thus forming a 
link with the Armenian which has ' participes-mysteriorum '. Again 
KOL awSea/jiov dirocrToXoiv is translated by Sj '^tf « *T 1 r^Sfl.icoo 
' et membra apostolorum ', which explains the rendering of A ' et 
a sociis apostolonmi (sc. erubescat) '. In Tral/. 5, 6, the phenomena 


of Si account for some renderings in A. Thus ' defaciens (deminutus) 
sum' is the rendering of TroXXa ■)]fjuv XetVct in both; again both have 
' commiscent personas suas (semetipsas) cum Jesu Christo ' for the 
difficult words xaipot [/cat tw ?] Trape/ATrXeKovcrtv 'Irjaovv 'Kpiarov ; and 
again both omit eV -qhovfi (or ■qh(.(ji<;) and KaKrj ; besides some minor 
points of resemblance. In the short quotation from Trail. 8 Sj has 
' in fide quod est in spe et in oblectatione sanguinis Christi ', and A 
'fide et spe et coena sanguinis Christi', where the expression in the 
original is ev TrttrTEt o Icttlv crdpi rov K.vptov kol iv ayairr) o Iq-tlv aifxa 
'Irjo-ov XpicTTov ; the change depending mainly on a confusion of the 
Syriac words rfT-nfla-a ' in spe ' and r^koa rt ' caro '. In Trail. 
9, ID, II, again the two coincide generally, besides presenting some 
special resemblances. Thus Kw^w^Tjre is rendered by both ' estote 
sicut muti ' ; 07}piop.axrj(jai in S, is ' vorari a fens ', in A ' voratus-a-feris 
fieri'; ifftaivovTo av is oocn ^v»^^^'3 ^-»ocn ' fierent apparentes' in 
Sj, ' fierent et apparerent ' in A ; 8t' ov iv rw TrdOu avTov irpoa-KoXeljat 
ii/xas oFTas [jlcXt] avTov is mutilated in the same way by both, S, reading 
*in passione crucis Domini vestri cujus estis membra', and A 'jam 
cum signo (per signum) crucis Domini nostri vos membra estis ejus', 
where both alike omit 8t' ov and Tr/ooo-KaXetTat and insert tou aravpov, while 
A moreover has had a corrupt text of Sj, reading coxiJca 'signo' for 
cqxmls 'passione' (a common confusion : see ii. p. 25 sq). 

In the short passage Polyc. 3 both read ' aliquid ' for a^ioTrto-Toi ; 
both translate ercpoStSao-KaXetv by ' docere alienas doctrinas ' : both 
have ' in veritate ' (' in firmitate ') for iSpatos ; both give rd_S dujuj 
' vir fortis ' for cik/awv. In Polyc. 6 again the two closely agree ; e.g. in 
translating -n-poae^^eTe by ' spectate ' and inserting ' spectet ' with o ©eo's. 
In Foljc. 7, though A contains some Syriasms and some special 
coincidences with Sj (e.g. ' paratus est ' for o-^^oXa^et), yet it frequently 
departs from S,, as well as from the Greek ; not seldom in the way of 
abridgment, perhaps because the translator did not understand the 
Syriac text before him. 

In Philad. 3, 4, besides several Syriasms and a general agreement, 
A has at least one marked coincidence with S, in the gloss on (j^itpvTi, 
' separatoris (separantis) ecclesiae ' in A, ' separantis (scindentis) eccle- 
siam dei ' in S,. In Philad. 7 A adopts several Syriac idioms, e.g. 
'qui vinctus sum in eo ' for ' in quo vinctus sum '. And again it trans- 
lates ctTTo crapKOS di/OpWTTLVi]?, as if d~6 dvOpwiruiv with S^ (r^ T> tlo). 

The perversion of one sentence moreover ' Et dixi hoc. Tcstatur milii 
is, etc' in A may be explained from S, but not from the original. 


In FJiilad. lo, besides the usual Syriasms, A translates the sentence 
eis TO 7rpecr/3e€crai e/cet ©eov TrpeajSitav ets to uvy^apijvai avTois ' qui possit 
fieri praecursor (nuncius) Dei, ut proficiscatur illuc et simul gaudeat ' 
after S^ ; it inserts toi; TLvpiov after to oi/o/Aa with S; ; and it reads 
' sanctae ecclesiae ' for al tyy lo-ra iKKXrjataL with Sj (see above p. 

Lastly ; in Smyrn. 8, 9, the Armenian rendering of dyaTrrjv ' a love- 
feast' by 'quietem' is explained (as Petermann had conjectured without 
seeing Si) by the intermediate word in S^ r^hy^ik^ 'refreshments', 
of which word an allied form is used also as the rendering of dydir-qv in 
Jude 12. 

The coincidences are equally striking here. In the short passage 
Rotn. 4 A reproduces two characteristic Syriasms from S„ ' per manum 
(manus) earum ' (8t' wv), and ' provocando provocate ' {[xdWov KoXa- 
Kiva-aTe). In Jiom. 5, 6, the phenomena are conclusive, and exhibit 
clearly the corrupt state of the Syriac text, when the Armenian version 
was made. A translates rt jxoi a-vp.(^ipeL ' quod mandatum est mihi ' 
after So, where the reading 1 ««-» <=^ ' mandatum est ' is a corruption of 
>iLn*\ ' expedit '. For dpxoy-cLL A has ' credo ' ; where the translator evi- 
dently had iiiLsa or ^at-SJS for »<'i_rjsa, the correct reading, which 
is still preserved in S^. For Orjpinjv o-vo-Tao-cts A and S, have ' bestiae 
quae paratae sunt'; (or (TKopTnafMol oVtcwv they have 'divisio et dispersio 
ossium'; and they agree also in the form of rendering rd TrepaTa tuv 
Koa-fjiov ovBe at /Sao-iAetai tov alwvo? tovtov, 'termini (thesaurus A) mundi, 
etiam (et) non regnum hujus ', omitting toC atwvos because the cor- 
responding Syriac word was already exhausted in rendering koV/xou. 
The word tokctos again is rendered in A by ' dolores mortis ', which 

exactly reproduces S., K'^Oi^.i r<lla.M, where the word K'^o.sfl 
'death' is a corruption of K'.iXoSQ 'birth', for 'birth-pangs' are 
meant by TOKeTo's. Again the words crvyyvojTe jxoi are translated in S., 
'cognoscite me ex anima mea', and this Syriac idiom is reproduced 
in A, where it would probably convey no meaning at all, or a wrong 
meaning. Again the words tov tou 0£ou deXovra ehai koV/aw are wTongly 
connected by both with the preceding sentence, and translated as if 
Toi/ jXTj OeXovra eivat iv Koa^jniy (see II. p. 219). Again vXrj is rendered by 
both, as if it had been tois opaTot?. Again for dvOpw7ro<; A has ' homo 
perfectus', and So 'in luce perfectus', where K'-icna.ia 'in luce' is 
evidently a corruption of r^JLJis 'homo' (lit. 'filius hominis'). 


In Ephes. 15 the only remarkable coincidence is the omission of 
the clause oTrep kox . . . Trpoo-wVou T^fiwv by both. In Ephes. 20 A agrees 
with S, in omitting kuI after Trio-Tei. In Magn. lo they agree in rendering 
(XTOTrdv eo-Ttr 'It^o-ovv Xptcrroi/ \a.\€iv kox k.t.X. ' non est decens ubi Jesus 
Christus narratur, etc.', and in substituting 'omnis' (^rJa Jl_^ Sj) for 
Trao-a yXwCTcra. In Smyrn. 4, 5, after 'in mortem' (tw OavaTio) both 
add ' et in ignominiam (contumeliam) ' ; both render ixeraiv Brjpiuiv 
[xera^ ®£ov in the same loose way 'et si sit inter bestias apud Deum 
est (erit) ' ; and both strangely enough substitute ' Jesus Christus 
Deus (noster)' for tov reXetov a.v9pu>TT0v [yei'o/LieVov]. 

In the two lines quoted from Hero i there is no substantial de- 
parture from the Greek in either. 

The passages from the Epistle to the Romans here are in great 
part the same as in S„. Of the various readings, which S3 presents, it is 
only necessary to observe that r^JSiOJ^ S3 for r^Lli. S, is a departure 
from A, as from the original Greek, and that on the other hand S3 preserves 
the correct r<ls_iia (where S, reads K'icncuia), thus agreeing 
exactly with A. In the passages not contained in S, the agreement of 
S3A in adding ' ex mortuis ' (r^auJSO ovxis ^2a) after dvacrnja-ofxaL 
{Rom. 4) should be observed. 


The evidence is strongly reinforced by this recently discovered group 

of fragments ; but, inasmuch as the proof already amounts to demonstra- 
tion, I shall content myself here with singling out the more salient coinci- 
dences. In Smyrn. 9 Xonrov is translated or replaced by 'igitur' in AS^. 
In Polyc. I Trpocrevxats (Typ\a.'Q€ a'StaXetTTTots the rendering of S^ is ' in prece 
(precibus) persevera' and in A 'in precibus sedulus mane (esto)', aSta- 
XeiTTTois having either disappeared or been merged in <j^6\al,^ in both 
versions ; rots Kar dvSpa Kara ofxor'/OeLav 0€ou XaXet is translated ' cum 
omni homine secundum voluntatem Dei loquere ' by both ; and for 
TrXetW there is a positive * multus ' instead of a comparative in both. In 
I'o/yc. 2 Tovs Xot/Aorepous is translated ' malos ' in both. In Fo/yc 3 
the coincidences of S^ with A are the same as those in Sj. In Fo/yc. 6 
irdpeSpoL is translated ' filii domus ' (= 'domestici ') in S^ and ' domestici ' 
in A ; <S a-TpaTeveaOe is rendered ' et servite ei ' in both ; to ^aTrncr/xa 

Vf.^l2l' //.ereTd) o'? uTrXa, iq ttiVti? oj9 TrepiK€<f)aXaLa, becomCS ' fides VCStra 

{or in vobis) maneat ut armatura (arma) et spes ut galea ' in both ; and 

Ttt 8e7roo"iTu vp-wv to. tpya vp.<jiv tVa ra UKKt-ma vp.wv a^ia Kop-ia^rjaOf. is 


rendered ' thesauri sint vestri bona opera vestra ut accipiatis dona 
a Deo ' in A, and ' et sint vestra opera bona ut accipiatis dona a Deo ' 
in Sj (where a comparison with 2 shows that ' thesauri-vestri ' has 
fallen out of the text of SJ. In Ephes. 14 lav rcXctos ets 'Iiycrouv Xpto-rov 
^X'F^ T771' tt'kjtiv kol n7v dydirrjv is rendered ' si perfecte habeatis in 
vobis Jesum Christum ; fides et amor etc' in A, and ' si perfecte sit 
vobis (= habeatis) Jesum Christum; fides et amor etc' in S^. In 
Ephes. 16 oLKOfjiOopoL is translated 'qui amant facultates (res)' in A, and 
this strange rendering is explained by the fact that the rendering in S^ 
is ' qui amant domos ', where however . .-< ff'-n ' amant ' is a clerical 
error of some Syriac scribe for ..\-s tf-r* ' corrumpunt ' . In Magn. 6 
oit.o-qBf.iav 0£ov is translated ' similitudinem et unionem (unanimitatem) 
Dei ' in A, and ' similitudinem unanimitatis Dei ' in S^, where A probably 
preserves the original form of the Syriac text, and we should read 
O for .1 , there being a double rendering of o/xo-^^etav. 

The conclusion from the facts adduced is irresistible. We have 
plainly in these fragments portions of the lost Syriac version from 
which the Armenian text was translated. 

But the evidence, if it still needed strengthening, is strengthened by 
another important consideration. For 

(iii) It is strange that Cureton should not have been struck by the 
close resemblance between the Syriac fragments (S, Sg S3), and the 
Syriac version of the three epistles in the Short recension (2), in those 
passages which are common to both ; and this evidence has been 
materially strengthened by the recently discovered group of frag- 
ments, S^. The coincidences indeed are so striking when the passages 
from the two are written out side by side, as is done for instance by 
Denzinger {Aechtheit des bisher. Textes der Ignat. Briefe App. x. p. i ; 
see p. 96), that no escape from the inference is possible. I shall not 
occupy space here by going over the ground again, but content myself 
with referring to Denzinger's tables, or to the various readings in the 
present edition, warning the reader however that, inasmuch as my 
apparatus criticus does not aim at reproducing the peculiarities of the 
Syriac, except so far as they point to a difference in the Greek text 
used, the various readings there given represent very inadequately the 
extent of the resemblance. But in fact any one may satisfy himself 
of the truth of this statement by comparing the two in Cureton's own 
volume. As a rule, they differ only where the recensions differ. Where 
these coincide, the Syriac versions also coincide, presenting the same 
paraphrastic renderings, the same errors and caprices of translation. 


the same accidental order, and sometimes even the same corruptions 
of the Syriac text itself. 

It cannot be doubted therefore that the one was derived from the 
other. Either % is an abridgment of S, in which case all the evidence 
for the genuineness of the Short recension disappears ; d?r S is enlarged 
from 2 by translating the additional passages of the Middle form 
from the Greek, in which case we get a result favourable as far as it 
goes to the genuineness of the Short recension as against the Middle. 
Cureton failed to see the resemblance, and therefore did not enter 
into this question, though it was one of paramount importance to him, 
inasmuch as his theory of the genuineness of the Short recension stands 
or falls as it is answered. On the other hand critics like Denzinger, 
Merx, and others, who have taken some pains to estabhsh the connexion 
of the two Syriac versions and succeeded in doing so, assume that 
the shorter must have been abridged from the other, and that therefore 
the Middle recension (whether the genuine work of Ignatius, as 
maintained by Denzinger, or a forgery, as Merx believes) represents 
the original form of the Ignatian Epistles. This is the more obvious 
explanation. But still the possible alternative remains, that a Syrian, 
having in his possession the Short recension in a Syriac version and 
coming across a Greek copy of the Middle recension, might have 
supplied the additional matter by translation from the Greek and thus 
have produced a complete Syriac version of the Middle recension 
grafted on the other. The case therefore must not be hastily prejudged. 

To this question I shall revert hereafter. At present we are only 
concerned with the connexion between the Syriac and Armenian 
versions of the Middle form (S and A); and the Syriac version of 
the Short form (2) was mentioned merely as a link in the chain of 
evidence. For 2, which has been shown to be closely connected with 
S, S^SgS^, is also very nearly allied to A. Here again the resemblance 
may be traced, though (for the reason already stated) only partially, 
in the apparatus criticus to the present edition ; and may be more 
fully seen by comparing the two, passage by passage, as they appear in 
Petermann, or as placed in parallel columns by Merx i^Mcletemata 
Igiiafiana, Halae Saxonum, 1861). The connexion is not less patent in 
this case, than in the former, after due allowance has been made for the 
errors, caprices, and vicissitudes of the Armenian version. And the fact 
is important. For while S, S^ S.^ S^ consist only of short detached 
passages, 2 covers a considerable extent of ground, so that we get 
independent evidence of the existence, in large portions of these 
epistles beyond the limits of S, S^S^S,, of a complete Syriac version 



which was closely connected with 2 (just as SjS^SgS^ are connected 
with it), and from which the Armenian was translated. In other words, 
we have independent proof that S, S, S3 S^ were not mere isolated 
passages translated from Greek into Syriac for the occasion, but part 
of a complete Syriac version of the Middle recension, whose existence 
we desire to establish'. 

The results of the foregoing investigations, as regards their bearing 
on textual criticism, are evident. They are stated at a later point in 
these volumes, 11. p. 3 sq. 

Syriac Martyrdom [S,„], a version of the Antiochene Acts, incor- 
porating the Epistle to the Romans. It is contained in four known 
MSS, of which the first and third are imperfect. 

(i) Bi'it. Mus. Add, 7200, a volume containing various Acts of 
Martyrdom. It contains these Acts of Ignatius (fol. 98) from the 
beginning to TraAiv eo-o/Aat (^wv?;, Rom. 2. The end is unfortunately 
wanting. This MS, before it came into the possession of the British 
Museum, belonged to Claudius J. Rich, English Resident at Bagdad. 
It is described in the Catal. Cod. MSS Orient, qtii in Mus. Brit, 
asservantur i. p. 92 sq, where it is assigned to the 13th century; but 
Cureton (C / p. 362) considers it 'to be rather more ancient'. From 
this MS Cureton first printed these Acts (C /. p. 222 sq), with a trans- 

^ The reader is now in a position to 
estimate tlie value of Bunsen's protest 
against ' Professor Petermann's assump- 
tion that the Syriac text is an extract 
from an old Syriac version, of which the 
Armenian text is a translation' {H'lppoly- 
tus II. p. 432). 'For this assumption,' 
he boldly adds, ' there is no ground 
whatsoever. The Armenian translation 
represents throughout the text of the 
Greek Letters, including those which are 
acknowledged to be false ; and its various 
readings show the thorough corruption 
of our Greek text. There is not the 
shadow of a reason to assume that the 
Armenian translation was made from a 
Syriac text, and not, like all otlur Ar- 
menian translations of Gj'cek fathers, 
from the Greek. But had it been so made, 
the argument for or against the seven 
(or rather twelve) Letters would remain 
exactly where Professor Petermann found 

it. His argument, resting on a gratui- 
tous assumption, is so absolutely null, 
that it is scarcely possible to formulize 
it seriously, etc' It is difficult to see 
how an honest man, as Bunsen unques- 
tionably was, could have used this lan- 
guage, if he had read Petermann's pre- 
face and notes with any degree of care. 
The statement which I have italicised is 
directly contradicted by facts. So else- 
where he writes in the same strain ; 
Hippolytiis I. p. 357 sq (note). 

Bunsen however has this excuse, that 
he wrote before the full effects of Peter- 
mann's investigations had made them- 
selves felt. The case is different with a 
writer who a quarter of a century later 
shields himself under Bunsen's authority, 
and quotes his words apparently with 
approval ; Supernatural Religion i. p. 
xlvi sq (6th ed. 1875). 


lation (C / p. 252), but incomplete at the end owing to the condition 
of the MS. It has been collated afresh by Prof. Wright for the present 

(2) Borg. 18. From this ms Moesinger {Suppleme7itum Corporis 
Ignatiani p. 3 sq, Oeniponti 1872) first published the Syriac version of 
the Acts complete. He describes the ms thus (p. 4) ; 

'Codex, in quo haec acta continentur, a Georgio Ebedjesu 
Khayyath, archiepiscopo Amadiensi, descriptus est in libro cui in- 
scriptio, Syri Orientates seu Chaldaei Nestoriani et Romanoriim poiitifician 
Primatus. In hoc libro doctissimus auctor, p. 118, 122, et 129, 
certiores nos reddit haec acta S. Ignatii extare in antiquo manuscripto 
Nestoriano, nunc ad coenobium Hormisdae pertinente, ex quo, se ipso 
operam qualemcunque praebente, jussu et sumptibus S. Congregationis 
de Propaganda Fide inter alia opera haec quoque acta descripta sunt. 
Hoc exemplar Romam delatum et Bibliothecae Borgianae sub numero 
xviii insertum est, ex quo acta, quae nunc publici iuris facio, describendi 
copia mihi facta est '. 

It is clear that the transcript was either carelessly made in the first 
instance or carelessly copied by Moesinger. Indeed the unscholarly 
way in which Moesinger has executed his task detracts considerably 
from our obligations to him as the first editor of these Acts in their 
completeness. In his translation of the Syriac (p. 7 sq) he is convicted 
by his own text of omitting words and sentences from time to time, as 
well as of other inaccuracies. 

(3) Vat. Syr. 160 (formerly i), an ancient ms in parchment, in the 
Vatican Library at Rome. This volume which contains these Acts of 
Ignatius is described by J. S. Assemani Bibl. Orient, i. p. 606, and 
(somewhat confusedly) also by S. E. Assemani Act. Mart. Orient, et 
Occid. II. p. 5, who published the greater part of this Syriac collection 
of Acts, but omitted those of S. Ignatius; see also their Bibl. Apost. 
Vat. Cod. MSS Catal. iii. p- 319 sq. Cureton attempted to obtain 
a transcript of the Acts of Ignatius in this volume, but did not succeed 
(C /. p. 362). In the beginning of the year 1870 I myself paid a visit 
to the Vatican Library, hoping to copy them, but was told that the 
volume could not be found. Afterwards however, seeing a reference to 
it as still accessible in Ue Rossi Inscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. i. p. 5 scj 
(1857 — 1 861), I instituted further enquiries, and through the inter- 
vention of Dr W. Wright was enabled to procure a transcript made 
for me by Dr Bollig, the Sub-librarian of the Vatican, to whom I am 
much indebted for this act of kindness. The readings of this ms there- 
fore are given in the present edition for the first time. The end is 


wanting, but the ms contains the whole of the Epistle to the Romans, 
and breaks off at (fiOdaai in c. 5 of the Acts. 

(4) Berol. Sachau 222. This is a transcript made for Dr Sachau 
in A.D. 1881 from an older ms at Alkosh, and forms part of the Syriac 
collection which he procured for the Berlin library. It is a volume 
of Acta Martyrujii, beginning with Thomas the Apostle and ending 
with Thekla. See Sachau's Kurzes Verzeichniss der SacJiaiC schen 
Sammlung Syrischer Handschriften (Berlin 1885), and compare his 
Reise in Syrien u. Mesopotainien pp. 364, 366 (Leipzig 1883). The 
Acts of Ignatius begin on fol. 122. This MS was kindly collated for 
me by Dr Sachau himself, and its various readings are recorded in 
the present edition by Dr Wright. 

This Syriac version of the Antiochene Acts has been edited anew by 
Dr Wright for the present work (iii. p. 103 sq). The various readings 
of the four MSS, designated A, B, C, D, respectively, are there given. 

The Epistle to the Romans incorporated in these Acts was translated, 
together with the Acts themselves, directly from the Greek, and is 
therefore quite independent of the general Syriac version of the Ignatian 
Epistles [S]. It is very loose and paraphrastic. Only those variations 
are given in my apparatus criticus, which have some value in deter- 
mining the Greek text or are otherwise of interest. 

(v) Copto-Thebaic [C]. 

A fragment of a version in the Sahidic or Thebaic dialect of the 
Coptic language was printed for the first time for my first edition, having 
been transcribed by me several years before. Before the actual ap- 
pearance of my work however, it was published independently by 
Ciasca in Pitra's Atial. Sacr. Spicil. Solesni. Far. iv. p. 255 sq (1883). 

Borg. 248. This ms is inadequately described in Zoega's Catalogus 
Codicum Copticorum Manmcriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris 
adservanhw (Romae, 18 10) p. 604, as follows: ' Primo loco occurrit 
postrema pars epistolae primae S. Ignatii Martyris quae Philippis scripta 
ad Heronem. Deinde pag. 6 prostat titulus t.g^oMcuoc ueenicToAH 
riTe nneTOTA^evfi h'h&.tioc ixAvewpTTpoc neTovMO-yTe epoq -xe ^eoc^opoc 
CTe nerc^opei MnnoTTe ea^qcg^cikic tyev npMCAi-ypitH. n. Pariter alia 
epistola sancti Ignatii martyris quem vocant Theophorum, i.e. qui 
Deum fert; quam scripsit ad Smyrnaeos.' The heading of the Epistle to 
the Smyrnseans is not quite accurate, as will appear by comparing it with 
the transcript printed in this edition : and moreover Zoega does not say 
whether the MS contains the title only or part of the epistle; and, if 
the latter, to which recension it belongs. This ms, together with the 



patristic. MSS belonging to this Borgian collection, has been transferred 
to the Library of the Mitseo Nazionale at Naples, where I transcribed it. 
The portions of the Ignatian Epistles contained in it are ( i ) Hero § 7 
IXoAvKapTro) TrapeOifxrjv v/xas to the end, followed by (2) Smyr?iceans 
from the beginning as far as § 6 tts.ivujvto'; rj 8t;//ojvros'. They are written 
on two loose leaves, or four continuous pages marked e, c, 1^, h. 
The MS is a 4to with double columns, clearly written. The initial letters 
are occasionally very rudely illuminated and the f^'s are generally 
coloured. The marks over the n are capriciously inserted or omitted. 
Of the date I cannot venture to express an opinion, where Zoega is 
silent. The four pages missing at the beginning, ^v, ii, x^, -2^, must 
have contained the earlier part of the Epistle to Hero, and can hardly 
have contained anything else. The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans is dis- 
tinctly numbered the second. Thus the epistles in this Thebaic ms 
were arranged in an order different from any which is found in the mss 
of other versions and recensions. The ms affords no clue for deter- 
mining how many of the Ignatian Epistles this version included. 

For the present edition I have compared my own text with Ciasca's 
and corrected some errors. In other cases, where we differed, I have 
felt justified in adhering to my own reading as against his. For the 
last word which is mutilated in the ms, I read eqo£i[e], where he has 
eqop['s.]. My deciphering of the ms in this case agrees with the Greek 
Sii/^wvTos, and I have had no opportunity, since my transcript was 
made, of comparing it with the original. 



Besides the original Greek of this recension, a Latin version 
exists, omitting however the letter of Mary to Ignatius. This Latin 
version was first printed together with the works of Dionysius the 
Areopagite by J. Faber Stapulensis, Ignatii Undecim Epistok (Paris 1498). 
The letter of Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius did not appear in this 
edition. The twelve letters complete were published by Symphorianus 
Champerius (Colon. 1536). The editio princeps of the Greek is that of 

1 Moesinger (Siippl. Corp. Ign. p. 30) error is not explained by anything in the 
speaksof the Epistle to the' Antiochenes' passage of Cureton (C. /. p. 362 sq) to 
as existing in this Coptic version. Ilis wliich he refers. 


Valentinus Paceus (Dillingae 1557), but it does not contain the Epistle 
of Mary to Ignatius, which was first published in full by Voss (1646). 

(i) Greek. 

1. Monac. Graec. 394 [gj, now in the Royal Library at Munich; 
see Catal. Cod. MSS Bibl. Reg. Bavar. iv. p. 221 (18 10). This ms 
was formerly at Augsburg (hence the name Aiigusfaiuis, by which 
it is commonly known), and is described in the Catal. Cod. in Bibl. 
Reipiibl. August. Vitidel. p. 22 (1595). The editio princeps of Valen- 
tinus Paceus was taken from it. It is a 4to MS on vellum in single 
columns, written in a fine legible cursive hand, apparently the same 
throughout. The headings to the epistles are in capitals. Iotas 
adscript are sometimes given, but most commonly omitted. It probably 
belongs to the eleventh century. The volume, after the table of contents 
(fol. I a — 2 b), contains (i) fol. 3 a — 199 a the 7rpoKaT?;;)(7;o-ts and the 
eighteen Kary/x^'o-et? twv (})(j)t Lt,ofxevu>v of Cyril of Jerusalem, the author's 
name however not being given; (2) fol. 199 a — 212 b, the five fivara- 
ywyi/cai KaiT/x^cret? commonly assigned likewise to Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, but here stated to be 'Iwduvov Ittlukottov 'lepocroXvfxwv (see 
Touttee's Dissert, ii. c. 3, prefixed to his edition of Cyril) ; (3) fol. 
213 a — 261 a, the Ignatian Epistles, ending the volume. Fol. 212 b 
ends with the words OXtif/eis ivl t6v vwtov ■^fx.wv, Cyril. Catech. Mystag. v. 
17 (p. 330); fol, 213 a begins in the middle of a word -vda-Kakov 8e tw 
Xoyia-fiwi (Tov k.t.X. Mar. Ig?i. 2. Fol. 212 is a single leaf, the rest of the 
quire, which contained the end of the last Catechesis and the beginning 
of the Epistle of Mary to Ignatius, having disappeared. The fragment of 
the Epistle of Mary is not given in the editio princeps, but was printed by 
Ussher {Polyc. et Ignat. Ep. p. 129 sq; see his Append. Ignat. p. 80), 
from the Catal. Bibl. August. Vi?idel. 1. c, where it is published. In the 
much later Catal. Bibl. Reg. Bavar. 1. c. it is ignored. 

This MS gives the Ignatian Epistles in the same order in which they 
occur commonly in the Greek mss of this recension; (i) Mary to 
Ignatius; (2) Ignatius to Mary; (3) TraUians; (4) Magnesians; (5) Tar- 
sians (Trpos to-us ev TapCTw) ; (6) Philippians (Trpos <^tXi7r7r7;o-tbys Trcpt 
ySaTTTiV/AaTos) ; (7) Philadelphians ; (8) Smyrneeans ; (9) Polycarp (Trpos 
TloXvKapTrov iTriaKoirov 'Xfxvpvr]';) ; (10) Antiochenes ; (ll) Hero (Trpos 
'Hpwva Blolkovov 'AvTto;(€tas) ; (12) Ephesians; (13) Romans. The epistles 
are generally numbered in the margin (though sometimes the number 
is omitted) ; but the first number a begins with Ignatius to Mary, the 
preceding letter of Mary to Ignatius not being reckoned in. Two 
lessons are indicated ; (i) tPj y KvptaKrj twv dytwv vqa-TeLdv, of which the 


beginning (apx'?) is noted at JEplics. 2 Trpiirov ovv u/ia? i<jTtv on fol. 
252 a, and the end (tcXos) at Ephes. 9 /xaXto-Ta ttio-twv on fol. 254 a; 
(ii) kv TTJ fJ.vTi]fJLr] Tov dytov lyvariov, of which the beginning (ap;^) is at 
^^;«. 4 eyo) ypdcfxji on fol. 259 b, while the end is not marked, or at 
least I have no record of it (see below, 11. p. 431). 

This MS was very carelessly transcribed for the editio princeps. 
Thus in /gn. Mar. i Paceus prints kplttoctl, XrjiJiyjv, -n-apayyva, ib. 2 
i7Ti/xao-/A€vwv, KeXei^^eVra, av eyvous (for avayvov^^ ipijvrjv, lb. 4 avaicA-^ro) 
(for av€yK\7^Tw), ou r\€v (for ovk ev), TrpocrSoKoix€vo<; tcr^os (for TrpoaSoKw/xevos 
fiicr66<s), etc. in all which cases the words are correctly written in the ms. 
Not unnaturally editors have been misled by these phenomena. Thus 
Zahn {/gn. et Polyc. Ep. p. xx) writes ' Paceum codicis scripturam satis 
fideliter expressisse...ipsa vitiorum, quibus ilia scatet, ratio ostendit. 
Ne manifestissimos quidem errores emendavit' etc. Thus the very errors 
of the editio princeps have lulled subsequent editors into a false 
security ; and the ms, though easily accessible, does not appear to have 
been collated since with the printed text. Through the intervention of 
the English Foreign Office the Munich authorities kindly allowed the 
MS to be sent to England for me, and I collated it throughout. It has 
since been collated by Funk for his edition (1881); and I have thus 
had the advantage, in preparing my second edition, of verifying my 
collation by his. 

2. Vaticmms 859 [gj, collated by Dressel, who marks it [V], and 
thus describes it; ' membraneus, foliorum quaternariorum maj. 288, 
saec. xi, graeca ac docta manu scrip tus'...' Codex est optimae notae, scri- 
bendi quidem ratio nostrorum Graecorum, idcirco ob itacismum vocales 
ac diphthongos haud raro permutans. Inscriptiones rubrae. Nierses 
ille Ghelazensis, qui eum olim possidebat, in calce epistolae Barnabae 
notulam sermone Armeniaco adscripsit. Qui cum anno 11 73 obierit, 
facile apparet Angelum Maium, cum [consentiente ?] Jacobsono {Fatrcs 
Apost. ed. pr. p. v) codicem ' saeculo forsitan xiii ' assignaret, in hoc 
quoque errasse.' 

I have inspected the volume myself It contains a collection of 
miscellaneous patristic tracts and sermons. The Ignatian Epistles are 
immediately preceded by the letters of the false Dionysius the 
Areopagite. Fol. 149 b begins titw Updpxy] ipw-njaavTL 8t' l-jna-ToXrj'i 
Ti's d T'^s (TO(^tas oi/cos K.T.X., the 9th letter of this pseudo-apostolic father. 
This continues for some pages. On fol. 151b col. 2 below the middle 
is Kttl TTjv fxev Kar alrCav, rrjv 8e KaO vTrap^Lv, n/jv 8e Kara /xiOi^iv, kol oAAa 
(iWcos. ojs y Kar avra ovv Trpaorr/Tos, ev rj KaTaAverat k.t.A. The first 
part as far as oj? 17 Kar' avra belongs to the pseudo-Dionysius (p. 800, 


ed. Corder.) : the remaining words from oZv TrpaoVr/Tos onwards are from 
the Ignatian Epistle to the Trallians § 4. There is no indication of the 
transition from Dionysius to Ignatius in the original ms, but a marginal 
note in Greek in a later hand-writing points out the dislocation, to 
which attention is also directed by a drawing of a hand and by a mark 
of separation in the text, this mark however being placed not after 
ws 97 Kar avrd (its right place) but after aAXa aXAws, so that the words 
w? 7; Kar avTOL are wrongly assigned to Ignatius. This fact enables us 
to trace the parentage of other mss, which I shall describe afterwards. 
Thus the Ignatian Epistles are defective at the beginning, the Epistle to 
Mary of Cassobola and part of that to the Trallians being wanting'. 
The epistles then follow in the usual order as already described. After 
the Ignatian Epistles follows the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 
which is blended with the Epistle of Barnabas, just as we have seen 
that the Dionysian letter was blended with the Ignatian, the junction 
taking place in the same way in the middle of a sentence. The Epistle 
of Barnabas ends on fol. 211b, and after its close is the Armenian note 
already mentioned. The rest of fol. 2 1 1 b is left blank, and on fol. 212 a 
begins the Protevangellum Jacobi. 

The MS was collated by Dressel, from whom I have taken the various 
readings in the Ignatian Epistles. Funk (11. p. xxvii) corrects a few 
errors in Dressel's collation, but confirms its general accuracy. 

3. Ottoho?iianus 348, also in the Vatican Library. This MS was 
collated by Dressel, who describes it ' Chartaceus, foliorum quaterna- 
riorum min. ineuntis saecuh xiv', and pronounces 'ex uno fonte cum 
Vaticano fluxisse videtur'. Having inspected it myself, I believe it to 
be a lineal rather than a collateral descendant of Vatic. 859, and per- 
haps a direct copy. The date 'saeculi xiv' is much too early, and xiv 
may be a printer's error, as Funk suggests, for xvi. It contains the 
eleven Ignatian Epistles in the same order, followed by the Epistles of 
Polycarp and Barnabas welded together in a like manner, the Epistle to 
the Trallians being mutilated at the beginning and commencing at the 
same place as in the older ms. This is far from convincing in itself; but 
there are other indications. The ungrammatical ws >? kut aurd ovv -n-pao- 
Tr]ro<i of Vafic. 859 becomes ws -q Kar avrd ovv Trpaorr/s in Ottod. 348. 
The natural inference from this fact is that it was copied after the 
marginal note to the older ms had been written, and the transcriber, 
having been thereby misled as to the point at which the Ignatian 

^ Dressel (p. 230) quotes the authority (^c for ov). This error is inexplicable, 
of this and the two mss which I shall They do not any of them commence till 
next describe, for a reading in I'ml/. 3 the end of § 4. 


Epistle begins, takes offence at the grammar and alters accordingly. 
I have not noticed any reading in Dressel's collation of the Ignatian 
Epistles inconsistent with the supposition that it was copied from 
Vatic. 859 : and, having myself examined the vv. 11. of both mss in 
the Epistle of Polycarp, I am confirmed in this view by the minute 
differences, which are at once explained by the phenomena of the 
older MS. Still it is barely possible that Ottob. 348 was copied not 
from Vatic. 859 itself, but from some ms closely aUied to it. The 
headings to the epistles are simpler than in the older ms, being of the 
type Tov avTov Trpos ju,ayvr/(n'ov? cTrtcTToX?) Tp'tTq. Dressel says of Ottob. 
348 ' Adsunt in margine scholia, adnotationes, correctiones ac con- 
jecturae baud contemnendae'. He has not remarked that these mar- 
ginal notes are chiefly in the Epistle to the Romans, where they are 
merely various readings derived from the text of the Metaphrast. 
Elsewhere its corrections of the text of Vatic. 859 are for the most part 
very obvious. These marginal notes are in a different hand from the 
MS itself. 

The title page (fol. I a) has tov ayiov tcpo/Aa'prvpos lyvariov Tou 
6eo(f)6pov cVio-ToXat in rubric : then Trpos Tpa\X7]atov<; eVto-roX?; Sewe/aa, 
with a side note XetVct 17 oipXV ""7^ Trpos TpaWrjatovs cTrtoroX^s ^, rys 
8e TTpioTTjs TO Trav, but the last line T-fjs Se irptoTrjs TO Trav seems to be 
by a different hand. The text begins about two-thirds down fol. i b. 

4. Laurent. Plut. vii. Cod. 21, in the Laurentian Hbrary at Florence, 
described in Bandini Catal. MSS Graec. Bibl. Laurent, i. p. 269. Some 
vv. 11. are given from it by Ussher, who designates it Flor., and a fuller 
but still partial collation appears in Dressel [F]. The volume contains 
(i) The Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp (with the Epistle of Barnabas 
attached to the latter); (2) Hippolytus de Consummatione Mtmdi, de 
Antichristo, and dc Sccundo Advetitu. The ms is ascribed to the 15th 
century, but seems to belong rather to the i6th. 

The Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Barnabas in this ms appear 
to have been derived (so far as I have observed) immediately from 
Ottob. 348. The title page presents exactly the same appearance, ex- 
cept that the words T17S 8e 7rpwTr]<s to Trav are omitted ; the fragment of 
the Trallians begins with the same words m 7} Kar avTo ovv Trpa6rr]<; 
and in the same part of the corresponding (second) page ; and the 
readings agree, excepting such alterations of spelling or otherwise as 
might easily occur to a moderately intelligent transcriber. Moreover 
in one instance at least the scribe has clumsily incorporated a marginal 
note of Ottob. 348. The Epistle to Polycarp at the close has the 
words dixyjv. 7; x"-P'^'> > but Laur. vii. 21 reads dfirjv r) x^pi-^ t""*"? tov Oeov 
IGN. I. 8 


et?/ ^iff vjjiwv (see Bandini p. 270), the words iWs tov 6eov drj iif.ff r/xwv 
being unintelligently copied from a conjecture (icrws) in the margin of 
Ottob. 348, which was intended to supply the supposed omission. 

5. Farts. Graec. 937, formerly Colbert. 4443, described in the Catal. 
MSS Bibl. Reg. 11. p. 183, where it is assigned to the i6th century. 
This MS has every appearance of being a facsimile of the last-men- 
tioned. The title page, commencement, headings, etc, and general 
appearance are exactly the same. Moreover the Epistles of Ignatius, 
Polycarp, and Barnabas, are followed by the same three treatises of 
Hippolytus. In the Paris MS hovrever after these treatises other works 
are added (see the Catal. 1. c), which are wanting in the Laurentian. 
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp ends in this MS in the same way as 
in the preceding, 77 x"/°'^ '•'''"^ '^'^^ ^^°^ ^"^ /^^^' v/xwv. In the only 
portion for which I have examined both mss carefully — the Epistle of 
Polycarp — the phenomena suggest that Paris. Grace. 937 was copied 
directly from Latirent. vii. 21, or (if not so) was a second transcript 
made from the same MS about the same time ; e. g. in § 4 the marginal 
reading of the Laurentian fxofjio^ o-KOTreiTat is introduced into the text of 
the Parisian. But possibly a closer examination of other parts might 
show that the relation is not quite so simple. 

6. Pan's. Suppl. Graec. 341, a small 4to written on paper ; a volume 
of miscellaneous contents, containing various works, some in manu- 
script (apparently in different hands), some printed. At the end of the 
first part, which is chiefly occupied with the treatise of Gregory Nyssen 
TTcpi Karao-Kcv^s dvOpwTTov, the transcriber has written on a blank leaf 
(fol. 91b)' Patavii exscriptum anno ab incarnatione servatoris nostri 
Jesu Christi m.d. xxxii'. After the second part, which contains the 
C/iristus Patiens, is written 'Venetiis anno salutis m.d. xxxv sexto- 
decimo Cal. Octobris '. The two printed works which are bound up in 
the volume bear the dates 1558 and 1553 respectively. The Ignatian 
Epistles stand at the end of the manuscript portion, and immediately 
before the printed works. It may be inferred therefore that they were 
written somewhere about the middle of the 1 6th century. 

Cotelier in his preface states that for the Ignatian Epistles he 
made use of 'codice Claudii Jolii praecentoris ecclesiae Parisiensis'. 
He gives the various readings of this manuscript in his margin, 
designating it simply 'ms', without mentioning the name'. This 

^ Zahn, by no fault of his own, has gives the v. 1. of our MS as ri\v rwv 'Iod- 

been misled by the manner in which Satoji/, whereas it should be tuiv 'lovdaitov 

Cotelier gives the variations. Thus p. {om. T-qv), and in A/ao-n. 12 'IrjaoD XpLO-rov 

194 for Magti. 1 1 tV 'louSatW Zahn he gives vlov, whereas it should be w'oC 


Claude Joly, who has a certain position in the literary history of 
France, was made precentor of Notre Dame a.d. 1671 (the year 
before Cotelier's edition appeared) and died a.d. 1700. He had a good 
library, which he left to the Chapter of Notre Dame. The ms used by 
Cotelier was evidently this Paris. Suppl. Gi-aec. 341, for on a fly leaf 
it has the entry ' A la Bibliotheque de I'Eglise de Paris b. 2 ', and it 
appears as no. 214 in the manuscript catalogue of the books which 
came to the National Library from Notre Dame. The variations more- 
over agree with those of Cotelier's ms, so far as I have tested them, 
though they are frequently quite unique. 

This MS evidently belongs to the same class as the four preceding ; 
for it begins at the same point in the Epistle to the Trallians. The 
general title is tou dyLov Upofxaprvpo^ lyvaTiov Tou 6eo(f)opov i-TncTToXaL, 
followed by the special title Trpds rpaWrja-Lovi iTTLo-ToXr} Sevripa. As in the 
Mss previously described, the epistle itself begins in the lower part of the 
second page, ws y Kar avrd ovv 7rpaor>;9, the upper part being left blank. 

This fact indicates its general relationship, but its lineage may be 
more closely determined. A comparison with Of^ol>. 348 seems to 
show that it was derived mediately or immediately from this last- 
mentioned MS. Thus Oftol^. 348 gives in the margin a large number of 
various readings derived from the Metaphrast. In Paris. Suppl. Graec. 
341 these readings are incorporated into the text, with occasional 
exceptions where they are given as marginal alternatives. It is un- 
necessary to give examples, for any one may satisfy himself on this 
point by comparing Cotelier's various readings taken from his ms with 
the marginal alternatives of Ottob. 348 as given by Dressel. The coin- 
cidences however are even more numerous than appear from Cotelier's 
collation. Thus in Rom. inscr. the correction of ■tjvoip.^voL'i, TmrXrjpoifxe- 
I'ots, into yjvwfjievrjv, ireTrXrjpwfxivqv (the words however being written 
with o for w in the Paris ms), is common to both ; and so in other cases 
which he has omitted to record. The incorporation of these marginal 
readings of 0/iob. 348 is not always very intelligently made. Thus in 
Pom. 9 Tjj dS(3 rfj Kara crdpKa /caret Tro'Atv k.t.X., the words rrj Kara 
ddpKa are omitted in the interpolator's text, but inserted in the margin 
of Offolf. 348 from the Metaphrast ; whereas the transcriber of our ms 
has simply substituted Kard a-dpKa for Kara TToXtv in the text. I have 
only examined this Paris MS very partially; but, so far as I have ob- 
served, all the phenomena suggest that it was copied directly from 

XpiffToO. Sometimes Cotelier himself is collation is as full as we should expect 
incorrect ; but his faults are chiefly of from any critic of his age. 
omission. On the whole however his 


Ottoh. 348. At all events it has no independent value and is useless 
for all critical purposes. 

In his note on Magn. 8 Cotelier writes 'participium woo-TTjo-ai'Tt, 
quod sequitur in codice Thuaneo, quodque agnoscit barbarus interpres'. 
He is evidently alluding to a Greek ms ; and as in his preface he only 
mentions using one Greek ms for these epistles and in his margin here 
gives uVoo-TTjo-avTt as the reading of this ms, it may be assumed that he 
is referring to it also in his note. But how comes he to describe it as 
belonging to Thuanus (de Thou), when in his preface he states that 
Claude Joly was the owner of it ? Elsewhere, so far as I am aware, he 
never designates it Thtianeus. The difficulty seems not to have oc- 
curred to subsequent editors. Whiston, who in his edition of these 
epistles {Primitive Christianity i. p. 102 sq) gives the various readings 
of Cotelier's ms throughout, marks it T and calls it 'that of Thuanus' 
{Advertisement p. ii). So too Cureton and Zahn designate it without 
misgiving. This ready acquiescence of later editors is probably due to 
the fact that they did not use Cotelier's original work (a.d. 1672) but 
one or both of Leclerc's editions of Cotelier (so certainly Zahn p. xxiii, 
note I \ and for Whiston see Advertisement p. iii), in which Cotelier's 
preface, containing an account of the ms, is omitted. I am disposed 
to think that 'in codice Thuaneo' is a slip of Cotelier. He elsewhere 
frequently gives the readings of a Latin 'codex Thuaneus' of these 
epistles, which I shall describe below, and may accidentally have 
substituted the wrong name in this place. It is difficult to see 
how the MS of Claude Joly can ever have belonged to the library of 
de Thou. In the catalogue of de Thou's library, published by Quesnel 
(Paris 1679) a few years after Cotelier's edition appeared, but before this 
library was dispersed, there is no mention of a Greek MS of the Ignatian 
Epistles, whereas the Latin MS is duly entered. A ' codex Thuaneus ' 
therefore could hardly have been in Joly's possession at this time. 

It will have appeared from the description that the last four mss 
have no independent value, as there is every reason to believe that 
they are lineally descended from Vatic. 859. They may therefore be 
safely neglected. It would be worse than useless to encumber the 
apparatus criticus with their various readings. 

7, Nydpruccianus [gg], the ms from which Gesner printed his edition. 
The editor (praef. p. 4) says ' Graecum exemplar manuscriptum nactus 
[sum] ex bibliotheca CI. V. piae memoriae D. Gaspari a Nydprugck 
[i.e. von Nienburg, or Newenburg].' I have investigated in all likely 
quarters, and cannot find that this ms is still in existence. As it does 
not appear to have been seen by any one since Gesner, it may have 


been given as copy to the printer, in which case it would probably have 
been destroyed at the time'. 

Gesner appears to have published his edition without any know- 
ledge that he had been anticipated ; for his language distinctly implies 
that he is giving the Greek of these epistles for the first time. His 
ignorance however is difficult to explain. His preface is dated 1559, 
while the title page of the Ignatian Epistles bears the date 1560. Yet 
not only had the editio princeps appeared three years before (1557), 
but in the following year (1558) Morel at Paris had followed it up 
by an edition founded on it. 

This text differs very widely from any other, and the eccentric 
readings must be attributed to arbitrary invention. They plainly have 
no traditional value. These variations are of different kinds. Some- 
times they consist in the capricious substitution of synonyms : e.g. 
Magfl. 9 veoTTjra for KaivoTrjTa, Trail. 9 kolXlo. for KapSta, Rom. 4 CTTi- 
(TTe'AAw for ivTeWo[xai, Ephes. 10 Xeycre for ciTrare. Sometimes a word of 
different import is substituted with the idea of improving the sense, 
the substituted word being not unfrequently suggested by similarity of 
sound; e.g. Magn. 10 [xwjjLiija-rjTat for fxifx-qariTai, Rom. 2 huXOdv for 
hLaXvOrjvaL, PJlllad. 8 avOevTiKov for aOiKTOV, TrpoKplveraL for TrpoKetrat, 
Sniyni. 3 o-i^/xa for r/A^/xa, Polyc. 4 aTro tow Kupiov for aVo tov kolvov, 
ib. 7 auTOv dyatryja-qrc for avTo (XTrapTLcrrjTe, Ephes. 16 lKKX-t]<jia.v for SiSacr- 
KaXtav. On this principle the Latin words in Polyc. 6 are all changed ; 
StacraXeu^yJ being substituted for Bea-eprwp evpeOy, ra Se TroXe/xiKo. 
for TO. SeTToVtTa, to. a6Xa for m axKCTrra. So too 'A/3vep is substituted 
for 'AjSeSSaSai/ in MagJi. 3, where the historical reference is unintel- 
ligible ; and in the same context the unusual word eK/cpe/A?}? is changed 
into cKet Kpeixy]6€i<;. Again ; a very frequent motive of change is the 
desire to simplify the grammar, where the sentence is abrupt or ellip- 
tical : e.g. the insertion of 1/ evxv ^rpos in Polyc. 2, and of Se eVySaXXcTc 
in Ephes. 8 ; or the omission of os kuI in Magn. 4; or the substitution 
of i/'eyco §€ for \f/eywv and of wv for TovTwv Philad. 4, and again of ai^Vos 
d riavXos for Ka^ws IlauXos in Tars. 7. Instances of all classes of varia- 
tions might be largely multiplied. 

It is difficult to say how far these readings are due to the scribe of 
the MS or of its prototype, and how far to the editor of the printed 
text. The substitution of Greek words for Latin in Polyc. 6 would 
seem to show that the corrector was more familiar with Greek than with 

1 The reasons why I am unable to ac- was derived from the MS gi (see above, 
cept Funk's view that Gesner's edition p. 102) are given below, in. p. 130 sq. 


Latin, and thus to point to the scribe rather than to the editor. But 
whoever may have been their author, they are valueless for critical 
purposes. A primary test of correctness in the readings of the Long 
recension is conformity with the pre-existing text of the Middle form 
on which it was founded ; and this test the characteristic readings of 
the Nydprugck MS generally fail to satisfy, thus condemning themselves. 
As a rule also, they diverge from the old Latin version. In a very few 
cases indeed they may seem to be confirmed by this version ; e.g. in 
the curious substitution of avdcvnKov for a6iKTov, and TrpoKptVerat for 
7rpoK€tTai, Philad. 6, where the Latin has principatiis, praejudicatur. If 
these readings be not, as we are tempted to suspect, emendations of 
the editor who had the Latin version before him, they must be more 
ancient than this version ; but even then they are condemned by refer- 
ence to the text of the Middle form, which has aOiKrov and TrpoKetrat 
like the other mss of the Long recension. 

The eccentric readings of this ms must therefore be set aside. But 
on the other hand it contains an ancient element of some value ; and 
cannot be altogether neglected, though it requires to be used with dis- 

8. Constantinopolitmius [gj. This is the important MS from which 
Bryennios first published the Epistles of S. Clement in their complete 
form (a.d. 1875), and is described accordingly in my 6". Clement of 
Rome I. p. 121 sq (ed. 2). It bears the date a.d. 1056. The Ignatian 
Epistles begin on fol. 81 with the Epistle of Mary to Ignatius, and 
occur in the order which is usual in this recension. 

I am indebted to the great kindness of Bryennios, now Metropolitan 
of Nicomedia, for a collation of the Ignatian Epistles in this ms, 
procured for me through the mediation of our common friend 
Dr Hieronymus Myriantheus, Archimandrite of the Greek Church 
in London, The collation is made with the text of the Ignatian 
Epistles in Migne's Patrologia Graeca. Where there was any chance 
of a variation escaping the eye of a careful collator, I have recorded the 
fact that the reading of this ms is inferred ex silentio. Bryennios also 
furnished Funk with a collation for his work, and I have compared this 
with my own for the present edition. 

The MS maintains the same character in the Ignatian letters which 
has been noticed in the Epistles of Clement. Here, as there, it exhibits 
manifest traces of a critical rei'isio?i, which detracts from its authority. 
But after due allowance made for this editorial interference, it remains 
an important aid to the criticism of the text ; and moreover it has a 
special value as being the only Greek ms which preserves the thirteen 


Ignatian Epistles of the Long recension (including the Letter of Mary 
to Ignatius) entire. 

g. Vatic. Regius {ReginensisT) 30 [gg], a Vatican MS collated by Dres- 
sel and called by him [R]. He thus describes it (p. Ivii); 'Membraneus, 
foliis octonariis, saeculi xi ineuntis. Insunt 0pp. Dionysii Areopagitae 
cum glossis haud indoctis, necnon ad loajinem Apostolum spectantia 
(i — 160). Postea fragmentum Epistolae Ig^iatii ad Ephesios exhibetur 
in sex foliis cum dimidio'. After Dressel, it was collated by Funk. 
The fragment extends from the beginning of the epistle to § 18 ttov 
Kavxqcns Twv Xeyo-. This epistle is numbered a, which points to an 
arrangement differing from the common order, where it would be ia. 

10. Barber. 68, in the Barberini Library at Rome. At the 
beginning is written 'S. Ignatii Martyris Epistolae Graecae ex Codice 
Vaticano a Leone AUatio erutae', and below is the number 428. Dressel 
wrongly copies it 'ex codice Vaticano 428 a Leone AUatio erutae', and 
adds ' Cod. Vaticanus frustra quaeritur, cum ille numero 428 insignitus 
Ignatium non contineat, neque ad Vaticanum 859 aut Ottobonianum 
348 ne ex longinquo quidem accedat'. The correct position of 428 
points not to the number of the Vatican ms from which it was copied, 
but to the number of the transcript itself in the collection to which it 
at one time or other belonged, as I ascertained by personal inspection. 
Montfaucon indeed {Bibl. Bibl. i. pp. 116, 131, 142) mentions a Vatican 
MS of the Ignatian Epistles numbered 4248, but I was informed on the 
spot that there was no Greek MS corresponding to this number. This 
transcript {Barber. 68) contains the twelve Epistles of Ignatius in the 
order usual in the Long recension. The Epistle of Mary to Ignatius is 
not included. Dressel in his preface (p. Ix) promises to designate this 
MS C, but in his notes it appears as B. 

But what is the value of this professed transcript ? In the margin 
AUatius gives various readings from the famous Medicean ms (see above, 
p. 73 sq), and in reference to these Dressel describes him as 'haud raro 
suas conjecturas pro libri scripti lectionibus tacite venditans'. How 
just this accusation is, any one may see for himself by comparing these 
marginal readings with any fair collation of the Medicean MS itself 
But I can prove to demonstration that his text is even less trustworthy 
than his margin. On a closer inspection of the text of this transcript, I 
became more and more convinced that its characteristic readings were 
taken from some printed edition of the Ignatian Epistles; and at 
length I obtained direct proof of this. In Hero 4 this transcript reads 
€t /Ar; eVl T(5i/ irpwrcov TrpwroTrXao-Twv, inserting the worse than superfluous 
TrpwTwv. This reading is obviously false, and is not found in any other 


MS. But it occurs in some printed texts, and I have been able to trace 
its history. It appears first in Ussher, and for the moment I was per- 
plexed to explain its appearance. But turning to the Antwerp edition 
of Ignatius printed by Plantinus (a.d. 1572) I found the solution. The 
last words of the last line on p. 53 in this edition are ci /at? eVi, and 
below is written twv Trpw- according to a common practice of giving 
the catch words to carry the eye forward, as the next page begins with 
Twi/ TrpcoTOTrXacTTCiov. Ussher must have had his text printed from a copy 
of this edition'; and the compositor has carelessly read on continuously 
cTTt Twv Trpo) { Tcoj/ Usslicr indecd found out the mis- 
print, for in his table of errata Trpwrwi/ is directed to be omitted ; but 
Voss, not seeing this, prints iirl t<Zv TrpwVwv Trpwro-rrXdo-Toiv after Ussher. 
A happy blunder ; for it enables us to detect the imposture of 
AUatius. AUatius, professing to transcribe a Vatican ms, really tran- 
scribes the text of Ussher or Voss. Nor is this the only case in which 
he is clearly detected. Thus in Smyrn. 6 the transcript of AUatius 
reads ov t^s C<^t7s atwj/iov, for on ^wiys aiwviov. This position of the 
article is a solecism in Greek, and it is not found in any other ms. 
But the sense seemed to require a negative (which appears also in the 
Latin version), and accordingly the early editor Morel (a.d. 1558) 
substituted ov rrj^ for ort. He would have respected Greek usage more, 
and have diverged less from ms authority, if he had read ov simply for 
on. But his solecism was perpetuated in later editions, till it reached 
Ussher and Voss, and from one or other it was taken by AUatius. 
Again in Tars. 9 this transcript reads dvmidrqToi with the printed 
editions, though the word does not occur elsewhere and could hardly 
be used in the sense required here. The other mss vary between 
aveTrto-TttToi and dveTncrToiTrjTOL, both these words being found elsewhere, 
and both perhaps possible in this context. Again in Philipp. 11, where 
the editio princeps had i/Ketaas, Morel boldly substituted e^wo-as and is 
followed by later editors ; accordingly c^wo-as is found in this transcript, 
though no MS has any reading at all resembling it. Again in Magn. 13 
the correct reading is a^toTrXo'Kou koX TrvevfiariKOv arecfidvov Tov Trpecrf^v- 
repiov vfjiwv. where by a fanciful metaphor the circle of presbyters seated 
round the bishop are regarded as a spiritual wreath ' fitly woven ' about 
him. In some mss however irpea-^vTepLov has been corrupted into 
irpea-pvTipov, and o-T€c/)aVou is in consequence changed into a proper 
name ' Stephen.' In this connexion the epithet a|io7rXo'/coi; is quite out 
of place, and Morel substituted diioviKov 'sua authoritate', as Ussher 

1 Cureton {Vind. Ign. p. 13) wrongly that Ussher printed his text from that 
infers from a remark of Hammond of Vedelius. 


truly says, and in this he was followed by most later editors, though 
not by Ussher or Voss. So d^wviKov appears in the transcript of 
Allatius. These are some of the more decisive instances in which 
Allatius copies a printed text ; but many more might be adduced. 
Thus alfia.T(ov for a-irepfxaTwv, Trail. lo, was Morel's conjecture : aVe- 
Set^ev for dir-qXeyiev, Magn. 3, appeared first in an edition of Plantinus, 
being suggested by aVifXci^ei/ a misprint of the editio princeps ; dX-q- 
<f>e(Tav was first substituted for eiXKva-av, Philad. 5, in the edition of 
Plantinus, where the editio princeps has elX-qvaav ; 7r€Tr\r]po(t>opr]iJ.4vr) 
(or 7re7rXr]f)wixivr}, Smjrfi. inscr., was an early editorial correction, founded 
on 7r€irXr]poix€vr), again a misprint of the editio princeps. All these 
are devoid of ms authority, and yet all appear in this transcript. In 
several passages also this transcript follows the capricious alterations 
of gg where they are found in no other ms, and the strong presump- 
tion is that in these cases also the transcriber must have derived his 
readings from some printed text. Lastly, it occasionally introduces 
readings which are found only in the text of the Middle form, and 
which (there is good reason to believe) never had a place in the Long 
recension; e.g. avacrrao-et for alrTjaeL in Polyc. 7. 

The case against this transcript might be considerably strengthened ; 
but I believe that sufficient has been said to show its worthlessness. 
It contains in fact a ttiade up text. Allatius must have had before him 
more than one printed edition, for he could not (so far as I have ob- 
served) have got the readings rQ>v Trpwrtov TrpwroTrXa'a-Ttov Hero 4 and 
d^ioviKov Magn. 13 from the same edition. He professes however to 
have taken the epistles from a Vatican ms; and this may be so far 
true, that together with his printed texts he did employ such a 
MS. But, if so, can we identify it ? After we have thus traced the most 
characteristic and striking readings of this transcript to printed editions, 
it no longer remains an obstacle to the identification of the ms in 
question with Vatic. 859 or with Ottob. 348, that its text 'neexlon- 
ginquo quidem accedit ' to that presented by either. A more for- 
midable objection is the fact that, whereas the transcript contains 
the twelve epistles complete, these two mss want the whole of the first 
epistle and the beginning of the second. But with his other aids 
before him, Allatius could easily have supplied the omission. Until some 
other Vatican ms therefore is discovered which better satisfies the 
conditions, it may be presumed that the ms referred to was one of those 
with which we are acquainted. At all events sufficient has been said to 
show that this transcript is quite useless for critical purposes. Nor has 
the investigation been superfluous ; for, if we had been obliged to 


accept its text as an authority, wholly new phenomena would have 
had to be considered, and the entire subject would have been thrown 
into confusion. 

II, Bodl. Auct. D. Infr. 2. 19 (see Coxe's Catal. Cod. Mamiscr. 
Bibl. Bodl. I. p. 627), a small vol. parchment, in a comparatively recent 
(17th century) hand. Its history is given by Bp. Fell on the fly leaf; 

'Septembris 17° A. 1673 cum ex itinere Harburiam Comitatus 
Leicestriae pertransirem, codicis hujus copia mihi facta est \ eundemque 
dono dedit egregius vir et de re literaria optime meritus D""^ Johannes 
Berry, scholae ibidem Grammaticalis ludimagister. Codicem ipsum 
Oundleiae in Agro Northamptoniensi apud Bibliopolam neglectum, et 
inter scruta delitescentem, pretio satis exiguo redemit. J. Fell.' 

This MS must also be the same which is mentioned in Bernard's 
Catal. Libr. MSS A?igl. et Hibern. (Oxon. 1697) no. 7099 ' Ignatii 
Antiocheni Epistolae Graece,' as belonging to the library of the 
Rev. H. Jones ; for Jones was the successor of Bp. Fell in his living of 
Sunningwell and came into possession of several of his books. 

This MS contains the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius, but in 
the interpolated text. It is thus quite unique. 

In the Vind. Ig7i. p. 57 sq (ed. Churton) Pearson writes; ' Habeo 
exemplar MS Graecum epistolarum Ignatianarum mihi a viro docto et 
antiquitatum curioso communicatum sine fictis et supposititiis (septem 
enim tantum sunt) sed cum assumentis quidem diu post Eusebium, 
imo et Gelasium, factis, epistolas hoc ordine repraesentans ; Trpo? TpaA.- 
A.7;(Ttovs A. Trpos Mayvr^crtous B. Trpos ^tXaSeX^ets T. Trpos ^fJ.vpvaiov<; A. 
Trpos IXoXuKapTTov iTTLCTKOTTOv ^f/.vpvr]^ E. Trpos E^ecrious 5". Trpos 'Pw- 
fiaLOv; Z.' 

This description entirely accords with the Bodleian MS. 

In other passages Pearson refers to a ms which he calls Leicestrcnsis 
{Minor TJieol. Works \\. p. 443, Epist. Ign, p. 15), and Smith also 
mentions this MS on one occasion {Epist. Igii. p. 70), Elsewhere again 
Pearson designates a certain ms as Anglicafuis {V. /. p. 490, Ep. Ign. 
pp. 33, 38, 44). Both designations would be appropriate to the 
Bodleian ms. It was found by Bp. Fell in Leicestershire, and it is the 
only Greek ms of Ignatius known to exist in England. 

The identification moreover is further confirmed when we come to 
examine the readings. Pearson mentions four readings of Anglicanus, 
all of which are found in this MS : Ephes. 1 2 fjLvrjfxoviv^L vfxwv {V. I. 
p. 490); Polyc. 7 uvvTovov {Ep. Igfi. p. 7,2,); Alagn. 10 vTrlpOearOe {Ep. 
/gn. p. 44) ; Ephes. 1 2 TrapaSoOd^ ye twu with a marginal reading TreptoSds 
iaTf. Twv {Ep. Ign. p. 3S). The last coincidence would be almost 


decisive in itself, since this marginal reading is quite unique. Two 
readings are also given as from Leicestrensis, which agree with the 
Bodleian ms, tc3v /car avhpa Smyrn. 5 by Pearson {Ep. Ign. p. 15) and 
hridKOTTov Polyc. 8 by Smith {Ep. Ign. p. 70). Hitherto therefore all the 
facts conspire to identify the Anglicanus and Leicestrensis with each 
other', and with the Bodleian ms. But there is one statement which 
seems inconsistent with this identification and which Churton ( V. I. p. 58) 
urges as fatal to it. In his treatise de Annis Primorwn Romae Episco- 
ponim {Minor Theol. Works 11. p. 443) Pearson adduces 'Ava/<:AT7T<j) as 
the reading of Leicestrensis in the spurious epistle ad Mar. § 4, which 
epistle is not contained in our ms. This however was a posthumous 
work left unfinished by Pearson ; and there is probably some confusion 
with the parallel passages in Trail. 7, where our ms does write this name 
^k.v6.Kkr\ro%-. There is therefore no sufficient ground for questioning 
the identification. 

But if so, it becomes important to ascertain the character and history 
of this MS, since Pearson (r". /. p. 57 sq), when discussing the genesis 
of the Ignatian Epistles, grounds an argument on the fact that it con- 
tains only seven letters, though in the long form. 

From this ms Whiston {Primitive Christianity Revived) gives various 
readings, designating it B (as being already in the Bodleian Library). 
With this exception it has been overlooked by Ignatian editors, and no 
one seems to have examined it carefully before myself*. When I first 
turned over the leaves, I saw at once that it had been written after the 
Ignatian controversy had arisen, and that the transcriber had con- 
sequently picked out the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius and 
isolated them from the rest, as alone genuine ^ I supposed however that 
they might have been copied from some older ms. But a further 

^ Against the identification of Angli- while giving the reference and quoting 

camis with Leicestrensis Churton (1. c.) the words of the passage. See also my 

writes 'id quominus credam, obstat quod notes on Philad. 11 '' k-yo.Qb-Kohi (11. p. 280), 

duos codices distinguit Smithius Nott. and on 6';;yr«. i3"AXkt7J' (ll. p. 325). 

p. 70.' This is a mistake. Smith there ^ It has since been examined by Funk 

mentions Augustaniis, but not Angli- {Pair. Apost. ll. p. xxix). 

canus, in connexion with Leicestrensis. •* This is done, for instance, by Vc- 

Lipsius {Syr. Text. d. Ign. p. 48) falls delius in his edition of 1623, some years 

into the mistake of treating Leicestrensis before Ussher's discovery of the genuine 

as distinct from Pearson's MS. Ignatian text. Vedelius divides the 

* Careful as he was, Pearson could epistles into two books 'quorum prior 

sometimes make great mistakes even in continet epistolas genuinas, alter sup- 

his finished works. Thus in K /. p. 5 1 7 posititias.' 
he writes Tertullianus for Hieronymus, 


examination enables me to say confidently that it is taken from the 
2nd edition of Morel, Paris 1562. The transcriber is very careless and 
ignorant. He omits and miswrites constantly. But I have collated 
nearly the whole volume, and have not found a single reading which 
cannot be traced to Morel, when proper allowance is made for errors of 

This relation betrays itself in many ways. Thus in Ephes. inscr. 
the scribe has imitated the contraction of rjvwixevrjv as it appears in 
Morel's type, though generally he writes the letters separately. Thus 
again in J^om. 9 the first o of /xo'vos in Morel's edition is faulty, so that 
the word looks like /xiVos; accordingly our scribe has written it /Atvos^ 
Nor are these the only instances where the peculiarities or imperfections 
of the type have misled him. Contracted words for instance are fre- 
quently read and written out wrongly by him. Moreover this ms exhibits 
a number of Morel's readings, which were due to conjectural emen- 
dation, and which (being demonstrably wrong) could not have occurred 
in any ms independently. 

In the following readings for instance, for which there is no manuscript authority, 
Leicestrensis (L) agrees with Morel (M): Trail, 3 ov Xoyi^ofxai, ML rjv Xoyl^ofiai; 
id. 7 d(T(paXi^e(Tde o^p tovs tolovtovs, ML 7rp6s roiis tolovtovs, ib. 'AveyK\r]Tos, ML 
'AvcLKX-qros ; ib. 8 iJ^iXXovras, ML fiiXXovcrLv (in M the accent is on the contracted XX ; 
in L it is placed on the ov); ib. 10 awepfidruv, ML alfiaToiv (in M the two last 
syllables are contracted, so that the position of the accent is not obvious ; L writes 
aliw.TCjv): Magii. 1 kolto. Oeov, ML /card deod ; ib. 3 Tvevfid eariv, ML irvevfj-a S 
i(7TLv; ib. Oeiqj, ML deoO (the editio princeps misprinted it dew, and hence M's 
conj. deov); ib. KaTeppnrov, ML Karepeiwov; ib. 5 tuv elp7j/j.ipu}v, ML twv yprifx^vuv ; 
ib. 8 awe lOovpt as, ML diruTovvras (the ed. princ. misprinted it direiTovvTas, and 
hence M's conj.); ib. 9 /cat dpyiais, ML ws dpyiacs; ib. 13 d^io7rX6Kov...(rTe^dvov 
ToO TTpea^vrepiov v/j-wv, ML d^ioviKov...'ZTe(pdi>ov tou irpea^vTepov vpLUP which is 
based on a misconception (see p. 120 sq); ib. 14 7]vo}fj.€vi]s, M ijpw/jLhrjs, L rjpufj.hi]s ; 
Philad. inscr. (jvyKXiaa-vre^, ML ffvyKX-rjaavres (a misprint of the ed. princ); ib. 3 
avTous (pvTelav, ML oi^ras cpvTeiav; ib. 11 ■^ dydtrri tQv aSeXtpwv, ML ev dyairri tuv 
ddeXcpiZv (apparently a misprint of M in his 2nd ed., for it makes no sense; it is 
correct in his first); ib. 4 Trjs tQv vo/j-wv fieX^rrjs, ML ttJs tov vofiov /xeXiTTjs (the ed. 
princ. printed incorrectly rijs tuv vofiov fieX^Trjs, which M amended accordingly); 
Smyrn. inscr. TreirXrjpu/Mvrj, ML TreTrX7;po(pop7]fj.^vr} (the ed. princ. misprinted it 
TreTrX7]po/j.ivrj, and M emended); ib. 6 on ^oirjs alujviov, ML 01) ttjs f'w^s alioviov 
(where M's emendation introduces a solecism; see above, p. 120); Polyc. 1 to 
eTTtTUX^''') ML TOV eTruvxet"', ib. 8 iiricTKOiry, ML iirLaKOTrov ; Ephes. 5 dvaK€Kpa- 
/xivovs, ML ivaKpe/xafiivovs (this conjecture of M was founded on the corrupt reading 

^ These two instances show that the and /xdvos is clearly printed. So again in 

scribe did not use the first edition of Philad. 5 the MS has €CKKV(jav with the 

Morel (1558), but the second (1562). In second edition, whereas in his first edition 

the first edition Tjvw/xii/rjv is uncontracted, Morel read eiXri<pe(7av. 



of the Aug. MS avaKeKpefjLafxhovs reproduced in the ed. princ); il>. 9 cwoSoiiro- 
povvras, ML avvodoLiropovvra (this is a mere misprint in M's and ed.; it is correct 
in the ist); J^om. 5 kSlv aiTo, di eKovra k.t.X., ML Kal avra Si edc eKovra k.t.\. 
(the ed. princ. has Kai avra 5i e/covTa, after the Aug. MS, and M supplied the missing 
edv or ac in the wrong place). 

The origin of this MS therefore can hardly be disputed. It may 
safely be set aside as worthless ; and so Pearson's argument, founded 
on the unique phenomenon wliich it exhibits, must fall to the ground. 

It will thus be seen that all the Greek mss except four g^ (Au- 
gustanus), g, {Vatic. 859), g3 {Nydpnucianus), g^ {Co?tsiantinopolitanus), 
with the addition perhaps of a fifth g^ ( Vatic. Reg. 30) for the greater 
part of the Epistle to the Ephesians, may be discarded, as having no 
independent value. Of these four g^ is the most important, and g, 
comes next ; while gg and g^ bear on their face the signs of literary 
revision, but are not without their value as subsidiary evidence in con- 
firmation of readings found in other authorities. 

(ii) Latin. 

The date of this version is uncertain. Ussher [Polyc. et Ign. Ep. 
p. Ixxxv) hazarded the opinion that it was made in the same century 
in which the Ignatian writer himself lived. This view was plainly 
untenable and is retracted by Ussher himself in his table of Emen- 
danda. It must be remembered however that he placed the spurious 
Ignatian writings themselves at the close of the sixth century (i.e. pro- 
bably two centuries or more after their proper date), so that he 
was not so very wide of the mark with regard to the epoch of the 
translator as he might seem at first sight. No date indeed can be 
assigned to this version, except within somewhat wide limits. Of 
Latin writers Gregory the Great is the earliest who is alleged as 
quoting the Long recension of the Ignatian Epistles {Op. vii. p. 320, 
Venet. 1776). But the very expression, 'Amen Gratia,' which he cites 
is wanting in this Latin version ; and even if he is here quoting the 
interpolated rather than the genuine letters, which is somewhat doubtful 
(see III. p. 266 sq), he himself intimates that he derived his quotation 
not from the epistles themselves, but from his Greek correspondent 
Anastasius of Antioch, and we may even infer from his language that 
he had no direct acquaintance with them. It may be presumed there- 
fore that at the close of the sixth century, when Gregory wrote, this 
Latin version was not yet in existence. On the other hand it is 
certainly quoted by Ado of Vienne (1874) more than once in his Liber 
de Festiv. Apostolorum (on xiv Kal. Mart, from Ephcs. i for Oncsimus, 


on Prid. Non. Mali from Antioch. 7 for Euodius). Between these dates 
therefore the translation must have been made. 

The epistles occur in this version in the following order ; (i) to 
Mary of Cassobola, (2) Trallians, (3) Magnesians, (4) Tarsians, (5) 
Philippians, (6) Philadelphians, (7) Smyrnsans, (8) Polycarp, (9) Anti- 
ochenes, (10) Hero, (11) Ephesians, (12) Romans. To these is added 
the Laiis Heronis or Prayer of Hero to Ignatius. Some Mss interpose 
between the Epistle to the Romans and the Laus Heronis the 
Bollandist Acts of Ignatius (see 11. pp. 366 sq, 371). Others again 
prefix the correspondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John 
(see III. p. 69 sq). But neither has any necessary connexion with 
this version. On the other hand the Epistle of Mary of Cassobola 
to Ignatius is wanting in all the extant mss of this version, and 
probably never formed part of it. 

The following is a complete list of the mss which have come to 
my knowledge. Probably however others may lie hidden in public or 
private hbraries of which no catalogues exist or are accessible. 

I. Reginensis 81 (called Regius 81 by Dressel p. Ivii), belonging 
to the collection of Christina Queen of Sweden, in the Vatican library. 
It is described by Dressel (1. c.) and more accurately by Reifferscheid 
Bibliothcca Pairum Latinorum Italica p. 369. Dressel says 'indole 
atque aetate notabilis, cum accedat ad saec. ix ' ; but Reifferscheid 
assigns the part containing the Ignatian Epistles etc. (fol. 13 — 97) to 
the eleventh century, and Mau (see below) gives the xth or xith 
century. This part comprises (i) The twelve Ignatian Epistles, (2) The 
Laus Hyronis, (3) The Epistle of Polycarp, (4) The Life of Polycarp, 
' Polycarpus johannis apostoli discipulus' etc.; after which the scribe 
has written five hexameter verses. Dressel and Funk only give four 
(and these not quite correctly), omitting the third and most important 
' Quem lector sancti fore cognoscat juHani.' The headings and endings 
of the Ignatian Epistles are very simple (e.g. Explicit seamda, Iiicipit 
tertid). A former owner was one Loys (Louis) Cartier. Dressel collated 
this MS, and calls it Reg. It has since been collated by A. Mau for 
Lagarde (^Die Lateinischen Uebersetziingen des Ig?iatius p. iii, Gottingen 
1882). It is apparently the most ancient and best of the extant mss. 

Ussher {In Polyc. Epist. Ign. Syll. Ann. p. ii) says, * Cum intel- 
lexissem in bibliotheca CI. V. Alexandri Petavii senatoris Parisiensis, 
Pauli filii, vetustissimum exemplar aliud conservari ; quicquid et illud 
continebat, humanissimi Claudii Sarravii, senatoris itidem Parisiensis, 
beneficio sum consecutus.' Accordingly he gives various readings from 



this MS from time to time. Judging from these, we infer that it must 
have been very closely allied to Rcgin. 81. Thus they agree in such 
readings as Ephes. 9 ' clarificabit ' for 'glorificabit', Ephes. 21 'que 
(or quae) misistis ' for ' quern misistis ', Philad. 1 1 ' Chatopo ' for 
*Agathopo', Mar. 4 'Anencletum' for ' Anacletum ' or 'Cletum', Tars. 
6 ' glorifica me pater ' (the addition of ' pater '), Philipp. 2 ' spiritus 
paracletus' (the omission of 'sanctus' after 'spiritus'). Like Regm. 81 
also it contained the prayer of Hero. As Petau's mss generally passed 
into the library of the Queen of Sweden, to which also Regin. 81 
belongs, we are led to suspect that the two should be identified. 
Unless however either Dressel's collation of Regin. 81 or Ussher's of 
Petav. is inaccurate, this cannot be ; for they do not always agree'. 

The next seven, if not eight, manuscripts are all Burgundian and 
seem to be closely allied. 

2. Trecensis 412, in the public library at Troyes, described briefly 
and not very happily" in the Catalogue General des Mafiuscrtts des 
Bibliothtques Publiques des Departements 11. p. 184. It belonged for- 
merly to the monastery of Clairvaux and was marked G. 4. The 
Ignatian Epistles are immediately preceded by S. Augustine's Com- 
mentary on the Galatians, which ends 'cum spiritu vestro fratres. 
amen.' Then follow; (i) The twelve Ignatian Epistles, '■ Incipit 
scriptii77i ignatii episcopi martyris discipidi johannis eimngeliste ad 
mariam'' (fol. 115 a); (2) The Bollandist Acts of S. Ignatius, '■ Kalendas 
februarii. Passio sancti ignatii martiris discipuli beati johannis apostoli 
et evangeliste: Cum trajanus romanorum suscepisset imperium etc.... 
soUempniter celebratur. Explicit, hucusque historiani passionis ejus 
conscriptor ipsius,^ This is followed by testimonies concerning Ignatius: 
' Quid vero de eo vel epistolis ejus eusebius historiographus vel iero- 
nimus presbyter etc. ...extra portam dafniticam in cimitherio de roma 
antiochiam delate. Passio sancti ignatii explicit' (3) The Praise of 

1 The above account of these MSS was 
written some time before Zahn's edition 
appeared. I find tliat Zahn (p. xxvi sq) 
very confidently identifies the two, and 
probably his view is correct. The identi- 
fication is accepted likewise by Funk and 
by Lagarde. 

^ The compiler of this catalogue is 
guilty of two gi-eat errors in a very few 
lines, (i) He says 'La premiere epitre 
de S. Ignace est adressee a la Sainte 

Mary of Cassobola. (2) He hazards the 
criticism, 'Robert de Lincoln passe pour 
le traducteur latin des Icttres de S. 
Ignace, mais I'ccriture de ce manuscrit 
me parait anterieure a Robert, qui est 
mort en 1253.' The Latin version of the 
Middle recension is ascribed with great 
probability to Robert of Lincoln (see 
above p. 76); but no one ever supposed 
him to be the translator of the Long. 
For a possible explanation of this error 

Vierge.' The first letter is addressed to see the fact stated above, p. 7S. 


Hero. '■ Iiicipit lans hironis etc....prius faciebas. Expliciunt epistole 
sandi mariiris ignatii secnndi antiochie episcopi sed et gesta passionis 
eiiis et laus hironis disciptili et successoris eius.' (4) The Epistle of 
Polycarp. ^ Epistola policarpi martiris sinirneorum episcopi disciptili 
sandi johamiis indpit. Policarpus et qui cum eo...amen. Explicit 
epistola sancti policarpi episcopi ct martiris.' This MS is ascribed to 
the 12th century in the Catalogue: 'in folio sur beau vehn', 'manu- 
scrit de 145 feuillets en belle minuscule.' I have myself inspected it, 
and collated it for the end of Polycarp's Epistle. 

3. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 1639 (formerly Colbert. 1039), parchment, fol. 
double columns, described in the Catal. Cod. MSS Bibl. Reg. iii. p. 162, 
where it is assigned to the 12th century. On the fly leaf is written 
^ Hunc solemnetn librum dedit huic monaster io beate marie magister Johan- 
nes de burgundia etc' As in the Troyes MS, the Ignatian Epistles 
follow upon S. Augustine's Commentary on the Galatians : fol. 177 a... 
' cum spiritu vestro fratres. amen. Explicit explanatio sancti atigustini 
super epistolam ad galathas. Incipit scripttim ignatii episcopi et mar- 
tyris discipuli iohannis evangeliste. Ad mariani etc' It contains the 
same Ignatian matter; (i) The twelve Epistles, (2) The Martyrology 
etc., (3) The Praise of Hero, (4) The Epistle of Polycarp. The last 
however is followed by ' Passio sancti aygidfi abbatis sociorumque ejus,' 
which ends the volume. 

Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers gives collations 
from a ms belonging to the collection of TViuanus (de Thou). This 
MS is included in the catalogue of de Thou's library, Catal. Bibl. 
Thuan. 11. p. 457 (Paris. 1679, and Hamburg 1704), from which it 
appears that the contents of the volume were exactly the same as 
in Paris. 1639, though these contents are very heterogeneous, com- 
mencing with Rufinus' translation of Origen on the Romans and end- 
ing with the Passion of S. Aygulf. I infer therefore that this must 
be the same ms, and that it passed into the Colbert collection with 
de Thou's mss generally, whence it was transferred to the Royal Library. 
I have already (p. 116) pointed out Whiston's mistake about the ms of 

4. Bruxellensis 5510. So numbered in the Catal. des MSS de 
la Bibl. Roy. des Dues de Bourgogne, where it is assigned to the 
first third of the 12th century (xi|). The Ignatian matter (including 
the Epistle to Polycarp) is exactly the same as in the two preceding 
mss (the catalogue gives it imperfectly), and coincides in all essential 

5. Bruxellensis 703 ; see the Catal. des MSS etc., as before. 


The date there assigned to it is the last third of the 15th century. 
The Ignatian matter (with the Epistle to Polycarp) is the same as in 
the last. The catalogue wrongly describes the Ignatian letters, as 
Epistolae ad Mariam. I collated both mss for the end of the Epistle to 
Polycarp, and from the close resemblances there and elsewhere I infer 
that Bruxell. 703 was copied from Bruxell. 5510. This book belonged 
to the Jesuits' College at Louvain, before it came to the Bibliotheque de 

6. Bruxellensis 20132, not included in the printed catalogue, but 
assigned in a manuscript catalogue to the second third of the i6th 
century, and this is apparently about its date. It contains (i) The 
twelve Ignatian Epistles, (2) The Epistle of Polycarp, (3) The corre- 
spondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John. Then follows '^ De 
vita et mof'ibns sande marie virginis sanctus epiphanius etc' The twelve 
Ignatian Epistles and the Epistle of Polycarp appear to have been 
copied directly or indirectly from Bruxell. 5510. The book belonged 
to the Bibliotheque de Bourgogne. 

7. Carolopolitanus 173, in the Library at Charleville, described in 
the Catal. Gen. des Afanuscr. des Bibl. Publ. des Depart em. v (1879), a 
folio MS of the 12th century on parchment. The Ignatian matter con- 
sists of (i) The twelve Ignatian Epistles, (2) The Acts of Ignatius, 
(3) The Laus Heronis. It is immediately preceded by ' Gregorii 
Nazianzeni Opuscula' and followed by the Epistle of Polycarp. 

8. Carolopolitanus 266, described in the same catalogue; likewise a 
parchment folio ms of the 12th century. Its contents are there stated 
to be (i) 'Eusebii Caesariensis Historia Eccl.,' (2) 'Tractatus ejusdem 
adversus Sabellium,' (3) ' Incipit Eusebii Pamphili liber de incorporali 
et invisibih,' (4) ' Incipit de bonis operibus ex epistola beati Pauli ad 
Corinthios secunda,' {5) The twelve Ignatian Letters. 

9. Atrebatensis 51, in the Library at Arras, described in the same 
Catal. des Departem. iv. p. 34, a folio MS of the nth century on parch- 
ment. It belonged formerly to the Abbey of S. Vedast or Waast. It 
contains ' Flores excerpti ex operibus S. Augustini per Eugippium abba- 
tem.' At the close are the words ' Explicit. Hie Ingelramni fuit 
opus monachi.' After this follow (i) The twelve Epistles of Ignatius, 
(2) The Epistle of Polycarp, (3) The Martyrdom of Polycarp. 

10. Oxon. Balliolensis 229, at Balliol College, Oxford, described in 
Coxe's Catal. Cod. MSS qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxon. hodie asservati- 
tur (Oxon. 1852) i. p. 75 sq as 'codex membranaceus in folio, ff. 171, 
sec. XII exeuntis, binis columnis exaratus.' It is one of the books be- 
queathed to the college by William Gray, Bp of Ely (f a.d. 1478). For 

IGN. r. 9 


an account of Bp Gray's library see MulHnger University of Cambridge 
p. 397. The Ignatian matter begins on fol. 103 a. It comprises (i) 
The twelve Epistles, (2) The Laus Heronis, and, is followed by the 
Epistle of Polycarp. This ms was used by Ussher. 

11. Palatinus 150, in the Vatican Library; collated by Dressel 
who describes it (p. Ivii ; comp. p. lix) as ' membraneus, foliis quater- 
nariis min., saeculi xiv.' It has since been collated by A. IMau for 
Lagarde, who ascribes it to the 15th century (p. iii). The Ignatian 
matter commences the volume, and consists of the twelve Epistles, fol- 
lowed by the Laus Heronis. The subsequent contents are the Epistle 
of Polycarp, seven Epistles of S. Antonius Abbas, the Pastor of Hermas 
(a second Latin version, not found in any other ms and published for 
the first time by Dressel), and the Enchiridion of Xystus the Pythago- 
rean. Is this the Vatican ms which Turrianus, quoted by Ussher 
(p. cxxii), mentions as omitting the name of S. Paul in Philad. 4?' It 
fulfils the condition. 

12. Laiirentianus PI. xxiii. Cod. 20, in the Medicean Library at 
Florence, described in Bandini's Catal. Cod. Lat. Bibl. Laiir. i. p. 727 
sq as 'codex membranaceus ms in folio saec. xv.' The earlier part 
of the volume contains the correspondence of Paulinus of Nola. 
Then follows the Ignatian matter, which consists of (i) The corre- 
spondence with the Virgin, preceded by the testimonies of Hieronymus 
and others, (2) The twelve Epistles, (3) The Laus Heronis, followed by 
(4) The Epistle of Polycarp. .Upon this follow immediately (fol. 228 b) 
the seven Epistles of S. Antonius, as in Palat. 150. The other treatises 
however are not the same in the two mss. 

13. Vindobonensis 1068, in the Imperial Library at Vienna, described 
in Denis Bibl. Cod. MSS Theol. Bibl Palat. Vindob. Latitt. 11. p. 874 
(where it is numbered cccxci) as ' cod. membraneus sec. xiv.' It is 
written in a very small neat hand, and contains among other works (i) 
fol. 72 b, The Epistle of Polycarp, followed immediately by {2) Hierony- 
mus de Vir. Ill 16, with the heading ' leronimus in libro illustrium 
virorum capitulo de beato Ignatio in hunc modum scribit,' and (3) The 
twelve Ignatian Epistles in the usual order. In prefixing the Epistle 
of Polycarp this ms is unique. The other treatises in the volume do 
not throw any light on its connexion with other Ignatian mss. 

14. Oxon. Magdalencnsis 76, in the Library of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, described in Coxe's Catal Cod. MSS Coll. Oxon. 11. p. 43 sq 
as 'cod. membranaceus in folio, ff. 290, sec. xv, nitide exaratus, manu 
Job. de Rodenberga scriptus.' It contains among other matter (i) fol. 

^ See above, p. 78, note i. 


213 a, The correspondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John ; {2) 
fol. 214 a, The twelve Epistles introduced by Ignatii diiodecim epistole 
ad diversos, but without the usual headings to the several epistles ; {3) 
The Laus Heronis ; (4) The Epistle of Polycarp, with the heading 
Epistola policarpi ad philippensem ecdesiam. Its date is approximately 
fixed to the 15th century by the fact that one of the treatises is the 
Latin version of the Life of Gregory Nazianzen by Gregory the Presbyter, 
translated by Ambrosius Camaldulensis Avho died a.d. 1490 (see Ussher 
Prokg. p. cxxiii). Great stress was laid on this MS by Romanist writers, 
because it omits the words ' et Paulus ' in the enumeration of married 
saints and worthies in Philad. 4. This led Ussher (1. c.) to call attention 
to its late date. It was used by Ussher throughout'. 

Ten of these mss, here numbered 2 — 7, 10 — 13, are connected 
together by the headings of the epistles, which are substantially the 
same in all, though somewhat remarkable in themselves; e.g. ad 
philippenses de baptismo scripta de endavuio [variously corrupted] per 
eiiphajiium [variously written] ledorem navim ascensurum ; again, ad 
hironein diaconum ecdesiae aiitiochenae qtiem ei do?ninus osiendit sesstirum 
iti sede ipsms ; again ad ephesios scripta de sviyrna de imitate. Probably 
also the same phenomena will be found in 8, 9 also, though here our 
information is defective. These headings are given in Dressel's edition as 
they appear in Palat. 150, and the other iNiss only differ in minor points. 

Of the fourteen mss enumerated, I have derived my knowledge of 
two [i, 11] from Dressel, and of three [7, 8, 9] from the printed cata- 
logue. The rest I have inspected, though cursorily in some instances, 
and have collated for the end of the Epistle of Polycarp. 

These are all the Latin mss which I know to be extant. In Mont- 
faucon's Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. p. 227, no. 422 of the mss of 
Monte Cassino is stated to contain Epistolae D. Ignatii ad Romanos et 
Ephesios. I have inspected this ms. It contains (fol. 131) not the two 
Epistles mentioned, but only the opening sentences of the Epistle to 
the Romans, 'Ignatius qui et...fundatae in dilectione et fide Christi.' 
The mistake has arisen from a very careless reading of the title, which 
is Divi Ignatii Epistola ad Romatios de Smyrna per Ephesios. Among 
the mss at S. Gall again Haenel in his Catal. gives no. 454 Epistolae 
S. Ignatii a notis posterioris aein. Codex insignis. This ms also I have 
seen. It is a fine copy of Adonis Marty rologium followed by other 
works. Among these is the following Ignatian matter: (i) p. 343 sq 
the BoUandist Martyrology, '■Gloriosa incipit passio sancti ignatii episcopi. 

^ In one place (p. 7), commenting on codex.' This must be a slip for Magda- 
Ephes. 9, Ussher speaks of 'IMertoncnsis Icncnsis. 



Cum traianus suscepisset...a fidelibus solemniter celebratur'; (2) p. 368 
(the last page in the book), The Correspondence of Ignatius with the 
Virgin and S. John. This last is written in a much smaller and later 
hand, as if to fill up a blank page at the end of the volume. Of 
the 'veneranda antiquitate nobilis [codex] qui asservatur in amplissima 
bibliotheca invictissimi regis Pannoniarum Matthiae Corvini,' of which 
Baronius (s. ann. 57, § 64) speaks, I know nothing. Ussher regards 
this as a pleasant dream (' suaviter somniavit '), inasmuch as the Buda 
library had been plundered several years before by the Turks {Froieg, 
p. cxxv). The few volumes of this once famous library which still 
remained at Constantinople were sent back by the Sultan to Buda a 
iew years ago; but in the catalogue of 45 Mss thus returned there is 
no mention of Ignatius (see Academy 1877, June 2, p. 487; June 23, 
p. 557; August 18, p. 167). 

While this sheet was passing through the press for my first edition, 
the second volume of Funk's Patres ApostoUci was published ; and his 
speculations respecting the sources of the earliest printed editions call 
for some remark. He attempts to show that the editio princeps of 
J. Faber Stapulensis (a. d. 1498), which contains only eleven epistles 
(omitting the Epistle to Mary of Cassobola), was taken chiefly from 
Regin. 81, but that some other MS, probably Balliol. 229, was also used 
by him. He had propounded this view shortly before in the Theolo- 
gische Quartalschrift lxiii. p. 142 sq. But if so, it is difficult to see 
why Faber Stapulensis should have omitted the letter to Mary of 
Cassobola, which is found in both these mss ; nor does it seem at all 
probable that Balliol. 229 would have been accessible to him, as it was 
already in the library of Balliol College with Bp Gray's other books. 
Funk's inference is based on the tacit assumption that he could not 
have used any other ms except those which are not only known to us 
but have been collated — surely a most precarious assumption. Of the 
fourteen mss which I have described above, only five are enumerated 
by Funk, and apparently he was not aware of any others. Yet I 
should be over sanguine, if I supposed that my list of fourteen had 
altogether or almost exhausted the extant mss ; and in the early days of 
printing it was by no means uncommon to place a MS in the printer's 
hands for copy, so that it was then and there destroyed. The epistle 
to Mary of Cassobola was first printed by Symphorianus Champerius 
(a. D. 1536) in an edition of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite and 
of Ignatius. Funk seems to have shown (p. xx) that for this epistle he 
used Palat. 150, for he reproduces the special blunders which appear in 
this MS and are not likely to have been found in another. 


All the extant mss of this version, which have been examined, belong 
to one family. All omit the latter part of the Epistle to Polycarp, 
ending abruptly at the words 'passibilem vero propter nos ut homi- 
nem.' Moreover all reproduce the same errors, which are due to some 
blundering scribe or scribes in the course of transmission. Zahn (prsef. 
p. xxix) gives the following instances : Magn. 3 'AySeSSaSav *Ahab et 
Dadan' (the proper names however being variously spelt); Philad. 3 
TQiv KUKiou fjoTavwv acTTtvas ' a verbis malis quae ' for ' ab herbis malis 
quas'; Ephes. 6 oparixov Se arSpa ' prospectorem autem verum' for 
'virum'; Ephes. 10 aXfj-vpa. 'falsa' for 'salsa'; zA 19 ao-Tpa-.-xopos iyi- 
vovTo 'sidera corusca facta sunt', where 'corusca' should be 'chorus'. 
Within this family, however, we might be tempted to discover two 
sub-families; (i) those which have the simple headings {Regiii. 8r, 
Magdal. 76), and (2) those which agree in the elaborate headings (the 
remaining mss). On this supposition it would be our first impulse to 
assign a later archetype to those which have the elaborate headings. 
In this instance however the assumption would be wrong. There is no 
special analogy between Regin. 81 and Magdal. 76, the former being the 
best and the latter one of the worst of the extant mss. Nor would it be 
correct to regard the more elaborate headings as an indication of a later 
date here, as is commonly the case. In the heading to PJiilippians 
for instance, 'De baptismo' must have been derived immediately from 
the Greek Trcpt /i^aTrTtcr/xaros, which is erroneous in itself and probably 
originated in a marginal gloss (see iii. p. 188). 

This version is exceptionally slovenly and betrays gross ignorance 
of the Greek language. Frequently sentences are rendered without any 
regard to the grammar of the original. Two or three examples will 
suffice, though they might be multiplied to any extent. 

[K-Tf ovv dvaLo-OrjTOL w/aej/ t^s xPV^- Non enim sentimus utilitatem ejus, 

TOTT^Tos avTov. iav fj.iixy](rr]Tat r/yaas nisi nos tentaverit. Secundum au- 

Ka6d TrpdcTo-oixsv, ovk hi lafxiv. tem quod agimus, jam non erimus, 

Magfi. 10. nisi ipse nos miseratus fuerit. 

6ava.Tov KaT€(jip6vr](Tav • fxiKpou Mortem contempserunt, parum di- 

yap ctTTCii/ v/?pewv koI TrXrjywv' ov centes esse injurias et plagas et alia 

/j-r/v Be, dXXd Kal fxerd to eVtSei^at nonnuUa propter ipsum sustinere. 

lavTov K.T.X. Smyrn. 3. Nam et postquam ostcndit so, etc. 

o TtdvTa KdXwv klvu)v cis rrjv avTov Ipse omnia evocans et movens in 

KaTaa-Kevr'jv- ov /AeTayivwo-Kwi/ €7rt suam praeparationem, non recognos- 

[t(5] Toa-ovTw KaKw- yj yap du ov cans; in tantum enim mala crant 

Travra rjv irovrjpos, dXX' iir^crdeTo non omnia; malignus autem sentie- 

K.T.X. Philipp. 4. bat etc. 


So again we have such renderings as 'n.avXov...ixefxapTvprj[jiivov 'Pauh... 
martyrium consummantis' {Ephes. 12), o\> Ai^creTat i;/ ti twv voTjixdruiv 
Tov SiaySo'Xov 'noHte vos vulnerare in aliqua contagione diaboli' {Ephes. 
14; did this arise from a confusion with the Latin laedo, laesi, the word 
being read Atjo-cte?), ovSevos A.oyov 7roiov//,at T(2v 8eii/wv 'nulU iniquorum 
istorum facio sermonem' [Tars, i), 7rapo$vo-ixov? 'acredines' {Polyc. 2), 
and the Hke. So too oVai'/xi^v is almost universally translated with an 
entire disregard of the mood. In Ant. 12, Hero 8, it is rendered 'nutrivi'; 
in Trail. 13, Afagn. 12, Tars. 8, 10, Ant. 14, Ephes. 2, 'adquisivi'; in 
Philipp. 15 'adjutus sum'; in Philad. 4 'memor sum'. In one passage 
indeed, Rom. 5, it is correctly rendered 'utinam fruar', but this passage 
happens to be given in Latin by Jerome {de Vir. III. 16) after Eusebius, 
and the Ignaian translator reproduces Jerome's rendering. With these 
instances of blundeiing before us, we may question whether the transla- 
tor really had any different reading before him, when we find him giving 
' auxiliatrix* for SiajSoijTov {Ephes: 8), 'laus, laudabilis' for ev<jycn<;, -^vw/xe- 
vr]<s {Magn. 13, 14; comp. ib. i). Other passages however seem to 
show that he used a text which had many corruptions; e.g. 'adjutorium' 
{(3oyj9cLav for 6[xoy]6eLav) Polyc. I, 'habui' {Ci-xov for ctSov) Ephes. 2, 'pla- 
citum voluntatis ejus' (et'So/cifcret for ov BoktJo-cl) Trail. 9 (comp. ib. 10 
' voluntarie complacens '), ' Christi dimicationem ' (;i(ptcr7o/xa^tav for 
Xpto"TOju.a^tai/) Philad. 8, 'festino' (CTTrevSo/^at for o-TrcvSo/xaL) Antioch. 8. 

These examples will have shown that this Latin version is absolutely 
worthless for interpretational purposes, and that even its textual value is 
limited. Still it was evidently translated from an older form of the 
Greek than any preserved in extant Greek mss, and there are not a few 
passages in which we are able to correct errors or to supply omissions 
by its means (see e.g. iii. pp. 154, 164, 166, 174, 201, 242, 269 etc). 
The cases are very rare however, in which its value for textual purposes 
is aftected by variations in the readings of the Latin mss themselves, and 
in all such cases the correct Latin reading is at once determinable without 
any elaborate weighing of authorities ; e.g. in Ro})i. inscr., where the 
Latin alternatives are ' fide Christi ' and ' lege Christi ', and the Greek 
XPto-Twvv/Aos and xpi(novo\x.o<i, we at once reject 'fide Christi', because it 
has no connexion with either Greek reading. Under these circumstances 
it seemed to me that I should only be wasting time and encumbering 
my pages to no purpose, if I attempted to produce a revised text of this 
Latin version with its proper 'apparatus criticus,' and I have been content 
to avail myself of the labours of my predecessors (see 111. p. 133). 


IT seems advisable, as a preliminary to the discussions relating to 
the priority and authenticity of the several Ignatian Epistles, to 
give the passages in ancient authors in which mention is made of 
Ignatius and his writings, or in which they are quoted directly or 
indirectly. This course is suggested for convenience of reference, and 
has been adopted by Ignatian editors generally. It is superfluous to 
acknowledge obligations to predecessors in this case, where the harvest 
has been already reaped and where at the utmost only the scantiest 
gleaning is left to the last comer. 


POLYCARP [c. A.D. Iio]. 

Epistula ad Philippenses i, 9, 13. 
I. %vveyap-r]V vfilv fxeydX(o<s iv Kvpioj rjixcov 'liqarov 
XpLCTTCo, Se^a[ji€voL? TO, /Lttju,7j/xa,ra ttJs aXr}6ov^ aydir-q^^ koX 
TTponeiJLxpacnv, c-js iTrij3a\ei' vixiv, tov<; eVetXyy/xeVou? toi? 
dyLOTTpeirecrLV 8ecr/xot9, dnvd eariv hiahrjixara. Toiv akrjucog 
VTTO ©eou Kol Tov Kvpiov r)[x(Ji)u ^Kkekeyixevoiv... 

9. UapcLKoKoi ovv Travrag v/xa? TreiOapyeiv ru> \oyco 
Trj<s BiKaLoa-vvrjs Koi daKelv Trdcrav viroixovrju, tjv /cat eioare 
KCLT d<^^aX/xoL'? ov fjiouov iu TOL<; ixaKapioi^ lyvaTico /cat 
ZoidiixM /cat 'Fov(I)(o, dXXd /cat iu dXXot? rots e^ v[M(ou Kat 
eV avT(o HoLvXcp kol rots X.ot7rot<j cxTrocrroXots * TreTretcr/xej^ovs 
oTt ouTOt TrdvTe^ oyK eic kcnon eApAMON, dXX iv Trtcrret 
Kat St/catoo-ut'T7, /cat ort ets jov o^eiXoixeuov awrotg tottoi' 


etcrt rrrapa rw Kvptw, (o koI avveiraOov- ou yap ton nyn 
HfAnHCAN AioiNA, (xXXo. Tov vTTep Tjixutv aTToOavovTa Koi St' 
yjixas VTTo TOV &eov avaardvTa. 

13. FiypdxjjaTe fxoL fcat v/xet? Koi 'lyj'artos tVa, eai/ 
Tts a/nip^Tai ei? %vpiav, koI to. Trap vfJLcov dTTOKoixCar) 
ypdjXfjiaTa' orrep TroLTJcrco, idv Xd^co Kaipov evderov, etre 
iyoi etre ov Treixxjjo) Trpecr^eva-ovTa koi irepl vfjicov. xa? 
eTTtcTToXd? 'lyuaTLOv ra? TrCjU^^etcras T^'/xtv vtt' avrou, /cat 
aX.Xa5 ocra9 et^o/xev Trap T7/>tti^, eVe/xi/za/xev v/^tz^, KaOco^ iuerei- 
XacrOe' atrtve? vTroreray/aeVat etcrt Tj^ iTncTToXrj ravrr}' i^ 
(x)v jxeydXa co(f)eXr)0'rjuaL SwijcrecrOe. Trepiiyovcri yap tticttiv 
KoX v7ro[xovr]v /cat irdcrap oIkoSoix-^p rrjv els tov Kvpiov 
rip.o)V dvrjKOVcrav. Et de ipso Ignatio et de his qui cum eo sunt, 
quod certius agnoveritis, significate. 

See the notes on these passages in vol. in. 

Besides these direct references to Ignatius and his writings, the 
Epistle of Polycarp presents several coincidences. For his inability 
(§ 3) KaTaKoXovOyjaaL Trj arocfiia tov jxaKapiov koX Ivho^ov UavXov, comp. 
^om. 4; for the warning (§ 4) -XiX-qOiv avrov ovhlv k.t.X. comp. Ephes. 
15; for the metaphor (§ 4) Ovmaa-TypLov @eov comp. Ephes. 5 with the 
note (11. p. 44); for § 5 ws ®^ov kox Xpio-Tov Slukovoi comp. Smyi^n. 10 
with the note (11. p. 316); for § 5 vVoracrcro/xei/ors rots 7rpco-/3vT£/30ts 
Kai Sia/coVois cJs ©ew koa. XptcTTa), comp. ATagn. 6, Trail. 3, Stnyj-ii. 8 ; for 
§ 6 )u.7; a/^eXouvTcs XW"5 ^ opcjiavov comp. Smyrn. 6, Polyc. 4; for § 6 
01 tvayyeXiadfjiivoL 77^,019 k.t.X. comp. Philad. 5, 9 (comp. Magii. 8, 9, 
Smyrn. 7); for § 6 tcov ev v-n-oKpicreL (jiepouTwv to ovofjca tov K.vpLov comp. 
Ephes. 7; for § 8 8t' '> vTrifxeivev comp. Polyc. 3; for § 9 TOV 
vTrep Tjfxwv aTroOavovTa koL Si' 17'^as vtto tou ©eov avacrraVra COmp. Roni. 6 ; 
for § 10 'firmi in fide...mansuetudine Domini alterutri praestolantes' 
comp. Ephes. 10; for § 10 'vac autem per quern etc' comp. Trail. 8; 
for § II 'ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis' comp. Trail. 8, Magn. 11; 
for § II 'in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus etc' comp. Ephes. 12; for 
§ 12 'nihil vos latet' comp. Ephes. 14. 

This letter was written immediately after the journey of Ignatius to Rome, and 
before the writer had received intelligence of the martyr's fate. 



Martyrdom of Polycarp [c. a.d. 156]. 

3. eavrw eTrecnrdcraTo to drjpiov 7rpocr/3La(Tdixei>oq : 
comp. J?om. 5 Koiv avTo. Se [jd 6r]pLa\ cKoura ixrj Oikrj, iyo) 

2 2. o fxaKdpLO<; IloXvKapTro? ov yivoiro iu rfj ySacrtXeta 
^lr)(jov XpLCTTov TTp6<; rd iXF^ evpedrjvai T^ixd<; : comp. Ephes. 
12 Tia.v\ov...d^<jrov ov yivono fxoi vtto rd i^x^V 
evpedrjvai, OTaif ©ecu emrv'^oi. 

Other coincidences are pointed out lower down in the chapter on 'The Genuineness.' 
This Letter of the Smyrnasans, containing the account of Polycarp's martyrdom 
(which probably took place A.D. 155), was written not long after the event itself. 


LUCIAN [a.d. 165 — 170]. 

Z)e Morte Feregrini 1 1 sq. 

[Lucian relates this story in a letter to Cronius. The hero is Pere- 
grinus, who called himself Proteus — a name not inappropriate to one 
who was 'all things by turns' (//.vptas rpoTras rpairofievo^). The main 
incident is his self-immolation by fire at the Olympian games. Lucian, 
arrived at Elis, overhears a eulogy of this Peregrinus from an admirer, 
the Cynic Theagenes, who among other complimentary terms de- 
scribes him as t6v iv %vpLa Se^eVra. On the other hand an unfriendly 
critic, a philosopher of the Democritean school, in Lucian's hearing 
paints the earlier life of Peregrinus in the darkest colours. Among 
other abnormal crimes he had murdered his own father. This getting 
wind, he took to flight, and wandered from land to land. During his 
wanderings he fell in with the Christians.] 

I I. OTeirep /cat Ty]u Oaviiaanqv crocjiiav rcov Xptcr- 
TLavcou igejxaOe Trepl Trjv HaXaLo-TLvrjv toIs lepevcn kclI 
ypajxixaTevcTLU avTcov ^vyyevofxevo';. Koi tC ydp ; ev j^pa)(e1 
Tratoa? avTov<s dTre(f)7)ve TrpofjiiJTrjs kol Oiao'dp^r]'; kol ^vua- 
yo)yev<; /cat iravra ju.oi'o? avT09 (ov' /cat tojv ^l^Xcov Td<; 
fieu e^rjyelro /cat SLecrd(f)eL, TroXXcts 8e aOro? /cat ^vveypa(^e, 
/cat cu? oeov avTou eKeZvoi rjyovvTO koX vofJLodeTYj i^pcouTo 



Kol 'iTpo(jTdTr]v eTTiypa<^ov ' rov fxeyau yovu eKeivov ert 
ae^ovcri rov avOpoiirov rov ev ry UaXaLcrTLur) dvaai<o\o- 
TTLcrdivTa, otl Kaivrjv Tavrrjv TeXerrjv elcr'qyo.yei' eg tov jSCov. 
12. TOTE o~q Kol (rvW7](p9eL<; em tovtco 6 Upcorevs eviirecrev 
et? 70 Seer ficoTyjp LOU, oTrep kol avTO ov p.iKp6v avTco d^LOfia 
TTepLeTTonjcre npo^ tov e^rj^ jSiov kol ttjv repareiav kol 
Bo^oKorrCav, (Lv ipcou i-vy^aveu. iTrcl S' ovv eSeSero, ol 
'KpLCTTLapol crviMcfiopav Ttciovixevoi to Trpdyjxa TrdvTa iKivovv 
i^ap-rrdcraL Tretpw/xei^ot avrov. eir i—el tovto rjv dhvvarov, 
y ye aXk-ij Oepaireia Tracra ov Trapipyo)^ a/\Xa ctvv cnrovSfj 
eyiyveTO' kol ecodev fxev evOvg rjv opdv Tiapd tco 
TTjpioi 7repLjj.epovTa ypadia ^rypag rtm? /cat TraiSia opcfyapd, 
ol Se eV reXet avTcov kol crvveKdOevoov evSov [xer avrov 
SiacpOelpovres tot)? oecriJiO(f>v\aKa<s ' elra SelTTva woLidXa elae- 
KOjXL^ero KOL \6yoL lepoi avrcop ekeyovro koX 6 /3eXrL(Tro<5 
Ilepeyplvo<; — en ydp rovro cKaXelro — Kaivo'^ 'S(OKpdrrj<; vn 
avrajp d}vop.dt,ero. 13. koL jxrjv KaK roup eu Aata iroXecov 
iarlv (OV tjkov rive^, rcov Xpccrr tavajv crreXXovrcov diro rov 
KOLVOv, (^oTjOrjcrovre^ koX ^vvayopevcrovres koI TTapa}xv6-q- 
croixevoi rov dvopa. dixiq^avov Sd n ro rd)(os eTTiheiKvvvraL, 
i.7Teihdv n roLOvrov yiviqr ai Srjjxocnov' ev (Bpay(e1 ydp, acfieu- 
Souo"t rrdvroiv. ical 3>) /cat toj liepeypivoy ttoXXc. rore rjKe 
-vpvfjicira Trap" avrojv liri 'tt po(^d(TeL rcHv cecrp.cov /cat Trpocr- 
ot)OV ov p.iKpdv ravrrjv inoLTJcraro' TreTretKacn yap avrovs 
ol KaKoSaLiiove<; ro jxev oXov dOdvaroi ecreaoai Kat piaicrecr- 
6aL rov del y^povov. Trap o /cat Karacf^povovau rov Oavdrov 
KoX eK6vre<; avrov<; eTTtStSoacrtz^ ot ttoXXol' e~eira oe o vo}xo- 
6ery]<; 6 rrpcoroz eTreiaev avrov? cd? aoeXcjiOL rravre^ elev aX- 
Xt^Xov, eTietSdv atra^' 7rapa/3dvres Oeov^ fxev rovs EXXyjvlkovs 
dTTapvYjCTiovr ai, rov oe dve(TKoXoTncrp,evQV eKelvov crotfiLo-rrjv 
avrcov TroocrKwajcrL /cat Kara rov's eKelvov voixov; /StcGcrt. 
Kara^povovcTLV ovv d7rd.vrojv i^ Lcrr}S /cat Kotva rjyovvraL 
dvev Ttyo5 a/cpi/Sou5 rricrreoi^ rd roiavra irapa^e^dixevoi. rjv 
roivvv TrapeXOr) rt? et? aurou? y6r)<5 Kat rexvlrf]<i avOpa)7ro<; 


KOL TTpdyfxacTL y^prja-Qai Bvudixefos, avTiKO. juaXa TrXoucrto? 

iv l3pa)(eL h/ivero tStwrats dv9p(i)Troi<; kyyaxxiiv. 

[He was released by the governor of Syria who, being a man of a 
philosopliic turn, would not gratify his craving for martyrdom. Then 
he returned to his own country, but was arrested there on the charge 
of parricide. He managed however to cajole the people and was set 

16. e'^iyet ovv to ScvTcpov 7T\avr]cr6jJiepo<;, iKavd e'^o'Sta 
rov<i XpcaTLapovq €.)(0}V, v(}j>' ojp Sopv<popovixevo<s eV aTracnv 
a(f)06poL<; TJv. Koi ^povov fxev riva gvtco<5 ijSocrKeTO, elra 
7rapavojXT](Ta<; tl koL e? eKeCvovs — ^(f)6'Q yap tl, cos oT/xat, 
iaOidiV Tcov aTToppyJTOJV avTols — ov/cert 7rpo(TL<Eixeucop avTOJv 
aiTopovfxevo'i k.tX. 

[He then went to Egypt, and became a Cynic] 

iS. eKeWev oe ovto) TrapecrKevacrixevo^ inl 'IraXtaj' 
cirXevcre, /cat, aTro^d'; Trj<; ved)'? ev9v<; iXoiSopelro Trdcn kol 
ixakio-ra ro) (Bacrikei, TrpaoTarov avTov koX ijfxepcoTaTov etScJ?, 
oiCTTe acr^aA-ajs e'roX/xa. 

[After other wanderings, having failed in obtaining the notoriety 
which he sought in any otiier way, he declared his intention of im- 
molating himself by fire at the Olympian games which are now being 
celebrated, and for this he is already making preparations. It is said 
that he novt^ calls himself Phcenix, in allusion to the story of this bird ; 
he also repeats certain ancient oracles. His followers v;ill doubtless 
say that they have been cured of fevers (rcrapTatwv) by his intervention 
(St' av-ov) and will build an oracular temple and a shrine {xpria-rt'jpLov 
KoX ahvTov) over his pyre. The Sibyl herself, so Theagenes is reported 
to have said, had predicted his self-immolation and apotheosis. Thus 
far the story is told by the Democritean philosopher, whom Lucian 
overhears. From this point onward Lucian relates the incidents in his 
own person. 

Lucian arrives at Olympia. Lie is present when Proteus discourses 
on his coming self-martyrdom. Having lived the life of a Hercules, he 
desires to die the death of a Hercules, that he may teach men to 
despise death (davaTov KaTat^povclv). Nevertheless he puts it off again 
and again, hoping that some intervention may prevent the necessity of 
liis fulfilling his promise. At length, after the Olympian games arc over, 


the great event comes off at Harpine, some twenty stades east of 
Olympia. It takes place at night in the moonlight. Lucian goes 

36...Kat TTpocre\66vTe<; a\Xo<; dWa^oOev di>rj\pav to irvp 
[xe-yicTTOv are ctTro SaScov kol (^pvyctf oj v • o Se, Kai [xoi irdw 
rj^f) TTp6cre)(e rov vovv, dTTo9efJLevo<; ttjv imjpav koI to Tpipoj- 
viov KoX TO ^YipaKkeiov eKelvo poTTokov ecTTr) iu odour) 
pvircocrrj dKpLl3(o<;. etra ■j^ret Xi^avoiTov, co? iTn^dXoL iin 
TO TTvp, Kol dvaS6pT0<; TLvo'; ine/3aXe re koI eiiTev e? 
TTjv fxeo-rjjJi^pLav diro^XiTTOiv — koI ydp koI tovto 7rpo<; 
Tr)V Tpayco^iav rjv rj {xearjix/SpLa—AaLixove'? [X7]Tp(pOL Kat 
TrarpwoL Se^aaOc [xe eu/xez/et?. raura eiTriov eTrrj^rjcrev e? 
TO TTvp, ov fxrju eaypoLTO ye, ct/Wa vepieo-x^dr] vtto ttjs 
(fAoyo^ TToXKrj<; t^p/xcVt^?. 

[Many arrived too late. Lucian met them on his return.] 

T,g...d7reaTpe(f)0v S' ovv Tov<i ttoXXov? aurwv Xeycov rjSr] 
TeTekecrOat to epyov, ot? jai) koX tovt ovto TTepicnrovhacTTOv 
'^v, Kav avTOV Ihelv top tottov Kai tl Xetxjjavoi' KaToXajx^d- 
veiv Tov 77vpo9. evOcL St], (1) eToipe, [xvpia Trpay/xara eT-^ov 
diracri SiT^you/xez^o? Kai dvaKpivovai koX a/cptySo;? iKirvvda- 
voyuivois. et /xev ovv Ihoifxi Tiva -^apUvTa, xpiXd dv axnrep I 

crol Ta TrpayOivTa hiiqyovixiqv, 7rp6<^ Se tov'? jSXaKas koI I 

7rp6<5 TT^v dKpoaaiv Ke'^rjvoTas eTpaycoSovv tl nap' ijxavTov, 
co<S 6776187} dvTi](l)Or) fxev ij jrvpd, iue/BaXe Se (f)ep(ov kavTov 
6 TlpoiTev^, aeicrixov TrpoTepov [xeydXov yevoixivov a-vv {jlv- 
KyjOfxa) ttJs y'Q'S, yvxj) dvaTTTafievo'S e/c ixear]^ Trjs (f)Xoyo<; 
oiyoiTO es TOV ovpavov avOpctiTrivrj {xeyaXy tyj ^covfj Xeycov 
"EXlttov ydv, jBaivco S' e§ "OXvixrrov. 

[He subsequently overhears one of his audience repeat his own 
story, and relate] 

40...C(JS /xera to KavOyjvai Oeda-aiTO avTov iv XevKjj 
ecTOrJTL (JiLKpov efXTTpoaOev Kai vvv airoXiTToi irepiTraTovvTa 
(paiSpov €v TT) eTTTacjicovcp aToa kotlvco re ia-Tefxixevov ' eh 
inl TTCtcrt TrpocreOrjKe tov yvira, Stoixvvp.evos t) fxrjv auros 


kcopaKeuai dvaTTToiixeuov e'/c Trj<; TTvpa^, 6v iyco fxiKpov efJL- 
TrpocrOev d(f)T]Ka ireTecrOai KarayekcovTa, toju dvo-qroiv koX 
^XaKLKoiv Tov rpoTTOv. 41. ivvoei to \olttov oia et/co? irr* 
avTO) yevrjcreaOai, iroias jxev ov ju-eXtrra? eTn(TTrj(T€(T 6 ai inl 
TOV TOTTOV, TLPa<i Sc TeTTLya<; ovK eTTctcrecr^at, Tiva^ Se Kopco- 
vas OVK. iTTLTTTTJcreo'Oai Kaddirep inl tov Hcrtooov tol^ov, 
KoX TOL TOLavTa. elK6va<; jxev yap napa re HXetcof avTCJv 
Trapd re tcov dWcjv 'ILWtJvcov, ots kul irreo-TaXKevaL ekeyov, 
avTLKa ixdXa olSa ttoXXo,? dva(TTr)(TO[xeva'?. (j^acrl Se irdcrai^ 
o-)(eo6v rats ivB6^0L<; TroXeaiv eVtcrroXd? Sta7re/xr//at avTov, 
SLa0y]Ka<; Tivd<; i<al TrapaiveaeLS koL vofiov;' Kai TLva<; inl 
TOTJTco Trpecr^evTas tcov eratpoiv i)(eipoT6vr}(re veKpayyekov^ 
KoX vepTepoSpoixov? 7rpocrayopev(Ta<^. 
[A little lower down Lucian says] 

43. eKeiva...7Td\aL oXaOa evdh<5 ctKovcra? jxov ore r)Kov 
diTO '%vpLa<s SirjyovjJLevov ws dno TyowaSo? crvjXTrXevaaLfXL 
avrco K.7.X. 


The self-immolation of Peregrinus took place according to the Chronicon of 
Eusebius (il. p. 170 sq, ed. Schoene) in Olymp. 236 (i.e. A.D. 165). There is no 
reason to question the date, which must have been well known, the event being so 
exceptional. Moreover it agrees well with the chronology of Lucian's life, and with 
the notices in this treatise and elsewhere; see Keim Celsns' Wahres Wort p. 144 sq, 
Harnack in Herzog's Real-Eiicyklopiidie s, v. 'Lucian von Samosata' viii. p. 775. 
This satire of Lucian appears to have been written not very long after the event. 


MeLITO [c. A.D. 160 170]. 

The coincidences with this father will be seen in the notes on Ephes. 
7 (II. p. 48), Polyc. 3 (11. p. 343). 


Churches of Vienne and Lyons [c. a.d. 177]. 

For coincidences with the Letter of these Churches, which is pre- 
served in Eusebius H. E. v. i, see the notes on Ephes. 11 (11. p. 62), 
Rom. 9 (11. p. 230), and comp. § 36 l^priv yovv reus ycvvat'ovs ddXrjTci^ 
ttoiklXov uTTOjuetravTas aycova kol ^eyaXw? viKTycravras aTToXapetv tov fxeyav 
T'^s d(ji6apa-La'i o-re^aj'ov with Polyc. 3 fJi.€ya.Xov iarlu dOXrjTov k.t.X. Other 
resemblances also are pointed out lower down in the chapter on ' The 



• Athenagoras [c. a.d. 177]. 

In Sitppl. 1 1 is the strange expression tot; Aoyov lt,a.KovuTov jxcto. 
TToXA-rys Kpavyi/s yeyovoTos. Tliis may have been suggested by the well- 
known words in Ephes. 19 rpia [xva-T-qpta Kpavyrj<i. 

Theophilus of Antioch [c. a.d. 180]. 

Cofnmeni. in Evangelia i. § 4 (p. 280, ed. Otto). 

Quare non simplici virgine sed desponsata concipitur Christus? 
Primum ut per generationem Joseph origo Mariae nionstraretur ; 
secundo, ne lapidaretur a Judaeis ut adultera : tertio, ut in Aegyptum 
fugiens haberet solatium viri : quarto, ut partus ejus falleret diabolum, 
putantem Jesum de uxorata non de virgine uatum. 

This passage seems plainly to be suggested 'h-^ Ephes. 19; but a twofold doubt 
rests on the authenticity of this work which claims to have been written by Theophilus 
of Antioch. (i) A commentary on the Gospels bearing the name of this father was 
known to Jerome, but his language throws some doubt on its authorship ; de Vir. III. 
25 ' Legi sub nomine ejus [Theophili] in Evangelium et Proverbia Salomonis commen- 
tarios, qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum elegantia et (ppaaeL non videntur congru- 
ere.' The 'superiora volumina' are the treatise ad Autolycum and other works (doubt- 
less genuine) which Jerome mentions, following generally Eusebius H. E, v. 24. 
Elsewhere however he refers to and quotes this work, as if it were the genuine 
production of Theophilus: Epist. 121 (Ad Algasiam) Op. i. p. 866 sq ; Comm. in 
Matth. prsef. Op. vii. p. 7. (2) There are grave reasons for supposing that the 
extant commentary is not the same which was read by Jerome but a later work 
written originally in Latin and compiled from Latin fathers. Thus the comment on 
'the carpenter's son' (i. § 120, p. 295 ed. Otto) is found almost word for word in S. 
Ambrose {Comm. in Luc. iii. § 2, Op. I. p. 1313), and the remarks on the body and 
blood of Christ (i. § 153, p. 301) appear in Cyprian {Epist. Iviii. § 5, p. 754, ed. Hartel). 
See more on this subject in Otto's preface, p. viii. The passage before us is appa- 
rently taken from Jerome [Comm. in Matt, i, Op. VII. p. 12), whose words will be 
quoted below in their proper place. Zahn hov/ever {Ign. Epist. p. 329) supposes that 
these fathers borrowed from the extant Latin work, which he asserts to be a transla- 
tion from the Greek ; and he has since given his reasons in the second part of his 
Forsch. zur Gesch. des Neiitest. K&nons, containing Der Evatigelien-commentar dcs 
Theophilus von Antiochien (1S83). It has been answered by Harnack Texte u. Unter- 
stichungen I. iv. p. 97 sq. In the Brussels MS 9S50 — 9852 a prologue is prefixed to 
this commentary, describing it as a compilation from various quarters. Zahn has 
replied to Harnack, Nachtrcige zu Theophilus p. 19S sq, in his Forsch. zur Gesch. des 
Neutest. Kan. ill. He considers the prologue of the Brussels MS not to be genuine. 
Pitra also Anal. Sacr. Spicil. Solcsm. Par. II. p. 624 (1884) still assigns this work to 



For a coincidence in the genuine extant work of Theophilus, see 
the note on Trail. 6 (11. p. 168). Zahn also (p. 89) compares Smyrsi. 2 
with ad Atltol. i. 10 ov yap clatv 6e.oX aXh. ii^(aXa...KaX Sat^uovia aKaOapra' 
yivoivTO S" ovv tolovtol ol Trotovvre? avra Koi 01 ikiri^ovTc^ Itt aurots, but 
this is taken from Ps. cxv. 8, cxxxiv. 15. 


Irenaeus [c. a.d. 175 — 190]. ^ 
Adv. Haerescs v. 28. 4, 

Quemadmodum quidam de nostris dixit, propter martyrium in Deum 
adjudicatus ad bestias, quoniam Friimentmn sum Christi et per denies 
bestiarum molor ut 7nundus pants inveniar {Rom. 4). 
The original Greek is given by Eusebius (see below, p. 147). 

This is the only direct quotation ; but coincidences are not unfre- 
quent and sometimes striking. Thus the phrase ttvCw dcfiOapa-Lav {Ephes. 
17) occurs in Iren. iii. 11. 8 (see 11. p. 73); and the language respecting 
the Docetics {Trail. 10, Sniyrn. 2) is rejoroduced in Iren. iv. 2iZ- 5 (see 
II. p. 17s). I have also pointed out striking coincidences in Smyrn. 4 
to Iren. iii. 2. 3 (see 11. p. 298). Zahn (p. 331) among other passages 
compares Ephes. 7 ou5 Set. ..e/c/cAtvetv with Iren. ii. 31. 3, iii. 4. i; Ephcs. 
9 ^varai're's rd wra with Iren. iii. 4. 2; Ephes. 1 9 o^ev IXvezo k.t.X.. with 
Iren. ii. 20. 3 'mortem destruxit' etc; Magn. 8 e,«,7rveo'/i,evot /c.r.A.. with 
Iren. iv. 20. 4; Trail. 6 01 kox iw k.t.X. with Iren. i. 27. 4 (a remarkable 
coincidence, see 11. p. 166). 


Clement of Alexandria [c. a.d. 190 — 210]. 

For coincidences which suggest that this father was acquainted with 
the Ignatian letters, see the notes, 11. pp. 72, 81, 129, 171, 337. 


Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas [c. a.d. 202]. 
Tlie expression 'ut bestias lucraretur' (§ 14) is probably taken from 
RoDi. 5 oyaLfxrjv twv Orjpioiv k.t.X. These Acts likewise present other 
coincidences with the Epistles of Ignatius; e.g. § 10 'coeperunt me favi- 
tores mei oleo defrigere quomodo solent in agonem' (comp. Ephes. 3 
vTraXiLcjiO^vaL with the note), and § 18 'Christi Dei' (comp. T/all 7, 
Smyrn. 6, 10, with the note on Ephes. i below, 11. p. 29 sq). See also 
§ 5 ' nos non in nostra potestate constitutos esse scd in Dei ' (comp. 
Polye. 7). 



Tertullian [c. a.d. 193 — 216]. 

For parallels to the letters of Ignatius in this father see 11. pp. 48, 
175, 349 sq. They are sufficiently close to render it highly probable 
that directly or indirectly Tertullian was indebted to this early martyr. 


OrIGEN [t A.D. 253]. 

(i) De Oratione 20 (i. p. 229, Delarue). 

OyAsN (})AiNdMeNON kaAon ecTTiv {Rom. 3), oiovel hoK-qdei 
ov /cat ovK aky]U0J<5. 

(2) In Canticum Canticoricm Prolog, (iii. p. 30). 

Denique memini aliquem sanctorum dixisse, Ignatium nomine, de 
Christo, Mens autem amor crucifixiis est, nee reprehend! eum pro hoc 
dignum judico {Rom. 7). 

This treatise is extant only in the version of Rufinus. 

(3) Homilia vi in Liuam (in. p. 938). 

KaXwg Iv /xia twv ^dprv- Unde eleganter in cujus- 

p6<5 Ttvo? iTTLCTToXoJv yeypaTTTai' dam martyris epistola scriptum 

70V 'lyvdriov Xeyo) top [xerd top reperi ; Ignatium dico, episco- 

IxaKapiouUejpovT'^^'AvTLOxeiaj^ pun^ Antiochiae post Petrum 

SeTJTepov IttIctkottov, top ev tco ■, 

1^ , ' secundum, qui m persecutione 

Stojy/xw iv 'Vcoarj OyipCoLS p^oLYV- ^ • , , . 

, , „ , „ Romae pugnavit ad bestias : 

(Tafxevov Kai eAA0e ton a'pxonta 

TOY <^icI>N0c TOYTOY H HApGeNiA ^^^'^^^^^'^ '^''"^^' ^^"j'^s latuit 
MApiAC {Ephes. 19). virginiias Mariae. 

This homily is extant as a whole only in Jerome's version, but the particular 
passage is preserved in an extract which Delarue printed from Grabe's papers. 

See also the parallels quoted ir. pp. 333, 337; and compare Hojn. 1 
in Let'it. (11. p. 187, Delarue) 'Quae fuerint legis principia, qui etiam 
in prophetis profectus accesserit, quae vero in evangeliis plenitudo per- 
fectionis habeatur' with Philad. 9. 



Apostolical Constitutions [a.d. ?]. 

vii. 46. 'AvTLO^eta^ Se [e^eipoToirqOrj eTTtcTKOTro?] EvoSto? 
^€v VTT i/jLOv Uerpov, 'lyvaTtos Se vno UavXov. 

In the earlier books the influence of this Apostolic father is unmis- 
takeable ; see the notes, 11. pp. 119, 120, 121, 122, 138, 158, 172, 334, 
337. Compare also Apost. Const, ii. 25 01 ndvTwv ras dfiaprLa? (Saa-rd- 
^ovTcs with Polyc. i. 

The passages from the earlier books are for the most part substan- 
tially the same in the Syriac, which is thought to preserve an earlier 
form of the Apostolical Constitutions, and which Lagarde has translated 
back into Greek (Bunsen's Anakda Antenicaena 11. p. 35 sq). 


Peter of Alexandria [a.d. 306]. 
See the passage quoted from Polyc. 2 in the notes, 11. p. 337. 


EusEBius OF Caesarea [c. a.d. 310 — 325]. 

(i) Chronicon 11. pp. 158, 162 (ed. Schoene). 

Ann. Abrah. Vespas. 

2085 I Antiochiae secundus episcopus constitutus 

est Ignatius. 

On the chronological bearing of this notice see below, 11. p. 471 sq. In Jerome's 
revision it is attached not, as here, to the first year of Olymp. 2 12, but to the number 
of the Olympiad itself. 

Ann. Abrah. Trajan. 
2114 r 

Johannem apostolum usque ad Trajani tempora (vitam) pro- 
duxisse Irinaeus tradit. Post quern ejusdem auditores cognos- 
cebantur Papias lerapolitanus et Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum 
provinciae episcopus. 

To this notice Jerome adds 'et Ignatius Antiochenus.' On this addition see 
above, I. p. 29 sq, and below, 11. p. 477 sq. The notice in the Armenian comes 
after the year Abraham ■2 1 14 ; in Jerome it is attached to the year 2 1 16. 

IGN. I. 10 


Ann. Abrah. Trajan. 
2123 10 

After this comes the notice of Ignatius' martyrdom. In Jerome's revision it is 
attached to this tenth year. This notice is given at length below, li. p. 449, where 
also its chronological bearing is discussed. 

(2) Historia Ecdesiastica iii. 22, 36 sq. 

2 2. 'AXXa KoX T(ov iiT 'AvTio-^eCa^ EvoStov irpcoTov 
KaracTTavro^, ^evTepo^ iv 7019 ^rjXovfJLevoL<; 'lyvctrio? iyvco- 
pi^eTo. '^vfjiecov o/x,otw9 Sevrepo? fjceTa rov tov %o)Tr}poq 
T^fjLcop doeXffiOP Trj<; iv 'lepocroXvixoL'S CKKX-T^crtas Kara tov- 
Tovs TTjv XeiTovpyiav €t)(eu. 

36. AteVpeTre ye iJi7)v Kara tovtov; evrt T179 'Acrta? twv j 
aTTocTToXcop 6iJiiXr)Tr)s TloXvKap7ro<;, Trjs Kara '^jxvpvav iKKXr]- 
crta? 7rpo5 tcjp avTonTcov koX vTrrjpeTcov tov Kvpiov rr^v im- 
(jKonrjv iyKe^eipi(TiJievo<;. k(x6* ov iyvoipit,eTO IlaTrta? ti^9 ev 
'lepaiToXeL irapoLKia^ koX awro? i7ricrK07ro<i, \_dvyjp rd Travra on 
fjidXiOTTa XoyLcoTaro^i kol rrjq ypa(j)rj<; elSrjjxo)v,'\ o re irapd 
TrXetcTTot? elcreTL vvv Sia/SorjTO^ 'lyvctrto?, rrj^ /car' 'Avrto^etaz^ 
Uerpov 8iaSo)(rj^ Sevrepo? rrjv iTncTKOiTrfv KeKXr]p(x)ix€vo<?. 
X6yo<; 8' e^€i tovtov drro Svyota? eVt rrjv ^VcojxaLcou ttoXlv 
dvarrefjicfiOePTa B'qpioiv yeviaOai /Sopdv Trj^ et? XptcrTov [xap- 
rvpia<5 eveKev /cat 87) Trjv hi 'Acrtag dvaKOfXiS-qv fxeT iiTL- 
lJLeXecrTdrr)<; ^povptav (^vXaKrj^ TroLOVjjievos, 70.9 /caret ttoXlp at9 
ineS7]fJi€L 7ra/)otKta9 Tat9 Sta Xoycov o/z-tXtatg xe /cat irporpo- 
77at9 eTnppoiVvv<i, ev TrpcoTots jU-ctXtcrra Trpo(f)vXdTT€a9aL rds 
alpecreLS dpn tore irpcoTov [^dva(f)V€L(ra<; /cat] e7rt7roXa^ouo"a9 
Tvaprjvei, TrpovTpeTre re dnpl^ e^ecrdai Trjs tcov dirocTToXcov 
7rapaSdcre&)9, 17^' vTrep d(r(f)aXeia<s kol iyypd(f)(o<s yjSr] jxap- 
Tvpofxevos StarvTrovcrOaL dvayKoiov T^yetro. ovtco SrJTa iv 
^^vpvrj yevofxevos, iv6a 6 IloXvKap7ro<5 rjv, fxiav fxev rfj 
Kara rrjv ^E<^€croi^ inKTToXyjv e/c/cXT^crtct ypd(f>eL, 7roLix€vo<; 
avTrj^ fjLvrjfjLOvevcov 'OvrjcriiJLOv, irepav Se rfj iv MayvrjcTLa 
rfj 7rpo9 MatctvSpoj, ev9a irdXtv iTnaKonov Aa/xa jjlvtJimtjv 
TreTTOtT^raf /cat rfj iv TpdXXecn Se dXXrjv, 179 dp^ovra Tore 


ovra Yiokvl^iov IcTTopeZ 7rpo9 ravrat? Kat rfj FcofxaCajv Ik- 
K\y}(TLa ypd(f)€i, fj koI vapaKXyjCLv irpoTeivei, ws /u-t^ napai- 
Tr)(ToiixevoL tov ixaprvpiov rf 9 TToOovjxiviq'i avTov dnocTTepyj- 
craiev eXTTtSo?. i^ (i)v koX (Bpa^'UTara et9 iniSeL^LV tcjv 
elprjfJLevcov TTapaOicrOai d^iov. ypd(^ei Si} ovv Kara Xe^LV 
'Atto ZypiAC Mexpi 'Pojmhc 9HpiOMA)(oii Aia thc kaI 6aAac- 


erw npocBiACOMAi. cYrfNWMHN MOI exexe. ti moi cYM(})epei, 

ercb riNt*^CKOO. NYN a'pXOMAI MA0HTHC elNAI. MHA6N MC ZHAoli- 

AiaBoAoy eic eMe epxec6cocAN, monon i'na 'Ihcoy XpicTof 
IniTYX^ {-Rom. 5). 

Kat TavTa fxev a-TTO ttJs Sr)\o}0eLarj<5 ttoXcco? rats Kara- 
Xe^^etcrats iKKXrjoriaL'; StervTrcufraTo. rjSr) 8' ineKeLua ttJs 
'Zixvpvrjq yevofxevo^, diro TpwctSos rots re iv <l>tXa8eX(^eta 
avOi^ 8 id ypa(f)rj<i o/AtXet, koL ttj ^fxvpvaioiv i.KKky)(Tia, tStws 
re Tw TavTTy? TrporjyovfjLevo) HoXvKoipTra)' ov ola 8rj ctTTO- 
cttoXlkov dvSpa ev fxdXa yvoipit^oiv, ttjv /car' ^ KvTi6^e.iav 
avT(o TTOLy.vy]v ws av yvrfCTio'i /cat dyado^ TTonirjv Trapari- 
Oerai, Tr^v irepl avTrj*; (jypovTcSa 8ta (tttovStJ'; ^r^^iv avTOV 
d^iojv. 6 8' auTos ^{JLypvaCois ypd(f)0jv ovk ot8' oTroOeu 
prjTol^ crvyKexp'^TaL, TOLavrd TLva nepl tov XpLcrrov 
8te^tcJf • 


KAI nicTefoii ONTA' KAI oTe npdc toyc nepi TTeTpoN eAnAY- 
8eN, e(})H AYToTc, AABexe, YHAA(t)H'cATe mg ka'i TAere, on 


KAI eniCTeYCAN (Smyr;i. 3)- 

10 — 2 


OTSe Se avTov to ^apTvpiov koX 6 Elpr)vaL0<5, Koi t(ov 
iTTLCTToXcov avTOV p^viqixovevei Xeycjv ovtcds' 

'Qc eine tic toon HMeTepcoN h\i thn npoc OeoN MAp- 

TypiAN KATAKpiBeiC npOC 9HpiA, 6'tI SiTOC eiMI OeOY, KAI Al' 

oAoNTooN OHpiooN aAhGomai, i'na KAGApoc ApTOc efpeQiJ^- 

KOI 6 Ilo\vKapTTO<; Se tovtcov avrcov fxifJLvqTai iv rfj 
(jiepoiJiivrf avTov 77/369 ^ikiTnriqo'iov'!; iiTLaToXy, (f)d(rKO)v av- 
Tot? prjiiacTi' 

TTapakaAo) oyn hantac y^^ac nei0Apxe?N k.t.A. {Phil. 9). 
/cat e^rjs iiTK^ep^i' 

'ErpAY'^Te MOI KAI YMfel^C KAI 'IfNATIOC, K.T.A. {P/ltl. I3). 

KoX ra fxev irepl tov lyvdnov rotavra, StaSe^erai Se 
/xer' avTov tyjv 'Ai/rto^eta? iina'KOTTrjv 'Hpws. 

Eusebius again refers to the testimony of Irenaeus, J/. E. v. 8. See above, p. 143. 

37. 'AS vmrou 8' ovros r\\)lv a7ravTa<? i^ ow/xaTO? dna- 
ptOlxeLaOai, ocroL Trore Kara Tiqv TrpcoTrjv tcov dirocTToXcoi' 
SLaSo')(y]v eV rat? Kara T-qv olKovfxeurjv iKKXr]aiaL<s yeyovao-i 
TTot/xeVe? 7] /cat evayycXtcrrat, rovTOiv et/corw? e^ 6v6p.aro^ 
ypa(j)fj iiovoiv- rrju puVrjp.iqv /carare^et/xe^a, o)v en /cat vvv 
€t? T^jaa? St' vTTOfxvrjfjidTOP r^5 a77ocrToXt/c^9 StSacr/caXta? 17 
irapdhocri^ ^iperai' aicnrep ovv a^aeXet rov 'lyvariov iv ats 
KaTeXe^aixev iTTiCTToXals, kol tov KXi^jaevTO? ez^ t^ az^w- 
IxoXoyrjjxevrj irapd Trdcnv, rjv e/c Trpoorconov Trj<; 'Pw/xatwi^ 
iKKXrjala^ Trj KopLvOicov StervTrwcraTo. 

38. Et/OT^rat 8e /cat ra 'lyvartou Kat HoXv/capTrov. 

(3) Qiiaestiones ad Stephannni i ((9/. iv, p. 881, Migne). 

^r\(T\ Se TTOV d ctytog dvr\p, 'lymrto? ovo/xa avToi, ttJs 
^AuTLO)(eo)v iKKXr)(TLa<; Sevrepo? yeyoz/oi? jxeTa tov^; dno- 
crrdXov? eTrCaKOTro'?, (os apa /cat toz^ ap^ovra tov alcjuo<5 
TovTov eXaOev rj irapOevia MapLa<s /cat r) tov cro)Trjpo<5 i^ 
avTrj<; yeVecrtS' Xeyet 8e ovrco?* 


Kai eAAOe ton a'pxonta toy aIwnoc toytoy h nAp06NiA 


enpAx6H {Ephes. 19). 


Cyril of Jerusalem [c. a.d. 347]. 

The resemblance of the passage quoted, 11. p. 175, to Trail. 9, 10, 
Sinyrn. 2, 3, is striking. 


Athanasius [a.d. 359]. 

De Synodis Arimini et Seleuciae 47 {Op. \. ii. p. 607, Patav. 1777). 

lyfartos ovv, o jaera rovs a7rocrToA.ov9 Iv 'AvTLo^eCa 
/caracTTa^ets iTTLaKonos, koI fjidpTv; tov Xptcrrov yeuo- 
fi€PO<s, 'Ypd<f)a)v TTepl tov Kvpiov elp-qKev Eic lATpdc ecTi 


epwna) Oedc, gn SANATOi zoom aAhBinh, ka) eK MApiAC kai 
eK 0eoY {Ephes. 7). rtves Se /cai rdv ixerd 'lyvaTLOv StSacr- 
KokoL /cat avTol ypd(f)ovcrLP' Eu to dyevvrjTov 6 TraT-qp, 
KoX el? o k^ avTov vto? yvrjaios, yevpyjixa oX'qdLVOv, Xoyos 


Tta>s SiaKeCixeda, eaTco koI npos ras crvi^oSovg ijijuv 17 l^d)(y)- 
el Se, TTjv ev XpucrTco TrlaTLv avTo^v yivaxTKOvTe^, neneLafxeda 
OTL Kai o /AttKaptos lyvaTLos op6o)<s eypaxfje, yevirqTov avTov 
\iy(i)v 8 to, Tr^v crdpKa' 6 yap X^to"T09 adp^ eyeveTo- dyiv- 
vy)TOV Be, OTL [xrj Taju iroLrjfxdTcou kol yevvy)ToJv ecrrtf, a\X' vto9 
€/c TraTpos- 

This treatise wns written a.d. 359, as Montfaucon (p. 571) pointsout. Twochapters 
however (30, 31) were added a little later. The attempt to discredit the whole 
on account of these chapters, which there is every reason to think were inserted by the 
author himself, is futile. The treatise evidently arose out of the immediate circum- 
stances to wliich it relates, and must have been the work of a contemporary. But no 
contemporary is so likely to have written it as Athanasius, to whom it is ascribed and 
whose style and treatment it reproduces throughout. The case is well stated by Zahn 
(/. V. A. p. 578 sq). The use which S. Athanasius here makes of these expressions of 
Ignatius is discussed at length below (11. p. 90 sq). The remarks of Cureton (C. I. 
p. Ixix sq) seem to me to be altogether confused and confusing. 



Syriac Martyrology [c. a.d. 350?]. 

The reference will be found below, 11. p. 419. 

Reasons are there given for assigning this document to a date not later, or at least 
not much later, than the middle of the fourth century. 


Ephrem Syrus [t A.D. 373]. 

The coincidences with Polyc. 3 given in the notes (11. p. 342) cannot 
have been accidental. The same may be said, though not with the same 
degree of confidence, of the coincidence with Rom. 2, which is likewise 
noticed in its proper place (11. p. 202). For other coincidences pointing 
to the same conclusion see 11. pp. 74, 76, 82, 168. 

The date of Ephrem's death, as given above, is taken from the MS, Brit. Mtcs. 
Add. 12155 (see Wright's Catalogiie -p. 947). 

Basil of Caesarea [t a.d. 379]. 
Horn, in Sanctam Christi Generationem 3 {Op. 11. p. 598, Garnier). 
FiLprjTaL Se T(ov TTaXauaJu tlvl koL eTepo<5 Xoyos ort vnep tov 


MApiAC >) TOV 'l(oor'q(f) eTTevotjBr] ixviqcrTeia aTrefiovKo- 

XrjOy) ovv Sta ttJ? p^vqcTTela^ 6 iiri/^ovXos rr^s irapdevia^' 
rjBeL yap KaToXvcnv Trjs tSta? oip)(rjs ttjv Sta crap/cos iincfyd- 
veiav TOV Kvpiov yevqcrop^ivriv. 

It might have been supposed that this reference to Ephes. 19 was 
borrowed from Origen (see above, p. 144), to whom S. Basil is so largely 
indebted elsewhere; but the words KaraXvaiv T-fjs iStas dpxrj'; point to a 
knowledge of the context of Ignatius which he could not have derived 
from the passage of the Alexandrian father. 

Gamier (Fraef. p. xv) gives reasons for questioning the authorship of this treatise 
of S. Basil; but he is not uninfluenced by doctrinal prejudices (see Galatians p. 284), 
and his arguments in this case do not seem to have any weight. 



John the Monk [c. a.d. 380 — 390?]. 

Epistula ad Eutropiuni et Eusebiwn de Communione Veritatls in Vita 
Nova, etc. 

'All the saints who loved God, since their love towards him was 
hidden in the power of their soul, proclaimed their love by the voice, 
that is, by the death of the flesh which is the voice; because they were 
not able in any other way to show their love, but by even going out of 
voice, in being divested of the flesh, that they might become word and 
not voice. For whilst they were in the world of the voice, they were 
men of the voice ; but after they are gone out of the world of the voice, 
they will become men of the word and not of the voice.... 

' But that it might be not supposed that I speak from opinion, and 
not from grace, respecting the man of the voice and the word, we will 
show you evidently by bringing, as testimony to our words, the authority 
of one of the saints... the blessed Ignatius, the glorious martyr, who was 
the second bishop after the Apostles in Antioch of Syria, who, when he 
was going up to Rome in the testimony for Christ, wrote epistles to certain 
cities; and in that to Rome, when he was persuading them not to hinder 
him from the testimony of Christ, said. If ye be silent from me, I shall be 
the word of God; but if ye love my flesh, agaiii I am to myself a voice 
{Rom. 2). And he implored them to cease from intreating respecting 
him, and begged them not to love his life of the flesh better than his life 
in the spirit. Were these things spoken in an ordinary way by this saint? 
What then is this, that after his departure from this world he is to him- 
self a word; but if he continue he is to himself a voice?... This man of 
God deserves to be reckoned amongst the company of the Apostles, of 
whom I had almost said, that whilst he was in the flesh in the world he 
had immersed himself from the world with his Lord : as he also himself 
said, Then am I faithful zvhen I am not seen in the world {Rom. 3) ; and 
// is good for me that I should set from the world in God, that I may 
rise in Him in life {Rom. 2). And again he said. Let nothing envy me of 
those that are seen and that are not seen {Rom. 5). That there might be 
no indignity therefore to the greatness of tliis man of God through what 
I say, I honour him in silence, and approach to the saying wliicli he 
spake, If ye are silent from me, and leave mc to die in sacrifice, / am to 
myself the word of God; but if not, I am to myself a voice.... 

'And this again, If I shall continue, I am to myself a voice: he desires 
to teach that the temporary life here is of the flesh in a compound 


person; for the word is not of the flesh, but of the spirit; but the voice 
is not of the spirit, but of the flesh, because all bodies have the voice 
only, but have not the word, inasmuch as they have not in them the soul 
in the person. For every beast and bird, together with cattle and 
creeping things of the earth, utter the voice only; but because man has 
in him a soul, and is not like the rest of the other bodies, he uses the 
word and the voice.... 

'But I am not alleging, as in a discussion, proofs respecting the soul, 
to require many things to be said ; but I am sowing a few things into 
your ears, that they may be instruction for you. But more especially 
from the reasoning faculty of the word do we comprehend the power of 
the soul which is in us; because the reasoning faculty of the word is not 
found in any of the bodies, as we have said, but in man only.... 

'Thus also was it effected in this economy of Christ, that John the 
Baptist, because he was about to preach respecting God the Word, was 
called a voice; I mn the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the 
way. For whom but for the Word the Lord, whom he preached that men 
should prepare a way in their souls for the coming of His doctrine? The 
Son is therefore called the Word, in order that He might show us that 
He is from the Father in nature, like as the word also is begotten from 
the power of the soul. Our Lord therefore put on the flesh, Uke the 
word the voice: and more than is the mixture of the word with the 
voice, is the mixture of God the Word with the flesh which He put on.' 

The passages in the above extract which contain the direct quotations run thus in 
the original ; 

■ rcSMLiaJsq ^r^ A^..l T<'^o.icaQa-=i rclLsaocnil , ."^ 
.t^ rdsnocoi.T ^criso .r<'d\^':u K'^vu.vsal p«'^'i^^ .=}^v^ 
cf7^o.ica_fio ^ rtlA^as so crxA .^^ODcrUk r^.i '. ..ftii.A nq 


'T<L1 ^Mr^ .r<'cfAr<'.i K'Avisn ^ rtllK' K'ocn . rc'Avjjca ."»=i 

This passage is taken by Cureton (see Corp. Ign. p. 351) from the British Museum 
MS, Add. 1 2170, fol. 211 (fol. 224 in Wright's Catalogue p. 749), apparently of about 
the 8th century. He compared it with another, Add. 14580, which is dated a.d. 866 
(see Wright's Catalogue y^. 767). The text and translation will be found in Cureton 
C. I. pp. 205, 239 sq. From his translation I have taken these extracts. 

Works by the same John the Monk appear in numerous Syriac volumes in the 
British Museum (see the index to Wright's Catalogue p. 1296). Among them are 
other letters to these same persons, the monks Eutropius and Eusebius. One MS 
containing works by him {Add. 17 169) is dated as early as A.D. 581 (see Wright's 
Catalogue p. 451). Who then was this John?' 

In the MS Add. 1 71 72, prefixed to various works by this John, are the words, 
' By the strength and help of the Holy Trinity we begin to write the book of the 
holy John, the monk and seer of Thebais. But first an account respecting him, that 
is, the blessed John, which was written by Palladius bishop of Jerusalem ' (it should 
have been ' HelenopoHs '). Then follows substantially the same narrative which is given 
in Palladius Hist. Laus. c. 43 wepi ''lo^dwov tou AvkottoXItov (see Cureton C. I. p. 351, 
Wright's Catalogce p. 760). In the course of this narrative occurs the following state- 
ment; 'Also he informed the blessed emperor Theodosius beforehand respecliug 
things future, I mean respecting his being about to vanquish the rebel Maximus and 
to return from Galatia [i.e. 'Gaul,' see Galatians pp. 3, 31]. Then again he also 
foretold respecting the defeat of Eugenius' (comp. Hist. Laus. 43, 46, pp. 1107 sq, 
1130, Migne). After this life follows the letter of John to Eutropius and Eusebius on 
the Spiritual Life, which is designated at the close as the work of 'my Lord John the 
monk and seer of Thebais'; and this again is succeeded by four discourses by the 
same writer in the form of dialogues addressed to these same persons Eutropius and 

It seems then that this MS identifies John the Monk, the writer of these works, 
with John of Lycopolis, the seer of the Thebais, with whom Palladius had direct 
personal communications, whose life he writes, and from whom he obtained much 
information (which he retails) respecting otiier monks of the Thebais. This identifica- 
tion is apparently accepted by Cureton (C. I. p. 351 sq). 


But Palladius in a later chapter (c. 6i) gives an account of another John, likewise 
a monk of Thebais. He too might be called a seer, for he received revelations (aTro/ca- 
Xi/TTTerat avrif) respecting the state of the monasteries, which proved true. This 
John is stated to have been the writer of letters and other works, whereas John of 
Lycopolis is not mentioned as an author. Moreover the subjects of his works are 
of the same kind as those of our 'John the Monk.' They are addressed to monks, and 
they deal with the same topics (e.g. vire/xi/j.v7]<xK€i' dyrd tQv alaOyjTwv et's ttjv vorjaiv 
avax^pelv K.T.X.; comp. Assem. Biil. Orient, i. p- 432 'debet visibilia... omnia con- 
temnere'). Our John therefore should more probably be identified with this person 
than with John of Lycopolis. If so, he was a contemporary of John of Lycopolis, of 
Evagrius of Pontus, and of other famous monks of the Thebaid ; and his date as an 
author would probably be about A. D. 380 — 390. He may also have been the same, 
as Zahn suggests (/. v. A. p. 222), to whom Ephrem Syrus writes, Op. Graec. 
p. 186 sq (comp. Proleg. p. 49) vphs 'ludvp-qv ixova^ovra (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. 
p. 150). 

Assemani {^^Bibl. Orient, i. p. 431) identifies John the Monk, our Syriac writer, 
with John of Apamea, whom he places in the 6th century. Cureton (C. /. p. 352) 
seems to accept this date for John of Apamea, but rejects the identification. In both 
respects he acts too hastily. As regards the date Assemani's reasons are far from 
conclusive. On the other hand very much may be said for the identification, though 
rejected also by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 222) and others. Ebedjesu {^Bibl. Orietit. iii. 
p. 50) gives the following list of the works of John of Apamea, ' Tres composuit 
tomos; necnon epistolas; de Regimine Spirituali, de Passionibus, et de Perfectione. ' 
There is extant a work of our John a letter to Eutropius and Eusebius *on the 
Spiritual Life ' (Wright's Catalogue, pp. 451, 657, 757, 760, 767, 795, etc); another 
in the form of dialogues with these same persons 'on the Passions' (ib. pp. 452, 761, 
767, 805, 857, Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 431); another 'on Perfection' (Wright pp. 
758, 768, etc). I am therefore constrained to believe that the same writings are 
meant in both cases. There is indeed, so far as I know, no reason why John the 
Monk of the Thebais should not be John of Apamea. There were many Syrians 
among the monks of the Egyptian desert. In this case however Assemani's date for 
John of Apamea must be abandoned. One of the Mss of our John bears the date 
A.D. 581 (see Wright's Catalogue p. 451). 

Ebedjesu mentions two Johns : one (c. 39) as John simply of whom he gives no 
information, not even the title of his work; and another as John of Apamea (c. 47), 
giving the account of his writings which I have already quoted. It is possible that he 
splits up one man into two ; or he may have erroneously assigned to the latter the 
works which really belonged to the former. At all events, if there be a mistake in 
the identification, it is Ebedjesu's, not Assemani's. 

The works of John seem to have been written in Syriac, so that we possess the ori- 
ginals (see Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. p. 431, Cureton Corp. Ign. p. 294, Zahn /. v. A, 
p. 222 sq, though Zahn expresses hesitation in his later work, Ign. Epist. p. 339). 
It was frequently the case that the monks of the Egyptian desert could not speak 
Greek, being either Copts or Syrians. Thus John of Lycopolis conversed with Palla- 
dius through an interpreter {/list. Laiis. 43, p. 11 13). Moreover the quotations of our 
John from Ignatius are not translated from the Greek, but taken from the Syriac 
version. This appears from the fact that for dvaTei'Xw (I\oin. 2) he writes 'I may 
rise in life' with the Syriac (2) and the Armenian (A) which was taken from the 
Syriac, besides other slighter resemblances. 


Zahn (/. V. A. p. 223) objects to Cureton's translation 'certain (r^Av^*.*!*) 
cities,' and contends that it must be rendered 'famous cities,' like Lucian's evU^oLs 
TToXeffiv (see above, p. 141). On this basis he founds an argument that John was 
acquainted with the Seven Epistles, since otherwise the expression would be meaning- 
less. But the word certainly has this sense sometimes (e.g. in the Peshito of Acts 
xvi. 12 rifiipas Tivas, xviii. 23 x/'oi'oj' Tiva; see also Payne Smith Tkes. Syr, p. 1556), 
so that the argument cannot be pressed. On the other hand the expression 'sowing a 
few things into your ears' seems to be suggested by Ephes. 9 oi}/c eldcraTe airelpeiv eis 
vfias, ^vaavres to. uira k.t.X., a passage which is not found in the Curetonian letters. 

HiERONYMUS [c, A.D, 382 — 415]. 

(i) De Viris Illustribus 16, Op. 11. p. 842 (ed. Vallarsi). 

Ignatius, Antiochenae ecclesiae tertius post Petrum apostolum 
episcopus, persecutionem commovente Trajano damnatus ad bestias 
Romam vinctus mittitur : cumque navigans Smyrnam venisset, ubi 
Polycarpus, auditor Johannis, episcopus erat, scripsit unam epistulam ad 
Ephesios, alteram ad Magnesianos, tertiam ad Trallenses, quartam ad 
Romanes; et inde egrediens scripsit ad Philadelphinos et ad Smyrnaeos 
et proprie ad Polycarpum, commendans illi Antiochensem ecclesiam ; 
in qua et de evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona 
Christi ponit testimonium, dicens; Ego vero et post resurredionem hi 
came eum vtdi, et credo quia sit ; et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos 
qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis ; Ecce palpate et videte quia non sum daemo- 
nium incorporate. Et statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt. 

Dignum autem videtur, quia tanti viri fecimus mentionem, et de 
epistula ejus quam ad Romanos scribit pauca ponerej De Syria usque 
ad Romam pugno ad bestias, in mari et in terra, node et die, ligatus cum 
decern leopardis, hoc est, militibus qui me custodiunt; quibus et cum bene- 
feceris, pejores fiunt. Iniquitas autem eorum mea dodrina est; scd non 
idcirco justificatus sum. Utinam fruar bestiis, quae mihi sunt praepa- 
ratae; quas et oro veloces mihi esse ad interitum, et adliciam \eas\ ad 
comedendum me; ne, sicut \et'\ aliorum martyrum, non audeant corpus 
meum adtingere. Quodsi venire nohceri?it, ego vim faciam, iit devorer. 
Ignoscite mihi, filioli; quid mihi prosit, ego scio. Nunc incipio esse disci- 
pulus, nihil de his quae vidcntur desidcrans, ut Jesum Christum ini'eniam. 
Ignis, crux, bestiac, confractio ossium, mcmbrorumque divisio, et totius cor- 
poris contritio, et tormcnta diaboli in me veniant; tantum ut Christ fruar. 
Cumque janti damnatus esset ad bestias, et ardore patiendi rugientes 
audiret leones, ait ; Frumentum Christi sum, dentibus bestiarum molar, ut 
panis mundus inveniar. 


Passus est anno undecimo Trajani et reliquiae corporis ejus in 
Antiochia jacent extra portam Daphniticam in coemeterio. 

(ii) Adv. Helvidmm 17, Op. 11. p. 225. 

Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commo- 
vere, Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque 
alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem et Theo- 
dotum Byzantium, Valentinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae 
volumina conscripserunt ? 

(iii) Conwwit. in Matthaeum i. § i, Op. vii. p. 12. 

Quare non de simplici virgine, sed de desponsata concipitur? Primum, 
ut per generationem Joseph origo Mariae monstraretur. Secundo, ne 
lapidaretur a Judaeis ut adultera. Tertio, ut in Aegyptum fugiens 
haberet solatium mariti. Martyr Ignatius etiam quartam addidit causam, 
cur a desponsata conceptus sit ; Ut partus^ inquiens, ejus celaretiir dia- 
bolo, dum eum putat non de virgine sed de uxore generatum. 

(iv) Adv. Felagianos iii. 2, Op. 11. p. 783. 

Ignatius, vir apostolicus et martyr, scribit audacter; Elegit Dominiis 
apostolos, qui super omnes homines peccatores erant. 

It is obvious from these passages that Jerome had no personal acquaintance with 
the writings of Ignatius. Tao. first passage ( Vir. III. 16) is taken almost entirely from 
Eusebius (see above p. 146). He only adds two particulars to the account of the his- 
torian, (i) He is able to point out the source of the apocryphal quotation in Smyrn. 
3, of which Eusebius was ignorant (oi'/c oI5' biTbdi.v), namely the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews, which he himself had translated (see the note 11. p. 295 sq). (2) He 
can point out the resting-place of the bones of Ignatius, the Cemetery at Antioch, 
which probably he himself had visited (see below, II. pp. 377 sq, 431 sq). On the other 
hand he is so ignorant of the facts, that whereas Eusebius mentions two letters, one to 
the Sm3T:n?eans and the other to Polycarp, Jerome blundering over i5iws (by which 
Eusebius meant 'in a separate epistle') supposes him to speak of only one letter. 
This ignorance might have been pardoned if it had not misled the greatest of Ignatian 
critics. The one blot on the critical scutcheon of Ussher is his rejection of the Epistle 
to Polycarp as spurious on the ground that Jerome does not recognize it. The date 
of the treatise de Viris Illustrihiis is A.D. 392. 

The seco)id passage (adv. Helvid. 1 7) is nothing more than a bold rhetorical venture 
after Jerome's manner. Probably the sole foundation for this sweeping assertion, so 
far as regards Ignatius, was the single fact known to Jerome (see the next passage) 
that Ignatius spoke of the virginity of Mary [Ephes. 19). The description it is true 
would better apply to such passages as Trail. 11, Philad. 6, in the Long Recension, 
where Ebion (a purely imaginary person) and Theodotus (who lived long after the 
age of Ignatius) with others are mentioned by name. But it is highly improbable 
that Jerome should have seen this recension, and we need not look for the same pre- 
cision in him which we should expect in a more careful writer. Though well versed 



in works on Biblical exegesis, which was his speciality, he was otherwise extremely 
ignorant of early Christian literature. This treatise was written about a.d. 382. 

In the third passage (Comm. in Matt. i. § i), belonging to the year 398, he pro- 
bably borrowed the fact, which he mentions, from Origen as quoted above (p. 144) ; 
while in the fourth, written about a.d. 415, in which again he professes to quote Igna- 
tius, he is guilty of a blunder, for he assigns to Ignatius words which are taken from 
Barnabas. Here again he was probably indebted to Origen [c. Cels. i. 63, Op. i. 
p. 378) who however ascribes the saying to the right author, so that Jerome was misled 
by a treacherous memory. 

For the notice of Ignatius in Jerome's revision of the Chronicon of Eusebius, see 
above, p. 145 sq. 


S. Chrysostom [c. a.d. 390]. 

(i) Homilia in S. Ignatm?n, Op. 11. p. 592 (ed. Montfaucon). 


. . . T[p(i>y)v yovv r^/xa? Kop-q KO(XLSrj via koI a7ret/)oya/i,o? 

Tj jxaKapia ixdprv^; YieKayia /aero, ttoWt^s ttJ? e-u(f)pocnijinr)<; 

eicrrtacre* crijixepov ttoXiv t-qv eKeiinqs iopTrju o ^JLaKapto'; 

ovTO^ Kcu yevvoLO^ fxdpTv; 'lyvarto§ SteSe^aro. hid<j)opa 
5 Ta TrpocTOiTTa, aXXa jata -q rpaTre^a* iwqWayfJieva ra TraXaicr- 

/xara, aXX et? o crre^avo?* TrotKitXa ra aycoviajxaTa, aXXa 

TO avTO ^pa^eiov .... 

'O [xev ovv /catpo? "jy/xa? tJSt^ Trpo? ttjv ^fqyqcnv jdv rov 

fxaKaptov TovTOv KaTop6(OjxdTO)i' KaXei' 6 Xoytcr/aos Se 
10 raparrerat kol Oopv^elrai, ovk e^oji' rt TrpcoTov, tC Sevrepov 

elTreiu, tl TpvTov roaovTov rrepippel irduTodep 'qixd<; iyKcofxioju 

TrXrjOof;' kol Taxnov ndo^ofiev, olov dv et rt? et? XeLfxcova 

elaeXOcov, koL ttoXXiqi' fxeu ttjv poScovCav ISajf, ttoXv Se to 

lov, Koi TO Kptvov TOcrovTou, Kol eTepa Se iqpLvd dv6r) 
i^TTOLKiXa re kol Sia^opa, diropricreie rt TrpcoTov lSj), tl Seure- 

pov, eKdaTov tcov opc^fxevoju irpos eavTo KaXovuTO<s ras ot//ei9. 

/cat yap /cat "Pixels ets tov irvevyiaTiKov tovtov Xet/xwi^a tcov 

'lyi/artof KaTopOcofjidTcov el(reX66vT€<; /cat ov)^l avOr) rjpLvd 


aX\' avTov rov TTuevfiaTO^ top Kapirou ttolklXov re Kai 
hid<j)opov iu TYj rovTov ^VXV OeaiixevoL, 6opv(3ovixe6a 


cLTrepeLcrofJLeu, eKoicrTov tcou opoijxivcDV ano rcov Trkrjcnov 
av6i\K0VT0% KoX npos rr^v rrjs ot/ceta? evTrpcTreta? Oeojpiav 5 
eTTicTTTOiixivov Tr}v TYJ^ ^'^XV'^ oxpLv. (TKoneLTe yap- Trpoeariq 
T7J<? Trap" rjfxlv eKK\-q(Tia<; yevvaLO)<; kol /xera TocravTr)'? aKpt- 
^eta? jxeO' ocriqq 6 XpLO-Tos ^ovXeraL- oV yap jxeyLCTTOv 
opov KOL Kavova Trj<; €7ncrK07rrj<; e(f)rjcr€v elvau i.Keivo<i, tovtov 
ovTo^ Stct Tcov epycov ineSeL^aTO. kol yap rov XpicrTov 10 
XeyovTO<i aKOTJcras otl '0 hoimmn 6 kaAoc thn yyX^^ aytoy 
tiGhcin ynep toon npoBATCON, fxera Trda-q^ dvSpeCas avT-qv 
irreScjKev vnep tcov Trpo^aTOiv. crvveyeveTO toI<; aTTOcrroXots 
yvqcTiOi^, KoX tojv TTvevjxaTLKcov va^droiv airqXavcrev. ottolov 
ovp elvaL etKO? rov (TVVTpa(f)evTa eKeivoL^ /cat TTavTaxpv crvy- 15 
y€v6[Jievov, /cat prjTcov /cat diropp'qTOiV aurots Koivoiviqa-avTa, 
/cat Toa-avry)^ etvai Sd^avra aiJTOts dpx^'S d^iov ; eTreaTr) 
TrdXiv Katpoq dvhpeiav eVt^r^roji/ /cat ^vx^jv ra>v Ttapovrov 
virepopaxjav aTrdvTOiv /cat tu> Oeico l^iovcrav epcoTL /cat ra 
fjLrj ySXeTTO/jieva tcov opcofxevcov TrpoTijxcoaav /cat /xera Tocrav- 20 
Tr)<; eu/coXta? t>}v crdpKa aTredero, fxeO' ocrr}<; av rts tjaartoi/ 
ctTToSvcratTO. rt ovv irpoTepov eLTTcoiiev ; tcov anocTToXcov 
T-qv StSacr/caXtav, 17^ eVeSet^aro Stct irdvTcov ; rj ttJs Trap- 
ovcT-q^ l,corj^ ttjv vTrepoxfjiav ; 17 tyjv aKpi/Beiav Trjq dpeTr}<; 
fxeO' rj^ Ty)v TrpocTTacriav 7175 eKKk-qcrias coKOv6ixr)crev ; Tiva 25 
npoTepov dvviJ.vy]croixev ; tov [xdpTvpa, rj tov eTncTKOTTOV, rj 
TOV aTTocTToXov ] TpiTrXovv yap cTTecfyavov rj rov Trvevfx.aTO<s 
TrXe^ao-a X'^P'''^ ovtco ttjv dyiav eKeiviqv dveSrjcre Ke(^a\rjv, 
jxdXXov Se TToWaTrXovv tcov yap crTecfidvcov eKacTTOV et 
rt? avTOVs /xera aKpi^eCaf; dvaiTTii^eLev, evprjcrei /cat iT€pov<s 30 
-qfjLLV ^XacrrdvovTas crTecf)dvovs. 

Kat et /3oi)\ecr0e, irporepov eVt tov Trj<; eVtcr/coTrrJs enaivov 
eXdcofxev. ov So/cet ets ovro? etvat crTe^avoi; /Ltdvo? ; (f)epe 
ovv avTOV dvaTTTV^cofJcev tco \6yco, /cat oxpecrOe /cat ovo Kat 


T/aetg kol TrXetou? ef avTov TLKTOfjLevov<; rjixiv. ov yap fiovov, 
OTL TO(TavTr)<; OLp^q a£t09 etz/at eSo^e, 6av[xdi,o) top avhpa 
iy(o, (Doc OTL Koi napa tcov ayicou eKeivoiV ttjv ap^rju TavTYjv 
eve)(eipi(T6'q , /cat at TCxiv fxaKapiiou a7ro<TTo\.o)v ^et^e? Trj<; 
5 iepa<; e/cetVr^? i^i/zavro Ke(f)aXrj<;. ovoe yap fJUKpop tovto et? 
iyKcofjiiov \6yov' ovk eTretSi) Tr\eLOi tyjv avoiOev iTrecrndcraTo 
y(dpiv, ovS' oTt SaxfjiXecTTepav in avTov iTroirjcrav iXdeiv 
TYfv Tov TTi^eu/xaro? evepy^tav fxovov, aXX ort /cat irdcrav avTco 
TTjv €v dvOpdJiTOLS ip,apTvpr)(Tav dpeTTJv. to Se tto)? eyw Xeyo). 

lo Ttrw ypdcjicov 6 ITavXo? noTe' oTav Se IlavXov etTTw, ov 
TovTov fjiovov Xeyco, dXXd /cat IleTpov /cat IdKco/Sov Kai 
^l(odvvr)v /cat TrdvTa avTOJv top ^opop' KaOdnep yap ip 
Xvpa fxia hid^opoL fxep at pevpal fxCa Se 77 dpfxopta, ovtq) 
/cat ei' Tw X^P^ ^^^ aTToaToXoiP k.t.X Oappcop tolpvp 

15 etTTotjLtt az/, ort irdcrap avT-qp jLtera a/cpi^eta9 o /uta/cctpto? 
'lyt'ctrto? dnefJid^aTO ip Trj eavTov ^VXV' '^^'' ^1/6771X1777x0 5 
171/ /cat apeyKXrjTos /cat oure avddSr]<; ovTe opytXo^ ovTe 
TrdpoLPo^ 0VT6 TrXrjKTri^, aXX a//.a^09, dcfaXdpyvpo^;, St/cat09, 
ocrtog, iyKpaTTj^, dpTexop^^PO^; tov /caret ri^z/ StSa;)^))!/ 77to"Tov 

20 Xoyov, py](f)aXio<;, (raxftpcop, KocrfiLO'?, /cat ra aXXa a77ep d 
riavXo? dTryTTjae. /cat rt? rovrwi^ a77dSet^t9, cfyrjcTLP ; avrot 
ot ravra elpiqKOTe'; avTOP ixeLpoTOprjorap' /cat ou/c ai/ ot 
/xera TocravTr)<; aKpi/Seiaq 7rapaLP0VPTe<; eTepoiq Trjp So/ct- 
fxacriap 77otetcr^at r&Jf fjieXXoPTcop iirl top Bpopop Trj'^ dpxrj<i 

25 dpa(3aLP€LP TaTJTTjs, avTol irapipyoi^ tovto iirotrjcrap dp. 
dXy el /xt) Trdcrap elSop tyjp dpeTrjp TavTrjp ip Trj ^v^fj tov 
lxdpTvpo<^ TOVTOV 7re(f)VT€Vix€PrjP, OVK ap avTO) TavTrjp ipev^^- 

picrap TrjP dpx^p etSes 77&JS St77Xov9 iqplp 6 (rT€(f)apo<; 

i(fidpy} TT^s iTnc KOTTrj<; Tecos, /cat XafinpoTepap iTTOLrjcre tt^p 

30 dpx'TjP TO T(op X'^'^P^TOPrjcrdpTCJP avTOU d^iwjxa, Trdcrap diro- 
Set^tv dp€Trj<; aurw jxapTvpovcrap ; 

BovXecr^e /cat eTepop vjxip iKKoXvxjJO) CTTecfyaPOP dir avTov 
TOVTOV ^XacTTapoPTa ; dpaXoyLcr(6ixe6a top Kaipop /ca^' op 
Tr^p dpxyjv ipcxeipicrOiq TavTrjp- ov ydp icTTip lctop iKKXrf- 


a Lav OLKOvoixrjcraL vvv, koX t6t€ k.t.X (ocnrep ovv 

Kv^epvqriqv 6av]xdl,o[Ji€u, ov-)( orav T/jo'v^al^ovar)'; Trj<; 9a- 
kdTTr]<; Kal i^ ovpiajv rrjs vrjoi; (f)epoixevr]<i hvvqOfj tov<; 
ifjLTrXeovTa'; Stacrwcrat, dW orav fxaivoixeuov tov TreXctyovg, 
hiavLCTTaiJiivaiv tcov KVfxdTCJV, avTcov tojv evSov eTTi^aTOiv 5 
(TTacriatpvToiv, ttoWov ■^eLjjLcovo'; ecroidev e^oiOev rovg e/x- 
Trkeovra^ TTokiopKovvro^, ^vvqBfj KarevOvvai to (TKd(j)0'; [xera 
d<j<^akeia^ dirdcriq^' ovtco Kai Tovq tote rrjv eKKkiqcriav 
iy^eipKrdevTaq eKTrXyJTTecrOaL )(prj /cat Oavfidl^eLV iroWco 
trXeov Tcov vvv oiKovop-ovvTOiv avTqv, ore TToXvq 6 iroXejOtos 10 
e^oiOev, ore aTraXcoTepov en to (fiVTov T7J9 TrtcrrecDS t^v 
7roXXy]<; heojxevov eTrt/oteXeta?, ore KaOdirep dpTiTOKov ^pi^o<; 
TO Trj^ iKKXr)(Tia<; TrXrjOos TroXXrj<; €)(pr)t,e Trjs Trpovoias 
Kal aocjycoTaTrjs tiv6<; t^? fieXXovcrr]<; avTO TLOrjveicrOai 

xjjvxn'i 15 

EtTTcu Kal TETapTOv (rTe(f)avov Ik Trjs i7n(TK07rrj<; rjpXv 
dvia\ovTa ravrr^?. ri? ovv icTTLV ovto^ ; to ttjv iraTpiha avTov 
iTTLTpaTTrjvaL ttjv rjixerepav. iiriTrovov jxev yap /cat e/carov 
dvSpcov Kal nevTTJKOVTa irpoo'TrjvaL jxovov' to Se ttoXlv 
ly^eipKrOrjvaL TooravTXjv, /cat hrjixov ets €t/coo"t iKTeLVOjxevov 20 
/xuptctSa?, TTocTT^s dpeTrjs otet /cat cro^ta? dnoSeL^LV elvai .... 
/cat dXX(o<i 8e ttoXv? -qv T179 vroXews TavTy)<; raJ @ew Xoyo?, 
oj? /cat Stct Tcov epyoiv avTtav iSijXcocre. tov yovv Trjs 
olKovix€vr)<; imo'TdT'qv aTTctcrT^? UeTpov, oj ra? /cXet? ei^e- 
^etptore Twi' ovpdvoiv, (o trdvTa ayeuv Kal (fyepecv ineTpexfje, 25 
TToXvv ivTavOa ^povov ivhuaTpixfjaL eKeXevcrev. ovtoj? avrw 
T^9 olKOVfji€vr]<; aTrdcrrj^ tJ TroXt? avTippovo^ rj rjpi€Tepa. 

'ETretSi) 8e ipivrjcrOr^v UeTpov, Kal nefxiTTov i^ avTov 
(TTe(f>avov elSov irXeKoixevov ovtos Se ecrrt, to jaeT* eKeivov 
TovTov StaSe^acr^at tt}^ dp^v. (^(rnep yap dv Tt9, XlOov 30 
i^aipcDv jxeyav Ik 6ep.eXio}v, eTepov dvTippoirov eKeivov 
cTTTOvSa^et TTavTOJS dvTeicrayayelv, el /at) fxeXXoi irdaav 
(raXeveiv ttjv oLKoSojxrjv Kal cradpoTepav Troielv ovtco Srj 
Kal UeTpov p.eXXovTo<s evTevOev dTToSyji-Lelv, eTepov dvTippoiTov 


Tlerpov SiBdo-KaXov yj tov Tn^ev/xaro? avTeicrriyaye vapt?, 
wcrre jxtj tyjv yjSrj yeuofjievrjv oIkoSo/xtju rfj tov StaSe^oyu,eVou 
evreXeta craOpoTepav yeviaOai. 

TlevTe {xev ovv (TT^<j)dvov^ dTTrjpLOfjLrjo-dixeda, diro tov 
5 {xeyedov<; t^<; dp^rj's, dno Trj<; a^tag tojv KeyetpoToviqKOTcav, 
aTTO Trj<; tov Kaipov SvcTKoXCaq, dno tov fxcTpov Trj^ noXeoi^, 
airo Trjs dp€Trj<; tov napaSovTos avTO) ttjv eTncTKOTnfjv. 
TovTov? diravTa's 7rXe^ai>Ta^ iurjv kol eKTOv enreiv, kol 
€/3SofjLOv, KOL 7rXetov9 TovTcov aXX' tVa fxij, tov diravTa 

lo -^povov et9 TOV nepL Trj<^ eTTLdKOTrrj^; dvaXoj(ravTe<s Xoyov, 
eKirea-cofjLev tojv nept tov fxdpTvpo^ StrfyrjixaTCov, (fiepe Xolttov 
em TOV dOXov eKelvov loifxev. . . . 

Ov TOVTo Se iKaKovpyrjcrev 6 StctySoXo? (jlovov, dXXd kol 
eTepov ovK eXaTTov tovtov ov yap iv rat? TToXecnv, cov 

15 7rpoeL(TT'Y)KeL(rav, 7)<f)L€i cr(f)dTTe(T0aL tov<5 eTriCKOTTOV^, aXX' 
ei? Ty]v aXXoTpiav aycov dvypec. iiroUi 8e tovto, ofxov 
ixev iprjfjLovs Toiv iiTLTrjSeLwv Xafielv (nrevScjv, o/jlov Se 
aauevecTTepov^ epydaeadai tco [xo-^Oco Trj<; oSoLrropias iX~ 
TTil^oiv o hrj /cat erri tov fxaKaptov tovtov TrenoirjKev diro 

20 yap Trjs r^/Lterepas TroXews eU t-^v 'Vajfxrjv avTov eKdXecrev, 
fiaKpoTepov; avT(^ Tideis Tov<i StavXovc tov Spofiov, Kal 
T^ fjLtJKeL ttJs 6S0V Kal T(o TrXrjdei tcov -qfjicpoiv to (f)p6vr]ixa 
KaTapdXXetv avTOv irpoaSoKajv ovk etSctj? otl crvveixTTopov 
e^oiv \iq(TOvv /cat avvairoh'qixov ttJs ToaavTrjs 6SoL7ropta<; 

25 L(T)(vpoTepo^ fxaXXov lyiveTO /cat tt;? /xer' avTov hvvdjxeo}<i 
ov(Tr)<? TrXeiova Trapel^e ttjv aTToSei^Lv /cat ret? iKKXr)(TLa<; 
(TvveKpoTeL [jLeL^6vct)<;. at yap /caret tyjv dSov TroXet? avv- 
Tpe^ovcraL iravToOev rjXeL(f)ov tov dOXrjT'qv /cat /xerct ttoXXcov 
igeTrefxTTOv toJv i^ohioiv, eu^at? /cat 73-/3ecry8etat9 avTco crvva- 

30 yoiVil^ofxevaL' /cat avrat Se ov ttjv Tv^ovcrav TTapaKXrjcriv 
iXafx^avov jxeTa TTpo0vp.La^ TO(TavTr)<; iirl OdvaTov Tpe^ovTa 
opojcrac tov p^dpTvpa, jxeO^ ocrrj^ et/co9 '^v tov eVt ySacrtXeta 
KoXovfjievov Ta iv ovpavai' /cat 8td tcov epycov ijxdvOavov 
avTCJv, otct Trj^ tov yevvaiov vrpo^v/otta? cKeCvov /cat (fyacSpo- 


rrjTO<;, otl ov ddvaTO<; r]v i(f) ov erpe-^cv, aW ctTToST^/xta 
Tt5 Koi ixeTadTacri^ Kai Trpos rov ovpavov avaySacrts. /cat 
raOra StSacr/caji' /caret rracrav ttoXlv dnrjeL Sta twj' Xoycui^, 
Sta Twt' TrpayfJiaTcov avTutv. Kai onep im ToJv \ovoaioiv 
crvue/Br), ore rov HavXov hrjcravTe^ kol els Trjv 'Vcojxtjv 5 
aTTOcrretXai^res iv6fxii,ov fxkv enl ddvarov TrefXTreup, eireyiTTOv 
Se rots e/cet KaroiKovaiv 'lovSatot? StSctcr/caXoz/, tovto St} fcat 
eTTt 'ly^'artov yeyove jxerd Trepiovarias rivos. ovSe yctp rot? 
T17V 'VcofjLrjv oIkovctl /xwots, ctXXa /cat rat? ev tco /w,ecrw Keifxe- 
vais TTokecTLV ctTrctcrat? StScta/caXo? aTryei BavjjidcrLos, ireWoiv 10 
KaTa(f)pou€LV Trjs TTapovarjs ^(orjs /cat jxyjSev riyeiaQai ret 
^Xeiroixeua /cat tojv [xeWouTcov ipdv Kai vpos rov ovpavov 
/3XeVetv /cat 77/305 ixrjSev tcov iv rw Trapovrt ^tco Set^'wi^ 
einar pe<^ecr 0ai. ravra yap /cat ret Tovrwv irXeiova Sta 
Twv epycov avTovs TraiSevcov cTSeve, KaOdirep tJXlos tls e^ 15 
dvaTo\y]<s dvicr^cov /cat tt/jos riyt' Svcrtv Tpe\o)v, fxdWov Se 
/cat TOVTOV (^aihpoTepos. ovros fxev yap av(x)Oev erpe-^ev, 
alarO'qTov dyoiv (f)Ct}S, 'lymrtos Se KdroiOev dvTeXajjLTre, vorjrov 
</)a5s StSacr/caXtas rat? xjjv^als eviets. KaKelvos jxev et? ra 
T^9 Svcreo)? dvLcov [xeprj /c/juTrrerat /cat vvKra €v6e(o<; cTrctyet, 20 
ovTos Se ets to, T17S Svcreoog aTrekdoiv fxeprj (ftatSpoTepov 
eKeWev dveTeike, /cat tovs /caret ri}?^ dSov diravTas evepye- 
Tijaas rd juteytcrra. eVetS?) Se T179 TroXeoj? iiri^iq, KaKeurqv 
(pikoaocfielv evratSevo'e. Sta yap tovto /cat d ©edg crvz/e^w- 
prjaev e/cet rdv /3toz/ avrov /caraXvcrat, cJcrre r')7v rovrou re- 25 
Xeuri7i' StSacr/cctXtoi/ yevecrOai evare/Seias rots ri^v 'Fdjixrjv 
oIkovctlv diTacriv. vfxels fxev yap Trj tov @eov ^dpiTi ovSe- 
jOLtas iSeecrde Xolttov aTToSet^ecu?, ippii,cojjLevoi /caret ri)!^ 
TTicTTiv ot Se ri^v P(ofjir)v oIkovvt€S, are ttoXX-i^? rdre ao-e- 
/Seta? ovcryjs eKel, irXeiovos e^rj[,ov jioiqOeias. Sta rovro /cat 3° 
Ilerpos /cat IlauXo? /cat /jter' e'/cetvov? ovros e/cet irdvTes 
i9v9r)(rav . . . Iva Trjs dvao-TdcrecJS tov crTavpoiOevTos Xptcrrou 
Sta TCOV epyoiv irapdayoiVTai Trjv ctTrdSet^tv .... evret irioq 
dv evot Xoyov . . . fxrj fiovov UeTpov /cat IlavXoi', aXXa /cat 


^lyuoLTiOP TOP ovSe eoypaKora avTov ovhe (XTroXekavKOTa avTov 
Trjq crwoucrta? TocravTrjv vnep avTov TrpoBvu-iav eirtSei^acr^at 
a>5 /cat avrrfv St' avrov imSovvaL Trjv ^v)(7]v ; 

"iv ovv ravTa epyco jxadcocrtv ol rrjv Vdiirjv otKovvTe^ airav- 
5 re?, crvv€)((6pr]crev 6 0eo9 e/cet TeXeicoOrji'aL top ayiov. /cat ort 
avTiq e(TTiv r) atrta, e^ aurou rov Tponov Trj<; TeXevTrjq tovto 
TTiCTTuxToixai. ov jOLp €^0) Tct^wv iv /3apd9pco, ovSe iv St/cacr- 
Tr)pL(p, ovSe iv yoivia rivX rrjv KaTaSiKoi^ovcrav eSe^aro \fjrj(f)ov, 
aW iu fJi€(T(i) Tcp Oedrpci), Trj<; TToXew? olvo) KaOeC,oiMevY)<; 

lo (XTrdcrr)^, rov rov fxaprvpiov rponov vire^eive, drjptcov in 
avrov d(f)e9evT(ov iv vtto rat? dirdvroiv oi/zecrt ro rpoTratov 
crri^cra? /caret rov Sta^oXou, rov<; Oearas dnavras ^rjXcord^ 
TTOLTjcrrj rwv dyoiVKTjxdrcjiv rcov eavrov, ovk dTroOvrjciKOiv 
jxovov ovTco yevvaio)^, ctXXa /cat fxeO' 1780^179 dTTodvrjCTKOiv. 

15 ou ydp W9 t,oiy]<i dTTopprjyvvaOai fxiXXcov, dXK w? eTrt 
Co^yjv /caXov/xcfo? fieXrioi /cat Trvev^xariKOiripav, ourws dafxe- 
vo)^ i(t)pa rd drfpia. irodev rovro hrfkov ; a770 rwi' prjfjid- 
ro)v, uiv d'rTo6vrj(TK€.Lv jxeXXcov i(fi9€y^aro. aKovcra^ ydp 
ort ovro<; avrov rrj<? riixoipias o rpoiro^i fxevei, Eyd) rSv 

2o9HpiaiN eKeiNcoN onai'mhn, eXeye. roLOvroL yap ol ip(ovre<;' 
onep dv irdcryoidiv vnep rcov ipcjixevcov, jxed' ijSovrjs hir^ovrai, 
/cat rore So/covcrtf ip.<^opei(T 6 ai rrj^ eTrt^u/xta?, orav ttoXXco 
■^aXencorepa rj ra yivofjieva. onep ovv /cat eVt roinov crvvi- 
^aLvev. ov ydp r<o Oavdro) jjlovov aXXa /cat rfj TrpoOvfXia 

25 ^T^Xcucrat rov^ aTroo^roXov? earrevSe- /cat dKovoiV ort fxaarL- 
)(devre<; eKeivoL fxerd ^apas dve^oipovv, i/SovXrjdr) /cat avro? 
fJL'q rfj reXevrfj jxovov aXXd /cat rfj X^P^ fMLixTJaacrdaL rov^ 
8tSao-/caXov9 • Stct rovro toon eHpi'coN, eXeyev, onai'mhn. /cat 
77oXXw rovroiv i^jxepcorepa ra crro/xara ivojXLl^ev elvai ryj<i 

30 rov rvpdvvov yXcorrr)'^, /cat fxdXa €t/coraJ9' iKeCvrj fxev ydp 
7rpo9 rrjv yeei^vav e/cctXet, ra Se rourwi/ crrojxara irpos )8acrt- 
Xetai^ TrapeTrefXTTev. 

'EvretST) roCvvv KareXvaev cKel rrjv tfiirjv, fxaXXov Se, 
eTretSr) 7rpo9 roi^ ovpavov dve/3rj, inavfjeL (Tre(f)avirrj<; Xolttov. 

II — 2 



/cat yap koI tovto Trjq rod ®eov ylyovev otKovojLtta9, to 
TraXiv avTov Trpo? ')7/Aa9 eTTovayayeiv, koX rats TroXecrt 
BiafelixaL tov jxapTvpa. eKeiirq p^kv yap avTov (TTa^ov to 
atpa ihe^aTO, vjaet? he rw XeLxjjdvcp TeriprjcrOe' aTrrjkavcraTe 
Trj<; im(TKOTTrj<s v/xet?, aTrrfkavcrav eKeivoi tov jxapTvpiov. 5 
elhov dycovL^opevou koI viKcUvTa /cat (TTe(^avovpevov eKeivoi, 
e)(eTe Str^ve/cws avTov u/xet?* o\iyov vpcov avTov -^ovou 
aTrecTTrjcreu 6 ©eos, /cat peToi irXeiovo^; vpiv B6^rj<; avTov 
e^aptcraro. /cat Kaddirep ol havei^opefoi ^rfpaTa peTa 
TOKOiv ctTToStSoacrtv direp dv Xd/Bcoaiv, ovtco /cat o ©eos rw i^ 
Tipiov tovtov 6y)cravpov irap vpcov okiyov )(pr)(Tdpevo<i 
-)(p6vov, /cat Trj TroXet Set^as eKeivr), peTa Tr\eiovo<; vplv 
avTov d77o8eSaj/ce riry? XapirpoT'qTO';. e^eirep^aTe yap eiri- 
(TKOTTov, /cat ehe^aaOe pdpTvpa^ e^eTrepxpaTe peT ev)(cjv, 
/cat ehe^acrde peTa cTTecfiducov /cat ov)( v/xets Se povov, 15 
aXXa Kat vracrat at ef pecrco TroXet?. ttws yap aOms oiecrOe 
Sta/cetcr^at, dpwcras eiravayopevov to Xei^avov ; irocrrju Kap- 
TTOvaOai rjhovTjV ; ttoctov dydWecrOai ; Trocrat? evcjyrjpiaL^s 
TrdvTodev (BdWeiv tov (TTe(f>avLTr]v ; KaOdnep yap dO\r)T7]v 
yevvalov tovs avTayo)VL(TTa<; KaTaTraXatcravTa airavTas, /cat 20 
^era Xap7rpd<; e^e\66vTa h6^r)<; avro rov (TKdppaTo<;, evOeojq 1 
Se^o/xez^ot ot OeaTal ovS' eTn/Brjvai T17? yT^? a^tacrt, (f>opdSr)v 
d7rdyovTe<; ot/caSe /cat pvpLOL<? (3d\\ovTe<; iyKojpLOLS' ovto) 
87} /cat roi^ aytoi/ rore eKelvov diro Trjs 'Vcoprjs at 77oXet9 
6^17? 8taSe^o/x€i/at /cat €77 copcov ^epovcrai p^XP^ ''"^^ 25 
77oXew9 TavTi79 TrapeTTepvov, eyKoipidtfivcrai tov crTecfiavLTrjv, 
awpvovaai tov aycovodeTrjv, /carayeXajcrat tov Sua/BoXov, » 
ort et9 TO evavTiov avrw TTepieTpdiry) to (r6(f)Lcrpa, /cat onep * 
evopicre K-ara rov pdpTvpo<; Trotelv, tovto vnep avTov yeyove. 
/cat Tore /xei^ Ta? TroXet? airacras e/ceti'a? (ovrjae /cat avcop- 30 
Ooicrev' i^ eKeivov Se Kat pe^pi' Trj<; 7rapovcrr)<; ttjv vpeTepav 
TrXovTt^et TToXtv. /cat KaOdnep Orjoravpo^ StT^z^e/o}? /ca^' 
eKacTTrjv dvTXovpevo^ Trjv rjpepav, /cat ov/c eTTiXeiTTOiV, aTrav- 
Ta? Tov<; peT4\ovTa^ evTropoiTepov; TTOiel' ovtcj Srj /cat o /xa/ca- 


pLo<; ovTos 'lyvaTLOS tovs npos axnov ip^ofxevov; evkoytcoi/, 
7rappr)(Tia<;,'y€vuaiOV (fypovTijixaTO^, kol ttoWtJ^ avSpeCa^ TrXrjpojv, 
OLKaSe (XTroTre/xTret. fxr roivvv arjixepov fxovov aXka /cat /ca^' 
eKoiaTrju rjixipav irpo? avTov fiaSi^cJixev, iTvevp.ariKov^ i^ 
5 avTov opeTTOixevoL Kapnovs. ecrri yaip, earn, rov p,era Trto'Tews 
ivTavOa Trapaytvofjievov jxeydXa KapTrcocracrdaL ay add- ovSe 
yap Ta o"w/xara ^xovov dXkd kol aural at drjKai roiv dyiwu 
TTuevjjiaTLKrjs eicn TreTrXrjpcJixevai \dpno<;. . . . Sto napaKako) 
TTavTa<i vjxd<;, etre iu dOvjxCa ri<i ecttiv elre iv wcrots 

10 /c.T.X evTavOa TrapayiviaOoi, koX ndura eKeiva dno- 

orjCTeTai koX fxerd TroXXrjs eTravq^ei Trj<; 7]Sovfj<;, KovcfiOTepop 
TO crvvetoos ipyacrdixeuo^s diro rrs OecopLa<; fx6i'r)<; . . . IkOojv 
yap iuTavOa /cat tov dyuov IScov tovtov aKivrjTa e^et ret 
/caXa .... cocrre dirao-i \pri(Tiixo<; 6 Orjcravpo'S, iTTLTiqhelov 

15 ro Karayatyiov, toI<; jxeu iiTTaiKoaiv Iva diraWaycoa-i tcov 
Treipacrixcov, rot? Se evrjfjLepovaiv Iva fie/Baua avrot? fxeivrf 

ra KoKa airep airavra \oyitpp.evoi irda"iq<i Tepxjjecos, 

7rdcrr)<; -qSovrj^, ttjv evTavOa npoTLixcocrLv StaTpL^TJv, Iv 
d/LtoG /cat ev(f)paLv6jJLevoL /cat KepSaivovres, /cat e/cet crvcrK-quoL 

20 rots dyioLS tovtol^; /cat d/xoStatrot yeveadai hvvqOoiixev 

We have no means of ascertaining the date of this homily. It must however have 
been delivered during the period of S. Chrysostom's activity as a preacher at Antioch 
(a.d. 381 — 398). For the place and day of delivery, and for other matters connected 
with it, see i. p. 46 sq, 11. pp. 379 sq, 386, 418 sq, 431 sq. 

The one quotation {Rom. 5 ovaifjuqv twv Oyjpiuiv) in this passage 
might have been derived from Eusebius H. E. iii. 36. On the other 
hand there are various allusions and coincidences, which indicate an ac- 
quaintance with the letters of the saint. Thus the simile of the lyre and 
its strings (p. 159, 1. 13) recals Ephes. 4, Philad. i, while that of pilot- 
ing the ship of the Church (p. 160, 1. 2) reminds us of Polyc. 2, and 
that of anointing the athlete (p. 161, 1. 28) appears in Ephcs. 3. Again 
the mention of the delegacies which attended the saint (p. 16 r, 1. 27) 
is not explained by anything in Eusebius and betokens a knowledge of 
the epistles themselves, since the expressions of S. Chrysostom recal 
the very language of Ignatius {Rom. 9). Again the mention of S. Peter 


and S. Paul as the predecessors of Ignatius in the instruction of the 
Roman Church (p. 162, 1. 30) has its parallel in Rom. 4. Again the 
metaphor of the sunset and sunrise, in connexion with the saint's journey 
from west to east (p. 162, 1. 15), is expressed in language closely re- 
sembling the martyr's own {Rojh. 2 ets hvcnv diro a.vaToXrj<s fX€TaTr€fnf/d- 
IX€V0<;' KaXov to Svvat oiTro Kocr/Aov Trpos 0£ov, Iva cis aurov avaretA-u)). Agam 
the mention of his lover's passion (epios) for Christ (p. 163, 1. 20; comp. 
p. 158, 1. 19, Tw Oeiio t,eov(Tav Ipcort) seems to be suggested by Rom. 7 
o 6/Aos Iptos ia-TavpwTaL, as wrongly interpreted by Origen (see the note, 11. 
p. 222 sq). Again the reference to the martyr's admonition to the 
Romans (p. 162, 1. 11) fxrjSev -^yelaOat rd /3Xe7ro/x€va (comp. p. 158, 1. 19 
TO. ixrj j3\eTr6ix€va tw opoifxevwv Trpori/xwo-av) is explained by Rom. 3 ov8kv 
(jiaiv6fj.evov KaXov (see II. p. 204), though the quotation from 2 Cor. iv. 
18, which would make the coincidence with S. Chrysostom's language 
closer, is an interpolation in the text of Ignatius. Again the lan- 
guage relating to the companionship of the apostles (p. 158, 1. 13) has 
a parallel in Epkes. 11, though the application is different; and the 
desire of Ignatius to tread in the footsteps of the Apostles as mentioned 
by Chrysostom (p. 163, 1. 24) is illustrated by his own language in 
Ephes. 12, Philad. 5. With all these coincidences, I am constrained to 
believe with Pearson ( K /. pp. 72 sq, 240 sq) and others (e.g. Lipsius 
Syr. Text. p. 21 sq) that this homily of S. Chrysostom shows an ac- 
quaintance with the Ignatian letters themselves. The opposite view 
however is maintained by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 33 sq). 

(2) Ham. de Anathemate 3, Op. i. p. 693. 

BouXeo-^e jxaOeiv old tls i(f)deyiaTO, aytos tl<s irpo 
Tjy^oJv, TTJs StaSo)(i^s T(ov oLTToa-ToXiov yevofJ.ei'O';, 6s Kai 
{xapTvplov yj^iojTo, Selkuvs tovtov tov \6yov to ^opTLKov, 
Toiovroi kyprjcraTO vTroheiyp^ari; "On jponoN 6 nepiOeic eAyTto 


AecnoTiKH Ano4)Acei xphcamgnoi, kai anaBcma thc IkkAh- 


The date of this homily seems to be A.D. 386 (see Montfaucon, p. 689). S. 
Chrysostom is supposed by Baronius to be referring to Smyrn. 9 ei 7ap 6 ^aatXevaLv 
ineyeLpdfxevos k.t.X. (found only in the Long Recension; see iii. p. 225), and 
Montfaucon acquiesces. In this case Chrysostom would afford the earliest testimony 
to the Long Recension. But Chrysostom's quotation differs %videly in its language 


from this Ignatian passage, and his description of the author will suit any early bishop 
of any church. 

(3) Horn. Hi in Epist. ad Ephes., Op. xi. p. 19. 

aiCTTTtp Sta Tivo<i eXkcov ixr)^au7J<5 ets v^os avrrju din]'yaye 

The resemblance to Ephes. 9 is striking; see 11. p. 53 sq. 

(4) Hotn. xi in Epist. ad Ephes.., Op. xi, p. 86. 

'Avqp Se Tt5 ayt,05 elTre tl Sokovv elvaL ToXfji-qpov, 
TrXr/v aXX' o/xoj? e^^ey^aro. tl he tovto ia-riv 0\h4. 
MApTypioy AiMA tay'thn AynacBai e2<\Aei(l)eiN thn amaptian 
e(f)r)aeu k.tX. 

No name is here mentioned, and the passage does not occur in the genuine Igna- 
tius. Doubtless S. Chrysostom was referring to some one else. A later John of 
Antioch however, belonging apparently to the twelfth century, ascribes this saying to 
Ignatius (Cotel. Alon. Eccl. Graec. I. p. 176 ry 5e iKKXTjalav QeoO aKavSaKiaavTi 
oiiok /xapTvpiov alfxa /card tov d€0<p6pov 'lyv6.Ti.ov dpKei els (rnYxwpT/crt;' : comp. ib. p. 747). 
This is probably a pure assumption. There is something like the sentiment however 
in /i/ero 2. 

(5) Horn, de Legislatore 4, Op. vi. p. 410. 

Ata TOVTO yevvaxo^ rt? Tdv dp^aicov, 'lyfctrtos he tjv 
ouojxa avTU)' ovtos, lepoicrvvri koX [xapTvpico Sta7rpe'i//as, 
eTTLCTTeWoiv TivX lepel eXeye* MnAeN ansy tnoomhc coy 
riNec6oci, MHAe cy ancy rNWMHC 0eoY Tl npATTe (^Polyc. 4). 

This treatise, though its genuineness is defended by Pearson (F. /. pp. 73, 244 sq), 
seems to be manifestly spurious. It is rejected by Ussher, as well as by Montfaucon 
and others. See also the valuable criticism of Churton in his edition of Pearson ( V. I. 
p. 247 sq, note). It may belong to the fifth, sixth, or seventh century. 

(6) Horn, de Pseudoprophetis, Op. viii. ii. p. 79. 

TLov Euo8to9, 17 evoihia rfs eKKkr](TLa<;, koX tqju dyicov 
aTToaToXcjv StctSo^os kol iXLixr]T'ij<; ; irov lyt'artos, to tov 
&eov olKr)Ty]pLOv ; 

This treatise also is manifestly spurious ; see Montfaucon, p. 72. In the sentence 
immediately following the writer refers to Dionysius the Areopagite. 


Cyrillonas [a.d. 396]. 

Metrical Hymns of this Syrian writer are preserved in a MS {AdJ. 14591) in the 
British Museum, belonging apparently to the end of the 6th century (Wright's Cata- 
logue p. 66ij). One of these relates to the invasion of the Huns (a.d. 396) and was 
written at the time. It is translated whole (with his other hymns) into German by 
Bickell Ausgewiihlte Gedichte der Syrischen Kirchenvdter etc. (Kempten, 1872) and in 
part also into Latin by the same in his Conspedtis Rei Syrorum Literariae (1871) 
p. 34 sq. On this author see Bickell Ausgeiodhlte Gedichte etc. p. 9 sq. 

In the passage ' Meridies qui planus est omnium magnalium 
tuorum, conceptionis, nativitatis, crucifixionis tuae, e quo aroma ves- 
tigiorum tuorum adhuc spirat' (p. 35). this juxtaposition of the three 
incidents seems to have been suggested by Ep/ies. 19. 


RUFINUS [a.d. 402 — 406]. 

Historia Ecdesiastica iii. 36. 

Quibus temporibus apud Asiam supererat adhuc et florebat ex apo- 
stolorum discipuUs Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum ecclesiae episcopus, et 
Papias simiUter apud HierapoUm sacerdotium gerens. Sed et in nostra 
quoque tempora famae celebritate vulgatus Ignatius apud Antiochiam 
post Petrum secunda successione episcopatum sortitus est. Quern 
sermo tradidit de Syriae partibus ad urbem Romam transmissum et pro 
martyrio Christi ad bestias datum : quique cum per Asiam sub custodia 
navigaret, singulas quasque digrediens civitates, ecclesiae populos evan- 
gehcis cohortationibus edocebat in fide persistere et observare se ab 
haereticorum contagiis, qui turn primum copiosius coeperant pullulare \ 
et ut diligentius et tenacius apostolorum traditionibus inhaererent. 
Quas traditiones cautelae gratia, et ne quid apud posteros remaneret 
incerti, etiam scrij^tas se asserit reliquisse. Denique cum Smyrnam 
venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios 
eorumque pastorem, in qua meminit et Onesimi, et aliam Magnesiae 
civitati quae supra Maeandrum jacet, in qua et episcopi Dammei 
mentionem facit. Sed et ecclesiae quae est Trallis scribit, cujus princi- 
pem tunc esse Polybium designavit. In ea vero quam ad Romanam 
ecclesiam scribit, deprecatur eos, ne se, tanquam suppliciis suis par- 
centes, velint spe privare martyrii, et his post aliquanta utitur verbis : A 
Syria, inquit, Romam usque cum bestiis terra viarique depugno, die ac 
node connexus d coUigaius decern leopardis, militibus dico ad custodiam 


datis, qui ex bejieficiis nostris saeviores Jiunt, Sed ego nequitiis cor urn 
magis erudior; nee tamen in hoc justificatus sum. O salutares bestias quae 
praeparantur mihi. Qjiiatido venient ? quando einittentur ? quando eis 
frui licebit carnibus meis? quas et ego opto acriores parari et invitabo ad 
dez'orationem mei et deprecabor tie forte, ut in nonnullis fecerunt, tiineant 
cofitingere corpus meum. Quin imo et si co}itabtc?itur, ego vivi faciavi, ego 
me ingeram. Date, qiiacso, veniam, ego novi quid expediat mihi. Nunc 
incipio esse discipulus Christi. Facessat invidia vet huinani affectus vel 
nequitiae spiritalis, ut Jesum Christum merear adipisci. Igues, cruces, 
bestiae, dispersiones ossium, discerptionesque metnbrorum, ac totius corporis 
poenae, et omtiia in me unum supplicia diaboli arte quaesita cunmletitur, 
dummodo Jesum Christum merear adipisci. Haec et multa alia his 
similia ad diversas ecclesias scribit. Sed et ad Polycarpum, velut 
apostolicum virum, datis Uteris, Antiochenam ei ecclesiam praecipue 
commendat. Ad Smyrnaeos sane scribens, utitur verbis quibusdam, 
unde assumptis nescimus, quibus haec de salvatore proloquitur : Ego 
autem post resurrectionem quoque in came eum scio fuisse et credo. Nam 
cujn venisset ad Petrum ceterosque, ait eis ; Accedite et videte quia non 
sum daetnonium incorporeum. Qui et contingetites eum crediderunt. Scit 
autem et Irenaeus martyrium ejus et mentionem facit scriptorum ejus 
per haec verba: Sicut dixit, inquam, quidam ex nostris, pro martyrio 
Christi damnatus ad bestias, Frumentum, inquit, ego sum Dei: bestiarum 
dentibus motor et subigor, ut panis inundus efficiar Christo. Sed et Poly- 
carpus horum memoriam facit in epistula quam ad Philippenses scribit 
per haec verba ; Deprecor, inquit, omnes vos obedientiae operant dare et 
meditari patientiam, quam vidistis in Ignatio et Rufo et Zosimo, beatis 
viris, praecipue autem in Paido et ceteris apostolis, qui fuerunt apud vos, 
scientes quod hi omnes non in vacuum, sed per fidem et justitiam cucur- 
rerunt, usquequo pervenirent ad locum sibi a Domino praeparatum : quo- 
niam quidem passiomwi ejus participes extiterunt, nee dilexermit praesens 
saeculum, sed eutn solum qui pro ipsis et pro nobis mortuus est et rcsur- 
rexit. Et post pauca subjungit ; Scripsistis mihi et vos et Ignatius, ut 
si quis vadit ad partes Syriae defer at lit eras ad vos. Quod facia m, cum 
tempus invenero. Mittam vobis et Ignatii epistulas et alias, si quae sunt, 
quae ad nos transmissae sunt, ex quibus utilitatem maximam capiatis. 
Continent etiim de fide et patientia instructionem perfectam securidum 
Domini praeccptum. Hactenus de Ignatio. Post hunc rexit ecclesiam 
civitatis Antiochenae Heros. 

This extract has no independent value being a direct translation from Eusebius 
(see above, p. 146); but it is given here fur its adventitious interest, as a main source 
of the references to Ignatius in later Latin writers. 



Theodoret [a.d. 446]. 
(i) Epist. 68, Op. IV. p. 1 160 (ed. Schulze). 

Tavra oe r)\ilv TTapeooaap ov [jlovov ol avro cttoXoi koI 
7rpo(f)y]TaL, aXXa Kau ol ra tovtojv 'qpfjLrjvevKOTes (rvyypdfji- 
fxara, lyj^arto?, Evcrra^to?, 'A^amo-tos, BacrtXetos, Fpr^yo- 
/otog, 'Icoav^-T^s, /cal ot aXXot ri^s oiKovixevr]^ (fiOJaTrjpes' /cat 
-TT/Jo rovTOiv ol i.v NiKaia avveXrjXvOoTes aytOL Trarepes. 

(2) Epist. 145, 6?/. IV. p. 1026. 

Eucrra^tos /cat MeXertos /cat 4>Xa^tavo9 r^s dvaToXyjs 
ol (f)(o(TTrjpe<;, /cat Ec^pat/x r) rov TrvevjxaToq Xvpa, 6 to 
Svpojv eOvos dpSo}V oarjfxepai rots T'i^s \dpiTos vdyiaai, 
/cat ^l(oduurj<? /cat Arrt/co?, ot ttJs dXr]06La<? jxeyaXofj^ouoL 
KTJpvKes' /cat ot TovTwv irpeor^vTepoi, 'lyt'ctrtos /cat IIoXv- 
Kap7ro<; /cat EtpT^vatos /cat lovcrrti/os /cat 'IttttoXutos, wz^ ot 
TrXetovs ov/c ap^iepecav TrpoXdp.Trova'L [xovov, aXXd /cat roJ^' 
liapTvpoiv BLaKOCTjxovcn ^opov. 

(3) ^//^/. 151, 6)/. IV. p. 131 2. 

TauTT^f VjU-ti' TT^i^ StSacr/caXtai/ ot ^etot 7Tpo<^rjraL npocr- 
TqveyKav TavTr)P o tcou ayicov airoo-ToXiov ')(op6<5 • Tavrrju 
ol /caret ryv ecoav /cat Trjf eaTrepap Sta77/oe\//a^'Te9 dyioi' 
'lyvartos iKeLV0<; 6 ttoXvO pvXXrjTo<;, 6 Sta 717s to{1 fxeydXov 
Tlerpov Se^tas tt}^ dp^iepoiavv-qv Se^dfiepos, /cat vTrep 7779 
et9 XpLO'TOP ofjioXoyia? d-qpoiv yevoixevo^ dypicjv fiopd. 

(4) Dialogus I, Inwiutabilis, Op. iv. p. 49. 

'ETTtSet^o) 8e crot roi' 7ravev<j)r)[JL0i> Trjs e/c/cXi^o'tas StBctcr- 
/caXoi' /cat to eKeivov irepX rrj? ^eta? ivavOpcomjaeo)^ (f)p6- 
vTjixa, Iva yv(o<s Tiva nepl Trj<; Xr)(f>6eLcrr]s iSo^acre (j>v(Te(i}<;. 
d/CT^/coas 8e TrdvTco<; ^lyvdnov eKelvov, 69 Stct T179 rov fxeydXov 
IleTpov Se^ids T179 dp\iepa}(Tvviq<i ttjv ^dpiv iSe^aro /cat 
TT/v eKKX-qcriav A.vTio'^iov Wvva^ top tov fxapTvpiov (ttc- 
(bavou dveSyjcraTo .... 


ToO dyiov 'lyz/axtou eTTLCTKOTTOv ' AvTLO)(^eLa<; kol ixdpTvpos, 
eK Tyj<5 77/309 'Pw/xatou? [l. 'ZfxvppaLOvs] inLCTToXrjq. 

nenAHpo(t)opHMeNOYC AAHGoac eic ton KypiON hmoon, onta 
eK reNoyc AAyeiA kata cApKA, y'on 0eoY kata eeoTHiA kai 


Yno 'IcoANNOY, i'na nAHpooSH nACA AiKAiocYNH f n' AYTOy, 
aAhGojc eni TTontioy TTiAatoy kai 'HpcoAoY TeTpApyoY kaBh- 
AooMeNON YTTep Hv.ooN cApKi (Smyru. i). 

Tov avTov, eK Trjq avTrj<; iTrLO'To\rj<;. 

Ti TAp axjjeAei, ei'nep we enAiNei tic, ton Ae KypioN moy 


AerooN TeAeiwc ayton AnHpNHTAi (jic NeKpo(})dpoN {S?nyrn. 5). 
Tov auTou, e/c 7179 avrrj? i7ncrToXrj<;. 

El r^p T(o AOKeiN TAYTA enpA)(0H YTTO TOY KypiOY HMCON, 

TO) Banatco, npoc nYp, npoc MA)(AipAN, npdc GHpiA; aAA' d 
errYc MAXAipAC, erryc OeoY' monon eN Tcp dNOMATi 'Ihcoy 


ApNOYNTAi (Smyrn. 4). 

Tov auTOV, EK Trj<; 7rpo9 'Ec^ecrtovs iirLcrToXrjq- 
'0 r<^p Oedc HMooN 'Ihcoyc XpicTdc eKYO(j)opH0H Ynd 


nNeYMATOC Ae atioy, oc ereNNH9n kai eBAnTicBn, Fna to 


Tov avTov, e/c ry^ avrrjs eTTLCTToXrjs. 

El' TI 01 KAt' ANApA KOINH HANTeC eN TH X'^P'"'"' ^^ ONOMA- 

toc CYNepxecOe eN mia ni'cTei kai eNi 'Ihcoy XpicTcu, kata 
CApKA eK reNOYC AaygiA, to) Yi(|» toy ANSpoonoY kai y'^o rof 
0eoY {Ephes. 20). 

Tov avTOv, Ik ttJ^ avTrj<i i7rLcrTo\rj<;. 

Eic lATpdc eCTI CApKIKOC Ka) nNGYMATIKdc, reNNHToc el 

AreNNHTOY, eN ANUpujrroi 0edc, cn Ganatco zooh aAhGinh, ka'i 



Mhcoyc XpicToc d Kypioc hmoon {Ephes. 7). 

Tou ojvTov, Ik TTJs TTpos Tpa\Xtai/ov9 iTTLCTToXrj^. 

Ka)(|)cc)eHTe oyn, otan X^P'^ 'Ihcoy XpicroY Y'^i^n (v. 1. 
hmTn) AaAh tic, toy eK peNOYC AayeiA, toy eK MApiAC, oc 
aAhOcoc ereNNhieH, e'4)Ar6 Te kai enieN, aAhSooc eAiojxQH eni 


enirei'ooN kai enoYpANi'coN kai kataxOonioon (Tra//. g). 

(5) Dialogus 2, Incojifustis, Op. iv. p. 127, 

Tou dyiov 'lyuaTLOv inLCTKOTrov 'Ai/Tto)(€ta? kol jxdp- 
Tvpos, iK T179 Trpos Xfxvpvaiovs iTTLcrToXrjs. 


kai nicTetoo onta" kai OTe npoc toyc nepi TTeTpoN HAGeN, 
e({)H AYTOic, AABeTe, YHAA(|)HCATe Me, kai lAeTe oti oyk eiiwi 
Aaimonion acoomaton" kai 6yOyc aytoy h'h'antg kai eniCTeY- 
CAN {Sviyrn. 3). 

Tou avTov, e/c T17S avTTj^ i7ncrToXyj<;. 

Toic, OJC CApKIKOaC KAI H N 6 Y^f^T I KOOC HNCOMeNGC tJj HATpi (t'lf.). 

(6) Dialogus 3, Impatibilis^ Op. iv. p. 231. 

Tov dyiov 'lyvariov eTTicrKorrov 'AvTLO^eias kol jxdp- 
Tvpo<;, iK ttJs Trpos Sixvpvaiov<; iTTLcrToXrj<i. 

Eyx-'^P'ctiac kai npoc(|)opAc oyk AnoAexoNTAi, Aia to mh 


'Ihcoy XpicTof thn Y^rep toon amaptioon hmcon nAGofcAN, hn 
TH xpHCTOTHTi (5 nATHp HfeipeN {Smyrn. 6). 

The year given (a.d. 446) is the date of the Dialogues. 


John of Antioch [a.d, 435]. 
Epistiila ad Prod wn, Labb. Cone. iv. p. 531 (ed. Coleti). 
Etenim apud magnum martyrem Ignatium, qui secundus post Petrum 


apostolorum primum Antiochenae sedis ordinavit ecclesiam, et apud bea- 

tissimum Eustathium, etc et apud alios decern millia, ut non singulos 

percurramus, consona decerptis his capitulis invenimus. 


Socrates [c. a.d, 440]. 
Hist or ia Ecclesiastica vi. 8. 

KeKTeov Se koX oOev ttjv o,p^r)v eXa/Sev 17 Kara tov<; 
dvT L(f)(6uovq vixvov<; iv Trj eKKkrfcria crvvrjOeia. 'lyt'ctrto?, 
^ XvTLO^etaf; ttJs Svpias TpiToq diro tov aTTOcrroXov Uerpov 
eVtcr/co7ro9, os kol toIs aTrocrroXot? aOrot? crwSter/3ti//ev, 
oTTTacTLav etSev dyyeXcov hid rdv dvTL(f)(op(ov vjxvmv Tyju 
dyiav TpidSa vp^vovvroiv, koX tov rpoirov tov dpctjaaro? 
TTj iv 'Avrto^eto, iKKkqcria TrapeScoKev' o6ev kol iv 7rao"at9 
rat? iKKkrjorCaLS avTTj iq TrapaSoai'; SieSody). 



(i) Adv. Diphysitas. 

rdl JpKli K'^XAO.l . .n*\flQl .n<\ft>.n . ^K* rdx».i ^oA 

. .^^cnUSfl TCV»Av:501 ^.T.573 ^vA.i ^x\cn 

r^lA , K'vjjOXSfl our<'T»au r^Lrar^^ ^cno^K' ."Uk * ^ f »y ^t ^ 


-iAatd^.t •. Jt_sl^ rciiK' .TnA-SOO t<'A>H.:^ ^cni^ r^r^ 
Kll ..^o^K'.l oco ._r^ .r^K* h\r^J3i r^coAr^ ^A-4> 

■ .cv\ v-^ ocnl rdJrC' r<L:»-= Oca\ .rdL^^r^:^ coA^CXflo A2»- 
K'.iXcos .^aji »__^u5l2«1 cvoos f<'JT<' r^La^ Ocas .ousa 
j_i,aoi^^^ T^A . . -x-iJK' -A cuDCta-x. . al^ ^iflo ^^.-^ 
r<'ocai.T rCls^iaS OciA .A\CC33r^S .__a=^^ t<A (.r^Jlw) p3 
r«^oca_=j rdLa.K' .oal ..^^l^x.^ rtA r ^*yi\s K'coAr^.i 
AcnA .TA ,i«v>'*^ rdx^.i T<'"icncvj:« .^culsox. . .j:licA:i-z.^ 
r<LlAS3.T5»3.l ,A OJa2ar<' .reLaK* re'ocb riLssJ»V3 rdJK' A\r<' 
. oA r^Llo caz-^ia jljK' ...J^ .-*orAt<'.i cozm.i t<'ocot^ 
^.1* :Wk .^iSOi^ .TMio rdJr^ r^_3-l r<i5»3 o«> A^Avflai 

V »A ^_3*.Tm.1 ^A*t<' 

Of the blessed Ignatius, bishop and martyr, from the Epistle to 
the Smyrneans. 

...until they repent to that passion which is our resurrection. Let no 
man err. Even heavenly thi?igs a7id the glory of angels arid priticipa- 
lities, visible and ifivisible, unless they believe in the blood of Christ that 
it is of God, there is f^idgment ei'cn for them. He who can receive it, let 
him receive it. Let not place piiff up any one ; for all this is faith and 
charity, than ivhich nothing is more excellent {Smyrn. 5, 6). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Romans. 

There is nothing which is seen that is becoming. For our God Jesus 
Christ, being in the Father, is the more seen. The work is not of per- 
suasion, but the Christian is of greatness 7vhen he is hated by the icorld. 


/ 7vrite to all the churches, and charge all men that by my own will I die 
for God, if it be that ye hinder [me] not {Rom. 3, 4). 

And after a few [words]. 

It is better for 7?ie to die for the sake of Jesus Christ than to reigfi 
over the ends of the earth. I seek Him 7vho died for 71s; I desire Hi?n 
who rose on our account. The birth is appoifited for me. Leave me 
alone, my brethren. Do not hinder me from life : do not desire that I 
shoidd die. Do not give the world to him who desireth to be God's, 
neither entice me by a?iy thing material. Leave me to receive the pure 
light. When I go thither, I shall be a man. Perniit ye me to be an 
imitator of the suffering of my God. If any one possess himself in him- 
self let him understand 7uhat I desire, and suffer with me, knowing those 
things which encompass me I^Rom. 6). 

(2) Testimonia Patrum. 

.-cnL.i K'.tAa-SOO y:L*•^Jsn^ r^h\o\ci^\.jD .rdjcn .*^**i As i 
ocoX iax. ^xJsalAiD.i 000 . ja.a,a kIcAix. ^ K'oon rdA 


Of the blessed Ignatius, bishop and martyr, from the Epistle to 
the Ephesians. 

Where is the wise ? Where is the dispitter ? Where is the boasting of 
those tvho are called knowing 'i For otir God Jesus Christ was conceived 
of Mary in the economy of God, of the seed of David, and of the Holy 
Ghost : who was born and baptized, that He might purify the passible 
waters. Arid there deceived the ruler of this world the virginity of 
Mary, afid her child-birth, and in like manner also the death of the 
Lord ; three 7nysteries of the shout, which were done ifi the silence of God 
{Ephes. 18, 19). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Magnesians. 

There is one God, 7C'ho manifested Hitnsclf through Jesus Christ His 
Son, who is His eternal Word. He did not proceed from silence : who in 
every thing pleased Him who sent Him {Magn. 8). 

Of the same. 

Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of 7?iy God {Rom. 6). 

Timotheus, sumamed Aelurus, properly 'the Cat,' but possibly here 'the Weasel' 
(Wright's Catalogue p. 105 1), warmly espoused the Monophysite cause. The date 
given (a.d. 457) is the year of his accession to the patriarchate of Alexandria. He 
died A.D. 477, having been an exile during a considerable part of these twenty years. 
For more respecting him see Tillemont 3Ithn. Eccl. xv. p. 782 etc, Le Quien Oriens 
Christ. II. p. 412 sq, Mai Script. Vet, Nov. Coll. vii. i. p. 277. The fact of his 
writing against the fathers of Chalcedon is mentioned by Evagrius H. E. ii. 10. 
Churton (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 98 sq), following the Quarterly Reviewer (see 
Cureton V. I. p. 49), ascribes these works to a later Alexandrian patriarch of the 
same name (a.d. 519 — 535). There can hardly be a doubt however that the author 
was Timotheus Aelurus. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12 156, among other tracts relating to the Council of Chalcedon, 
contains these works : 

(i) 'Against the Diphysites' by Timotheus. On fol. i a is the set of quotations 
from the Romans, as given above. 

(ii) ' Many Testimonies of the holy Fathers ' etc, apparently collected by the 
same Timotheus. On fol. 69 a, b, is the other set of quotations {Ephesians, 

A note in the MS states that it was presented to a certain monastery, a.d. 562 (see 
Cureton C. I. p. 353, Wright's Catalogue pp. 640, 648). The Syriac version therefore 
must have been nearly coeval with the writings themselves. The extracts are pub- 
lished and translated by Cureton, C. I. pp. 210, 243. Dr Wright has kindly collated 
Cureton's texts with the Syriac Mss and revised his translations in the case of these 
and of the other Syriac extracts given in this chapter. 



Gelasius of Rome [tA.D. 496]. 

Adv. Eutycheti et Nestorimn {Bibl. Pair. v. iii. p. 671, De la Bigne). 

Ignatii episcopi et martyris Antiocheni, ex epistola ad Ephesios ; 
Unus Medicus est, carnalis et spiritiialis, factiis et 7wn f actus, in hoinme 
Dens, ill ?norte vita aeterna, ex Maria et ex Deo, primuin passibilis et 
tunc impassibilis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus {Ephes. 7). Et post 
pauca, Singuli, inquit, viri coinmuniter omnes ex gratia ex nomine con- 
venite in unain fidetn et in tino Jesu Christo, secundum carnem ex genere 
David, filio hominis et filio Dei {Ephes. 20). 

The authorship of this work has been questioned by Baronius, Bellarmin, and 
others, chiefly on doctrinal grounds (see p. 667, De la Bigne). The arguments of 
Baronius are discussed in Smith's Diet, of Biogr. I. p. 620, s. v. Gelasius. For our 
purpose the question is not very important, since those who refuse to accept Gelasius 
the Pope as the author assign it to Gelasius of Caesarea or Gelasius of Cyzicus, who 
were his contemporaries. 



De Divinis Nominibus iv. 12 (i. p. 565, ed. Corder.). 

Katrot eSo^e tlctl roiv KaS* rjjaas lepokoyoiv kol Oeco- 
Tepov elvai to tov epcoros ovofxa tov Trj<; dydTnrj^?- ypacfiec 
Se KOL 6 6elo<; 'lyt'ctrto?, '0 Imoc epooc ecTAYpooxAi (J^ofu. 7). 


Philoxenus of Hierapolis [a.d. 485 — 518]. 

Epist. ad Patricium (Cureton Corp. Ign. pp. 220, 251). 

'And Polycarp the disciple of John was burnt with fire, and Ignatius 
was devoured of beasts.' 

This letter of Philoxenus (or Xenaias), Monophysite bishop of the Syrian 
Hierapolis (Mabug), is contained in the British Museum MSS, Add. 14649, Add. 
14580, and Add. 12 167; see Wright's Catalogicc pp. 533, 768, 751. On this writer 
see Assem. Bibl. Orient. Ii. p. 10 sq. The dates given above are the limits of his 

IGN. I. 12 



Severus of Antioch [c. a.d. 513 — 518]. 

(i) Cramer's Cate?ia vi Epist. Cathol. p. 67 (on i Pet. iii. 19, 20). 
2EYHP0Y 'lyvctrtos 8e d 6eo(f)6po<? kol jxapTv^ ovTOi 

(jirjcTL' nooc HiweTc AyNHcoMeGA zhcai X*^P'^ ^ytoy, oy kai 
npocfiHTAi maOhta'i oNTec, TO) nNEYMATi oic AiAackaAon 


nApooN HfeipeN aytoyc 6k NeKpoJN {Magn. 9). 

This great Monophysite leader was patriarch of Antioch from a.d. 513 to a.d. 
518, in which year he was deposed. The date of his death was somewhere about 
A.D. 540, a year or two before or after (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 54). As the 
teaching of Ignatius seemed to favour Monophysite doctrine, he is frequently quoted 
by Severus. 

The title of the work to which this extract belonged is not given ; but quotations 
from commentaries of Severus on the Scriptures are not rare in the Greek Catenae. 
It is the only quotation of Severus from Ignatius extant in the Greek. The others 
are preserved in Syriac versions of his works. 

(2) Adv. Joannem Grammaticum. 

^ r^.iorifioo r^.j^CU^i^K'.l t^AOnfni°^r^ -floCU^^l\K'n 

V -•coAk'.'! en T »Kt rdjusa.usa K'cvoofV.i -A a x » '\ r< 
^ti *:qxp T«^.i ^cn ^ *. r^JTuK* r<!»jLM^^ ^:i t<lijL&avzJsa 

ocfA . r^LljtVM^VSn r<A CvcrA . rd.4at r^A.i OcrA .v^-^so 
f<A ocfA . pc^iT Y \^V5q kA aofA . rdJ^VM^tn ..^^^^^^.i 
^A^o.i ocrA .r^JLO-ZM ,.^_^ \ \-sa.i ocoA .f<lx.a t \\ 

.r^AJSo^r^ ^cA:i K'^^^K' ^ crA*.i ."»a caL.i 
T^ocu r<'.Ti'^\ . rC'crAp^.i cni^.va ..^^oAvaorAAxjLK' .1^ 


. ■ i\\jxp^ 

»^OJb .1x3 orA ocn r<^\\j ocn .^mo^r^ r<'cnXT<' .Tm^ 
•'cn^u-=n •^cno^K'.i ocn .cal».i K'i-a ocn .• t^ m .t rw 
V cni.'vx..'i ocfA i^x. )a.VSQ Ar^an ocn . .ii%3 r^Lnhvu ^.1 
rdA.l Ga-«d\-*r<' r<'icn . j» °k 1 r^ji^v-x. ^.^ai ^1 *«cn 
Kl^i.1t» rttA.i vyK'o .."lii^K' r^laK' ^ ^*r<^.,i\\'5q^x-Sa 
^.l\ r<!-D^vx-=3 .^.i.ra .r<L)ocn or^' »«cn.i K'.vrV K'^vijsn 

.coA ^T<' r<'^ai\*fc*:q r^icn .v&l ocn . K'^uxjsa.To^vJSn 
.r^juis K'ocn ._^i\^s?3 ^r<'i»ix.o ^pc^-i<\\ »AueJSa f<lA 
.K*^ axilla ^ucjsa ^Asa ^*'\\i» .1^ .rtlar^ ia^x. yixsn Ajlso 

.OreLiA'i^ ^a\.i T<'^i\K' ^ .cqL.i .1^ cnL.l 
•. .^o^rf ^j.ia^^T •ga r^L^QniY»|Qkr<A.i i*^ ^Ax.SoK' 
OAi :^ «_.o^r<' ^Vm^vjm . t<^ .ML t t ^a »^CVzA.i vyr^* 
.•f^UiiT ^73 .^.OXk vyT<' KlAK* ..^^K* ^liu T^Tlilm vyK* 
.cn^a:±>a=3 ^_oAur^ ^u-sa^coj^ 1^1 .Ausa ^^^uX^.t ocn 

12 — 2 


r<'"if^ coA rtlir^ A-^^VsJa .riLiK' hxr^jsa ^.VS« f^^ 
jLAr^ oxA 71 ^\^ ...^t^ am :r^h\OJsn ^A._:b^.i r<'''if<lA 

r-^Tf'^ -n^ cn^.ia c^Ltscujls «_o^3r<' ^ivcmo . •jjoiso 
reL5aai\^ H^rw ^odoAuK' r^-iiat-s .^^vsfl.i .^^Oial r<''i»ix.a 
K11a4Jl=30 T^li-)^ r^'crxAK'.l ^.1 r^'i-s -ioff -an .T*0.1.1 
.VS'a.-^A^K'.T .K'^oAvs ^2a K'-ii-X-a .'il»A>K':^ .rVorAr^.i 

rd^iA^ jjcu.'^aiooo .aocA^L,^ jaocu^i^ >].T-a ^K'i.ii. 

nc'A^ft' ■lon.Y \:t AA^tn .^r<'oalt<' ._^\=ja}^ ca-Z_M ^ 
..^K' . »»cno.iJSiayoQ:=QCv ^cnoib.TcA r^'^-SOi.p .1^3 ^^t'gi\s\ 



Of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the Epistle to 
the Romans. 

Perviit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God. But it is 
found in other copies, which are more ancient than these, thus : Permit 
ye me to be a disciple of the suffering of my God {Rom. 6). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to Polycarp. 

Be observant of the times. Expect Him who is above the tiines. Him 
who is without times, Him invisible, Him who for our sakes became 
visible. Him impalpable, Him without suffering. Him ivho for our sakes 
became subject to suffering, Him who for our sakes endured in a>ery 
manner {Folyc. 3). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

When ye were inflamed in the blood of God, ye perfectly accomplished 
a deed of like kind {Ephes. i ). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to those who are in Magnesia. 

Take care to do every thing, the bishop sitting in the place of God, and 
the presbyters in the place of the session of the Apostles, who are entrusted 
with the fuinistry of Jesus Christ ; who before the worlds was with the 
Father, and in the end was manifested {Magn. 6). 

Of the same, from the same Epistle. 

For the divine prophets lived i)t Jesus Christ : on this account, they 
were also persecuted, who by His grace were inspired with the Spirit, so 
that they who %vere not persuaded might be persuaded, that there is one 
God who revealed Himself throtigh Jesus Christ His Son, who is His 
Word, who proceeded from silence, who in every thing pleased Him who 
sent Him {Magn. 8). 

That He proceeded from silence is, that He was ineffably begotten of 
the Father, and so as that no word, be it what it may, can comprehend, 
or mind. Therefore it is just that He should be honoured in silence, 
and not that His divine and unprecedented birth should be enquired 
into : who, having this exaltation, for our sakes became man, not con- 
vertibly, but truly, and in every thing pleased the Father when He 
fulfilled tlic obedience for us. 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Trallians. 

For when ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye seem to 
me not to be living as men, but as Jesus Christ : who for our sakes died, 


that believing in His death ye may flee from this that ye are to die 
{Trail. 2). 

Of the same, from the same Epistle. 

But if, like nien who are tvithout God, that is, do not believe, they say 
that in supposition He suffered, when they themselves are in supposition, 
/, why am I bound ? Why then do I also pray that I may contend with 
beasts ? In vain then do I die. I belie therefore the Lord. Flee there- 
fore from evil branches which engender fruits that bear death, which if a 
man taste he dies inwiediately {Trail. 10, 11). 

Of the same, from the Epistle to the Smyrnseans. 

/ praise Jesus Christ God, who has thus made you wise. For I kneiv 
that ye were perfect in faith immovable, as if ye were nailed to the cross of 
our Lord /estis Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and ye are confirmed in love 
in the blood of Christ ; and it is confirmed to you that our Lord in truth 
is of the race of David in the flesh, but the Son of God by the will and the 
power of God, who was born in truth of the Virgin, who was baptized of 
John, in order that all righteousness ?night be fulfilled by Him. Truly 
before Pontius Pilate atid Herod the Tetrarch He ivas nailed for us in 
the flesh, of which fruit ive are, from His suffering divinely blest, in 
order that He may raise a sign to eternity by His resurrection for His 
saints and His believers, whether among the Jews or among the Gentiles, 
ifi one body of His church. For all these things He suffered for our 
sakes, in order that we might be saved; and truly He suffered, truly also 
He raised himself {Smyrn. i, 2). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12157, containing the third book of this work, which consists of 
42 chapters, in a Syriac version. The work is there entitled ' The writing of the holy 
Mar Severus, patriarch of Antioch, against the wicked Grammaticus.' The MS 
itself is described by Cureton (C. /. p. 355) and by Wright {Catalogue p. 550 sq). 
Wright ascribes it to the seventh or eighth century, and this agrees substantially 
with Cureton's opinion. The extracts are printed and translated by Cureton, pp. 
212, 245. The quotations from Ignatius belong to the 41st chapter of the book, 
which contains a collection of testimonies from the fathers. They are on fol. 
200 a, b. The Greek title of the work is kixto. tov Twcivj'ou tov Tpa/j.fji,aTiKou 
Tov Kaiaapews (Fabric. I. c. p. 617). It was a reply to a book written by this John 
in defence of the Council of Chalcedon and directed against Timotheus (Anastas. 
Hodeg. 6, p. 102 sq, ed. Migne). 

{3) Abbrev. adv. Joann. Grammaticum. 


h\c\i r^h\i\r^ ^ .[l. r<'Avu*iMr^] r^'^iurf ^h^z^ caL>.i 

. [1. ...^oAvJbajt.] a^^oAuire' ^istar. Aurt'iiSO^ reLfia^^=} 

Of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the Epistle to 
the Romans. 

Permit ye ttie to be an imitator of the suffering \of\ my God {Rom. 6). 

Of the same, after some other [words], from the Epistle to the 

When ye were inflamed in the blood of God., ye perfectly accomplished 
a deed of like kind {Ephes. i ). 

Brit. Mils. Add. 14629. This MS, which is described by Wright {Catalogue p. 
754), commences with the concluding portion (iii. 39 — 42) of an abridgment of the 
last-mentioned work, the treatise against Joannes Grammaticus. It is ascribed by 
Cureton {C. I. p. 357) to the 7th or 8th century, and by Wright (I. c.) to the 
8th or 9th. In the part corresponding to the above passage from the larger 
work is the same quotation, Rom. 6. The variation 'my God' for 'of my God' (the 
omission of ^) must be ascribed to the accident or caprice of transcription. The 
Monophysite purpose of Severus in quoting Ignatius is entirely defeated by the 
change. It will have appeared from what has been said that this extract has no 
value as independent testimony, being derived from the last. 

(4) Homiliae Cathedrales. 
(a) Bom. 37. 

. jaocuJ^i^K' r<'-x>.TD K'.icaflo.i p^'^mn ^.i ^jyiv^hw^ 

.-ai ^ ^a \ _*cn K'i-^^x. .oocn ^vsor^ .oocra ^-k_iA^ 
. r<^u,iT "gl-i .jJJ.'USn.Ao . rC'.sa \ -^ ^_») [niarg. i.^q^taiA] 
'.K'^oA^ ^us.l caA-«.l rdJco re'^il \ J^rC* r<'.ica V \=n 


. ...^asA ^1m ^jjci^^a r^-tilB."! ,_^caiLi.i r<!ji-&o.f ^oA 

On Basil the Great and on Gregory Theologus. But it was delivered 
in the church of the martyr the holy Ignatius. 

Thus in their will they seemed martyrs, for they were not held by 
their thrones, neither were they bound by the pleasures of this world. 
Since then they emulated the God-clad Ignatius, they said, // is good to 
set from the world and to rise in Christ {Rotfi. 2). For this reason we 
have assembled you in this his house, the house of prayer, for the 
commemoration of these saints ; and we have proceeded in the dis- 
course to their praises, honouring the teacher through his disciples, who 
well imitated his pastorate which was full of his sufferings. 

(b) Bom. 65. 

.j39Cu\^r^A^r<' rfcnXpdA ,T in\ A2*- 
: J30Cu\^K'-l^r<' K'orxArdA .TiiN J^r^ rdJvs cms .t^ cna 

^ .•^r<^'glik>\ rtLl'i^CXfiD.i ^ Oa xX-Sq . f^'.lM ^acocv^^^.I 

. ■ttt-gi'Sq Aur^ »>» *gl *73 ^J^r^ 'r^lasao'';.'! rdllxA-s.t ix_^ Oct? 
.VSflrilJ rtliakCQ.l rdJA-.K' A\0\^USW."1 rc^icu.i 000 .^xi 


.•»<'oora vsor^ p<'oco 2^^ KLtiSQOTA :%^ Ar^.i oor> .•r<'oorj 

rfocn ^r<' .1^ K'.icno .•T<'oi\x.n:' f<Liju2-=n s.^tA .io-mAs 
.'rfcriAsa^ ^r^.i ^cb .*T<'ocn )Qjji^v.:a.i ooA <x^ ^ crA 
.•j\ i^K* O-^A ^ .•T<'oco ..n.s.V-SO J^K* r<'.ico ^ V*^ 

oco T<aa_XT<'?i K'^v-xsil :oocd ^.i^lsno oocn .'^"t- y V 
jcmo ^i*\\ » ■i\\^K'o :\joo-=}^r^ ^>^\<\\ ««Av y «gi r<A.i 

r<lA pg^V n^Av.soc\ .r^L&.sa.fia.SQ.l ^co p<'AviA*ia-V_flpcuao 
.f<lzM.i i-jL^ oocn ^iQB°>s>3 .K'^ooqIk' ^cjlmo ^k'ctAk' 
v^K* ^re!ji-3.\:=n ^p^ '.t<Lx.<\xj« rd\ ocas <^^\^ r^ 
rdLfiODCX^ K'consw .1^ .• r^jx a* 3 K'ocoi r<lx3i-3^730 K'ifiuim 
^ jaoCUj^T^ 1 .\-»r<'o V V r^^^^.io ^\_aaxLA.i K'^OJ^m 
rtLz-jj.i K'ooort' t^Li_aJS«.vs«.i a_\ g or? ^SK' *. t<'ood i-SOK' 

•:• ^ctAk*.! 

^pf^\iT °i K'icoA cxAi .rei^icn Are' >2^i *gi.\ j3.i\ t 

r^^^ Aih. ^xjjxb.i ^03 vyK* i^AjK* vyr^.i .-.s^io kA 
.'rc ^Ti .' K'Au^reiin ^cusaSqc A\cv\^^^raa r<!moi A**.© 


^cb ^.1 .'rtli^Vm i-STQT^' K'.ioQ A!\^ .jaodfloio^ tnLucu 

On the holy Basil and Gregory ; but a few additional words are spoken 
towards the end of it also respecting the God-clad Ignatius. 

In the same manner also the God-clad Ignatius, who now has set 
before us this spiritual banquet in his house, which is the house of 
prayer, and who rejoices in the praiseworthy virtues of his disciples, was 
appropriately named Ignatius from facts, because he foreknew things 
future; for any one who is only moderately acquainted with the lan- 
guage of the Romans knows that Nurono, that is, Fiery, as we also 
say, was derived from hence ; for the Romans call the fire which is 
lighted up and blazing, Ig?iem *. Who then is he that has in himself the 
flame, that is to say, the lamp of divine love, and is inflamed by the 
desire to suffer for Christ? The same who also in writing to the 
Romans said : Fire and beasts and ten thousand sorts of torments, let them 
come upon me, only ?nay I be accounted worthy of Jesus Christ [Rom. 5). 
And since he had this within him for Him who was beloved, which is 
also wonderful, on this account also he cried, Frotn within he saith to 
me, Come thou to my Father {Rom. 7). Not only then in the similarity' 
of the name, which, commencing with God, was appropriated to Basil 
and Gregory, did they resemble Ignatius, but also in the strenuous stand 
for the truth, in boldness of speech, in contests, in sufferings, in the 
harmony of preaching. For they knew God, and taught the Word of 
God who without conversion was made flesh and was crucified for us 
and suffered in the flesh; while they little heeded the Simonian and Nes- 
torian advocacy, which is blinded and offended unholily at the suffering 
of the Godhead; for they were persuaded that the suffering did not touch 
that impassible one, although by way of the economy as one made 
flesh and made man He would be in sufferings when He was astonied at 
the sting of death which is against us, and of sin. And Ignatius indeed 
said, Permit ye me to be an imitator of the sitffering of my God {Rom. 6). 

* ' It is right to know also here that the Romans do not call fire simply Igneni ; 
but those fires which are kindled on elevated places, and show the signal of 
something which is not yet near ; for example, such as those which are kindled 
upon hills and upon heights, and blaze and show the approach of enemies, ac- 

1 This is Cureton's rendering ; and if priated to Basil as to Gregory. This 

it be correct, the reference is apparently rendering however requires a slight emen- 

to the words deocpdpos, deo\6yos, though dation in the Syriac text as printed by 

the latter was not so specially appro- Cureton from the MS, K'^CU^isaSOs 


cording to a compact and sign prearranged, which the Greeks call nvpaos: for 
this reason the teacher [i.e. Severus] says, Because he foreknew things future.^ 

(c) Horn. 84. 

t^cnXr^ .Ti-i,\ ^ T<li.rax. h\o\ ^cvcnicLjj cx^-nco 

AK* .r<'oriAr^A .Tin \ r^i ijr_a n vyr^.i aoon cnl>i rtlLso 
rdAXo hu^ r^h\aX»\Jah\ *x\ \ : T^h\o-i-r•'i^ ^jAcn r^L^cvoo 

^a\ ,-n\^^ . 'i-a3r<' r^>\\J>'or^L3 oqa.i r<LiaL*K' . (xisc-sia 
T<'.ica-Oo.i eg \ o ^i-s vy^K* : rdaJSO-x..! r^^g % \ "a 
r^ocoi oq\a A^ reA K'crAr^ ^S3S reLia^T<' / J»cu5^rda^»<' 

On Basil the Great, and on Gregory Theologus. But it was delivered 
according to custom in the interior of the house of prayer of the 
God-clad martyr Ignatius. 

And they fixed their view towards heaven like the God-clad Ignatius, 
and looked for the excellent things which are above, and were stedfast, 


and dwelt with bodyless spirits, and were out of the flesh even when 
in the flesh. Take for me, as a proof of these things, the words of him 
who as in reaUty had put on God; For I say, not because I am bound and 
am able to wider stand the heavenly things, and the places of angels, and the 
stations of principalities, visible, to wit, and invisible, froin this am I 
already a disciple ; for many thifigs are lacking to us, so that we may not 
be lacking of God ( Trail. 5). 

Let us therefore, since Christ is our head and master, and not man, 
as He says in the Gospels, be prepared for the kingdom of Heaven : like 
the saying of the martyr Ignatius, So that we may not be altogether lacking 
of God, to whom praise is meet for ever and ever. Amen. 

Brit. Mils. Add. 12159, containing a Syriac version, mutilated in parts, of the 
Epithronian or Enthroniastic Sermons (XoYot iirtdpovioi or ivdpovLaffTiKoi) of Severus, 
so called because they were delivered by him from the patriarchal chair (a.d. 513 — 
518). On the nature of this work see Fabric. Bii>i. Grace, x. p. 617, ed. Harles, Mai 
Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. ix. p. 725, Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. pp. 494, 570 sq, Wright's 
Catalogue p. 534 sq. It is divided into three books, containing Hom. i — 43, 44 — 90, 
91 — 125, respectively. 

These sermons were twice translated into Syriac (see above p. 25). Large 
portions of both versions are extant in the Nitrian Mss of the Vatican and the British 
Museum. Our MS contains the later version, made by Jacob of Edessa, a.d. 701, 
to whom the note on Horn. 65 is due. The colophon giving the date of the MS is 
mutilated, but enough can be deciphered to fix the year of writing to a.d. 868 
(Wright's Catalogue p. 545). On these homilies, delivered in the Church of S. Ignatius 
on the day of SS. Basil and Gregory, see above, I. pp. 24 sq, 48, and below, 11. p. 
421 sq. The extracts relating to Ignatius are given and translated by Cureton (C. /. 
pp. 215 sq, 247 sq). 

(5) Epistulae Severi et Juliani. 

ca_=o . r^mT so co-ra K'oco vsa^.n oco ■Ofti^i^K' At^ 

cn-sn^vr^a f^.ncn ^r«o .-JsocAcx^a AK*.! vyr^* T<'ocn Alra_sa 

. fVoco p<'CIa»^03 rdJEiK' \s r^crAr^ ^^ . A^ocn t^^n ijA\sq 

r<'oon .i^u:^^\-=a.'i A \y^q .K'oco .:b^i^^v::'3 r<'.i_M vy^r^* 


r^Lz-iJ.l r<llAfiaJt id\-=3 ^ : i m i-) ^.1 cuioo r<lx.a t » 
^00.3 .3^^ .12^ . K'^TmA r<lx.aje-M r^ K'ocn . rc'^ 
f<^t O ^ tr r^lX At<' • ."^i \ «>■ -t K'cnXr^ r<'acT7 ^cno^v-iK'.i 

KlA ^.Xftcno . rtlz.OJU» po.Tool .t^coIK' ^o ^ijsn ^o 

Also Ignatius, in whom Christ dwelt and spake even as in Paul, and 

from this he was named the God-clad : for he wrote to the 

Ephesians after this manner. Ignatius : 

Ignorance 7vas dissipated, the ancient kingdom was destroyed, 7vhe?i God 

was manifested \as'\ man for the re7ieT.val of life ivithout end : atid that 

which 7c>as petfect with God took a begifining. From hence everything was 

moved at once, because the destruction of death 7vas prepared {Ephes. 19). 

But also Ignatius, the God-clad and martyr, in writing to the Ephesians, 
teaches that Christ, in that He was passible, that is, in the flesh, 
after the trial of sufferings and of death was at the last impas- 
sible: when still, in that He was always God, He was also always 
impassible. But he speaks thus. Ignatius : 

There is one physicia?i, carnal atid spiritual^ made and not made, 
amongst men God, in death true life, both from Mary and from God, 
first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord {Ephes. 7). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 17200. 'This volume is written in a neat current hand of about 
the 7th century and contains the correspondence of Severus of Antioch and Julian of 
Hahcamassus on the Corruptibihty or Incorruptibility of the Body of Christ ' 
(Wright's Catalogue p. 554). It was translated by Paul of Callinicus, a contemporary 
of Severus (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 46). The extracts from Ignatius are 
contained in a reply of Severus (fol. _^2 a), and are given and translated by Cureton 
(C /. pp. 218, 249). 


(6) Rcfutationes Capitnlorum Jnliani. 

^x»cno rdjcoxu ^i.tdoI . K'coAK' ^o ^vsa ^ .r^i^ix. 

. «_^i.=a reLuLxZJSQ .^ox> . r<Lx.oxM r<l\ 

Of the holy Ignatius, the God-clad, martyr and archbishop of Antioch, 
from the Epistle to the Ephesians : who teaches that Christ was 
first passible in the flesh, and then impassible. 

There is one physician, carnal and spii'itual, made and not made, 
amongst men God, i?i death true life,frojn Mary and from God, first pas- 
sible arid then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord {Ephes. 7). 

Brit. Mils. Add. 14529 (Cureton C. I. pp. 218, 249). On fol. 26 a sq are 'The 
Eight Chapters of Julian of Halicarnassus with refutations ' (Wright's Catalogue p. 
919). 'The author is probably Severus,' writes Cureton (p. 358). What may be the 
relation of this work to the last, I do not know. There is mention of a /caret twv 
vpoa-O-rjKwv 'lovXiavov avyy paixfia among the works of Severus (Fabric, x. p. 618). 
The Ignatian extract [Ephes. 7) appears on fol. 37 b. It is the same as in the previous 
work, and in the same words (except Koi €K Maplas for e/c Mapias). Cureton (p. 358) 
ascribes the MS to 'the end of the 6th or the 7th century,' Wright to 'the 7th or 8th 

(7) Contra Codicillos Alexandri. 

iK'.icofloo r^'coir^ .Ti-i\ r^ii.T a.i oco ^^ Jaoo^l-^K' 

poifc- K'.icoo :cn T <\^ A^^ i_rj3f^JO rd:s^\h\^ Ar^s vyr^ 
TiiOnr \o K'^iVi ran T \ A^^uudK^.i reliK' ' wIjl-&.jl^qo r^-iK* 

' A - Tf "^ T **« without o. 


id^rso •:• cniia ri* .>» iT "rw .2^cv.z-> ."U=j orA oco t<1^\\i Ocb 

^ooon ^^^Cicn^huT^ ^coo.T-JLsaA^ :u^ r^-x-iLj ^r<'.i oob 
r^.lco^^o .orA cvocD ^^i^oa tq r^i<\\saA.i vyK' ., vuO^ 

But Ignatius, who was in truth God-clad and martyr, who saw the 
inefifable mysteries, if ever any man did, so that he could even put him- 
self forward and say of himself — and this with a humble mind — J^or 
I too, not because I am bound and am able to tmderstand heavenly things, 
a?id the settt7ig of the angelic places, and the princely hosts, things visible 
also and invisible, because of this, lo, am I a disciple {Trail. 5); [this 
Ignatius, I say,] when writing to those at Magnesia says thus : For the 
divine prophets lived in Jesus Christ. Because of this they were also 
persecuted, being inspired by His grace, in order that the incredulous might 
be persuaded that there is one God, 7vho hath revealed Himself thro2igh 
Jesus Christ His Son. And a little after [he says] : How can we live 
apart from Hiin, who7n the prophets too, si?ice they were His disciples in 
spirit, were expecting as a teacher? And because of this, He 7ahom they 
7vere justly awaiting, when He came, raised them up from the dead 
{Magn. 8, 9). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 14533. An account of the Ignatian quotations which this MS 
contains is given by Land A need. Syr. i. p. 32 sq, 11. p. 7 sq. They were overlooked 
by Cureton. On fol. 42 b (formerly 33 b) begins an extract entitled ' Of the holy 
Severus from the writings against the Codicils of Alexander.' The Greek title of this 
work is /card KwSt/ciXXwi' 'AXe^di/Spoi; avvray/xaTa (Fabric. X. p. 608). In this extract 
the Ignatian quotations occur, which are given by Land. The same extract is found 
in another MS, Brit. Mtts. Add. 12 155, fol. 56 b (see Wright's Catalogue pp. 929, 969). 

' 15 f<lA 20^0. ^ B ^_i_*». ^ B om. ooon. 


The MS 14533 is ascribed by Wright (p. 967) to the 8th or 9th century, and by 
Cureton (Spicil. Syr. p. 98, where he gives a fragment of Melito from it) to 'about 
the 7th or 8th century.' Prof. Wright assigns the other MS, Add. 12 155, to the 8th 
century (p. 921 ). He has re-transcribed the text for me and given an English translation. 
In the second and third lines Land's rendering has been retained, though not the 
natural rendering of the Syriac, which yields no adequate sense. There is perhaps 
some corruption in the Syriac text. The two Mss, Add. 14533, Add. 12 155, are 
designated A, B, respectively in the notes. 

After some remarks of Severus himself, suggested by these extracts, follows a 
quotation, ' Of the same from the Letter to Anastasia the Deaconess.' Land in his first 
volume had not stated, and apparently had not noticed, that the whole preceding 
passage, containing the Ignatian quotation, was taken from Severus ; but he did 
caution his readers against supposing that Ignatius was intended by this ' same ' 
person, adding that the mode of writing and form of quotation showed it to be an 
extract from the later father who cited Ignatius, and not from Ignatius himself (p. 35). 
Merx however [Zeitschr. fiir Wissensch. Theol. 1867, x. p. 96), disregarding this 
evidence, asserted that the pseudo-Ignatian literature was thus enriched by another 
epistle hitherto unknown. In his second volume (p. 7 sq) Land pointed out that the 
previous extract was stated to have come from Severus, and that from the whole com- 
plexion of the MS the letter to Anastasia must also have been written by Severus. 
The evidence was complete, when Wright noticed that in the MS Brit. Mtis. Add. 
1 460 1, fol. 115 b, the very same passage from the beginning of the Letter to Anastasia 
is quoted under the name of Severus of Antioch (see Zeitschr. fiir Wissensch. Theol. 
1868, XI. p. 468). In fact a conclusive answer might have been given without 
applying to these more recently accessible sources of information, for a letter to 
Anastasia the deaconess is mentioned among the works of Severus in Assem. Bibl. 
Orient, i. p. 618, and in Fabricius Bibl. Grace. X. p. 619 (ed. Harles). 

(8) Hymnus m Ignatiuni. 

^H^.l r<lAa n flft OkK* Q^^'Vr*^^ \>"*^ rdJL^.Va ^..^.1 


. nr'o^Kisol .=}ODixxu:ao r^dcn .jjuCXm vyL>.i r^tjc^.i K^sao.i 



K'oco ^^L^o .'r^lsa.i^pusa K'^uiooi-^ KrJ^ojSLx^:x,j:D n^o 


^cu^ .Tis.l OCD . r<* -a t-um K^'ta.^ ^^.l r^LiK* > *^«-^\ 

.r^^ ri^'rt 1 *n» rdAi^a .To^.io 

On the holy Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch. [To the tune 
of] He IS the Lord otw God. 

Thou who didst show Thyself in the flame of fire on the bush, and 
in [the preaching of] the Gospel didst say, / came to cast fire in {upon) 
the earth, arid I would it were already kindled ; Thou hast shown unto 
us the [great] power of that [glorious and] divine fire, when Thou didst 
raise up (show) the God-clad Ignatius, the [wise] shepherd and [proven] 
martyr, who was [eager and] in haste to come unto the likeness of Thy 
passion, and by knowledge [clearly] saw heavenly things, when he pro- 
claimed the right (true) belief* of Thy [life- working] advent which is 
in the flesh, and when he was imitating Thy humility [as Saviour], and 
was writing unto the believers, Not as Peter or Paul do I define {order) 
for you orders ; [fior] they were [chosen] apostles, but I am \a man] con- 
demned. By [means of] his prayers, Lord, [we beg,] give us a contrite 
[and humble] heart, and that burneth with the [ardent] zeal of faith. 

* As d/D^65ofos is rendered by r<^ »,3CUL.->ji^, it appears that T^h\.i»Qi^X.h\. 
r^<l\ ^\h\ = opdodo^ia. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 17 134 has been already described (p. 92 sq), as containing Hymns 
of Severus translated by Paul of Edessa, among which is one (fol. 48 a) in honour 
of Ignatius. In my first edition, following Assemani (Bibl. Or. Ii. p. 46), I had here 
attributed this translation to a namesake and contemporary, Paul of Callinicus, who 
translated other works of Severus (see above, pp. 25, 189). This seems to be a 
mistake ; see Wright's Catalogue p. 336 note, Gwynn in Smith and Wace Diet, of 

' Add. 1 88 1 6 has ^A ..i.^ ^\ 
IGN. I. 13 


Christ. Biogr. iii. p. 260 s. v. ' Paulus of Edessa '. This hj'mn is also found in 
another MS, Add. 18816 (see Wright's Catalogue p. 339 sq). The former MS contains 
two notes omitted in the latter, which only gives references. The first note gives the 
passages of Exodus and S. Luke to which the text refers ; the second gathers together 
passages from Ignatius to the Romans, which illustrate the hymn. These passages 
are printed below, iii. p. 102. The notes were presumably added by Jacob of 
Edessa, whose autograph this MS may perhaps be. The scribe has distinguished 
carefully between the words of the author (Severus) and those which were added by 
the translator for the sake of the rhythm, writing the former with black ink, the latter 
with red paint. These latter are marked in the transcript here given with an upper 
line. Wherever the translator deviates at all from the original, likewise for the sake 
of the rhythm, a more literal rendering is inserted in smaller characters between the 
lines. In the English version here given the additions of the translator are placed 
between [], and the interlinear literal renderings between (). 

This hymn is here printed for the first time. Assemani however {Bibl. Apost. 
Vat. Catal. II. p. 505) gives an extract containing the quotation from the epistle to 
the Romans from a Vatican MS. The text was transcribed and the hymn translated 
for me by Prof. W. Wright. 

Anonymous Syriac Writers [after a.d. 500]. 

The Syriac quotations which follow are v-ery miscellaneous. They occur for the 
most part in volumes of extracts, chiefly Monophysite. These extracts have not 
necessarily been taken in all cases directly from the authors by the compiler himself, 
but ai^e often derived at second-hand through some previous writer who quoted them. 
This being so, as the works of Timotheus and Severus had been already translated 
into Syriac, we may expect to find the Ignatian extracts which they give reproduced 
in these later compilations. This consideration will account for the fact that, even in 
the same volume, we meet with quotations which closely resemble the Syriac Version 
of the Ignatian Epistles side by side with others which have much nearer affinities to 
the same passages as they appear in the Syriac translations of the Greek Monophysite 
fathers. The dates of these collections of extracts are uncertain. But as they belong 
chiefly to the period during which the Monophysite controversy was at its height, 
they may be conveniently placed here. 

(i) Detnonstrationes Patrum [Anon. S}t.,]. 


K'A ^T^crao rda.a-g-M 73.IJOCU .K'cTiAr<' ^jsao ^ijsn ^ 

ClA- .iq i.» \ "> T^Arf .^. oca_=> ^^_Q s \^'^^ rdL^r^ 

(a) Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the 
Epistle to the city of Philadelphia. 
Do not err, my brethren : he who deaveth to him that rendcth the 
church doth not inherit the kingdom of God [Fhilad. 3). 

{b) Of the holy Ignatius Theophorus, from the epistle which he \vrote 
to the church which is in Asia. 

Let no man err : even heavenly beings and the glory of the angels 
and principalities visible and invisible, Ufiless they believe in the blood of 
Christ 7vho is God, there is judgment eve?ifor them {Smyrn. 6). 

Again of the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

For there is one physicia?i, carnal and spiritual, made and not tnade, 
in man God, in death true life, from Mary and from God, first passible 
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Loj-d {Ephcs. 7 ). 



(c) Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from his 
Epistle to the Smyrnseans. 

/ warn you of evil men, who are beasts and possess only the form of 
men, that ?iot only is it not right that yon should receive the?n, but if it be 
possible ye should not even meet them, but only pray for them, that they 
may 7'epefit, which is difficult, but Jesus Christ hath the power over this 
{Sinyrn. 4). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 12155, 'A volume of Demonstrations from the holy Fathers 
against various heresies'; see Wright's Catalogue p. 921 sq, Cureton C. I. p. 358. 
The probable date of this MS according to Wright (p. 954) is A. Gr. 1058 = a.d. 747. 

The Ignatian quotations occur as follows, (i) Philad. 3, on fol. ma (Wright p. 
937). This must have been taken from the Syriac Version, for it closely resembles Sj, 
e.g. in rendering <j-)(i^ovti aKoXovdei by 'adhaeret ei quiscindit ecclesiam.' (2) Smyrn. 
6, on fol. 168 b (Wright p. 946). This is obviously taken from the quotation of 
Timotheus (see above, p. i73sq), with which it agrees almost wrtom. (3) Ephcs. 7, 
also on fol. 168 b. This strongly resembles the quotation in Severus; but, as the 
translation is strictly literal, the coincidence is not conclusive. (4) Stnyrn. 4, on fol. 
262 a (Wright p. 954), a somewhat paraphrastic rendering which has no affinities 
with the Syriac Version as represented by the Armenian. Besides these, there is on 
fol. 56 a (Wright p. 929) the passage of Severus containing the quotations from 
Magnesians, which are given above, p. 190 sq. 

(2) Adv. Nestor ianos [Anon. Syr. J. 

KLi^aj^^r^.l r^L£kiki!\^ JtoCU^i^l^K' re!Jc3a^ ^CV^O {a) 

r^-XAOP OCT3 .^K'o .kLmlAx. J30Ot^& \h^js ^n^.l K'oqn.i 

re'oqai rdjAoJ^.lrt'.i rt^i*i!^ j»cu\^i^»r<' r^Jt»vi.l {b) 
.f^\. •aooo'i ^oA.i K'^i.^K' ^ . r^Lixj-iji. iAua ^-aHAx.T 
^0^0 ..AcnAK'.i ^oDOXw.l r^ocDK' r^'-USQ.t-Sa.i uA afia&T<' 
r^^micv^ ^ooo^T<'.i c\cn .• y^ n A ^ ojjai t^'.i^fio .i-9Qt^ 


(a) And again the blessed Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch, who was 
the second after Peter the Apostle, he also spake thus in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius : 

Bui there deceived the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary and 
her child-birth, and in the same manner also the death of our Lord 
{Ephes. 19). 

{b) Of the holy Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch, who was the second 
after the Apostles, from the Epistle to the Romans. 

Permit ye me to be an itnitator of the sufferings of my God {Rom. 6). 

And again he said, 

My spirit boweth doum to thy cross, ^vhich is an offence to those 
who do not believe, btit to us for salvation and for eternal life 
{Ephes. 18). 

{c) For the holy Ignatius, the disciple of the holy Apostles, said ] 
He who honotcreth the priest honoureth Christ. 

Brit. Mus. Add. 14535. This volume begins with a treatise against the 
Nestorians by some Monophysite writer ; see Wright's Catalogue p. 796 sq, Cureton 
C. I. p. 359. Wright assigns this MS to the earlier part of the ninth century. 
For the Ignatian quotations see Cureton C. I. pp. -219, 250, Wright p. 797. 
They seem to be derived from various sources. Ephes. 19 has points of resemblance 
with Timotheus, but these may be accidental. On the other hand it is not taken from 
the Syriac Version (represented by 2A). Rom. 6 is too short to admit of any inference. 
Ephes. 18 is closely connected with the Syriac Version, for it renders Trepi\pr}/j.a tov 
crravpov by adorat crucem ; but on the other hand it has one or two striking divergences, 
e.g. 17/itc with the Greek for vixlv with the Syriac. The last passage which the 
compiler quotes, as from Ignatius, is not found verbatim in any extant Ignatian 
Epistle, but it may be a loose reminiscence of Smyrn. 9 6 tuxQiv eiriaKoirov viro OeoC 

(3) Plerophoria [Anon. Syr.3]. 

.ukLt.i K'ctAk'.i r^LzM.l rfocorc' r<'-\i^q.V5a.i 

The holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from the Epistle 
to the Romans. 

Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God {Rom. 6). 


Brit. Mus. Add. 12 154 a volume of miscellaneous contents, which Wright 
(Catal. p. 976) ascribes to the end of the 8th or beginning of the 91)1 century. 
The first treatise, which contains the Ignatian quotation (fol. 13 a), is a 
Plerophoria in defence of Monophysite doctrine. The quotation does not agree 
exactly with the passage as quoted anywhere else. See Cureton C. I. pp. 220, 
250. .359- 

(4) Catena Patrmn [Anon. Syr.^]. 

Of the holy Ignatius, archbishop and martyr, from the Epistle to 
those at Tarsus. 

/ have learned that some, ministers of Satan, have desired to trouble 
you ; there being some of them, who say that Jesus was born in i/nagina- 
tion, and was crucified in imagination ; but others, that He is not the Son 
of the Creator ; and others, that He is God the Father who is over all ; 
and others, that He is a mere man ; and others, that this flesh will Jiot 
rise again {Tars. 2). 

Brit. Mus. Add. 17 191, fol. 58 a; see Cureton C. I. p. 363 sq, Wright's 
Catalogue p. 1012. This MS is a palimpsest; and the later hand, which contains 
a collection from the fathers, is ascribed by Wright (p. 1008) to the 9th or 
loth century (see also Cureton p. 363). The same fragment is contained also in Brit. 
Mus. Add. 17214, fol. 74 a (see Wright p. 917), where the opening words of the 
epistle, § I 'Atto Sepias /tte'xpt "PuiyUTys 6r}piOfj.axoi, also are quoted. This MS is ascribed 
by Wright to the 7th century, and must be the same which Cureton (p. 364 sq) 
mentions, without however giving the number, and assigns to the 6th century; see 
also my notes on Clem. Rom. ii. § i. This same fragment from the Epistle to the 
Tarsians is given also in B>-it. Mus. Add. 14538, fol. 148 a (see Wright p. 1007), but 
in a different form and somewhat mutilated owing to the condition of the ms. 

The above is printed from Add. 17 191. The only variations of Add. 172 14 are 
that it reads OV^JuaT^ for the first word and inserts ^Si before r^AXJy^XJSn. 
This quotation has no very decisive coincidence with the Syriac version (as represented 
by the Armenian), but may have been derived thence. 


(5) Exccrpta Patrum [Anon. Syr.g]. 

^ ^cno^r^*.! ocn,\ . r^'- jjL-NXJSq .ik.<\Y-A r<^r<' ■ »>»"it -73 
.pc^ WV.=3 K'orArt'.i ^.T r<'i=3 .i^J&_=s x*0.i ^\^-=3.i rd_^"i\ 
.^ij50 o^\-3 ^ Av»r<'i*%_x. .tl»^»<'.'« .K'coAk'.t KLIj-mO 

Ox-O,^ ._^orA ij5ar<'o .^^j^O^o .fiooo^^ dv&=>.i ,^._^Joo 
oAups' .T^ :-,_acn5a.i^ .^^aLK*© ^K*© .r<li?<' KLit<'."! ovjjo 

rdXk.Tc .,»__acaJ5a^ .A^ A jjO [or vsoiao] vvoiao i^'N-rr 

^__V2« JkOZ..') OCD (<LAA^ oAut<' 0000 .oiuPt'.T .^mM s^ 

•:• r^orArt'.'! K'^CcaAjSol a._^i_ii-^ rdA rClicn riLAA^ vyrC 
j)DCUr<L>iAp XCL^ pe'.TMLn'ga . J30CUr<L»T^.l cn^cx^l^Qn .^z.^ 

^sosk. co^aA^ .t^'ctAkA .xi">\ •adclA^kLx^K' ocd ^tk 

Ignatius Nurono, the disciple of John the EvangcHst. / ^^lorify 

Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of the house of David according to the 

flesh, but the So/i of God according to nature and the power of God ; 

who 7oas truly born of the Virgin Maiy, and was baptized by John, 

and truly suffered, and was nailed to the cross for our sake that He 


might give us life ; and He arose fro7n the dead, and came to those who 
were luith Peter and John, and said to them, Feel and see that it is I ; 

and He ate and drank with them as being in the flesh and and 

mingling with them {Smyrn. i, 2, 3)'. The holy Ignatius. . . .^ They say 
of the holy one that he was the disciple of John. And he was the child 
whom our Lord took up in His arms and said, Except ye ticrn yourselves 
and bcco?ne as this child, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God. 
Peter was the first bishop in Antioch, and after him was Euodius, and 
after this one, third, behold Ignatius was upon the throne about eighty 
years, until the ninth year of the reign of Trajan. Straightway Trajan 
commanded, and they brought him to Rome, and he was devoured by 
beasts on the tenth of the Latter Teshrin in the year 419 of the Greeks, 
in the year 1 1 1 after the advent of our Lord. Ignatius is interpreted 
to mean God-clad. May his prayer be with us, Amen. 

Bodl. Marsh loi fol. 16: see the Catal. Cod. MSS Bodl. Syr. p. 461, no. 142. 
The extract from Smyrn. i — 3 is much abridged. It is overlooked by Cureton 
and has never (to my knowledge) been printed before. The collection of extracts 
in which it occurs follows immediately after a letter of Jacob of Edessa, but 
it does not appear from the Catalogue who made the collection. Nothing is said of 
the date of the MS. Dr Neubauer has kindly recollated the transcript which I made 
from it some years ago, and Prof. Wright has added a translation. 

On the confusion between the Former and the Latter Teshri (October and Novem- 
ber), as regards the date of Ignatius' martyrdom, see below, 11. p. 420. Here also a 
further error is committed. A letter has fallen out, and thus the loth is substituted 
for the 17th, the correct day. Again the year 419 of the Greeks does not correspond 
with 1 1 1 of our Lord according to the common reckoning. 

As regards the Syriac fragments, the conclusions at which Merx arrives are 
peculiarly unfortunate: see Meletem. Ignat. pp. 64 sq, 79 sq, Zeitschr.f. IFissensc/i. 
Theol. 1S67, X. p. 91 sq. He supposes that there were three Syriac versions of these 
epistles, (i) The Curetonian Syriac, which contained the seven epistles of the 
Middle Form, and from which the three epistles of the Short Form first published by 
Cureton are merely extracts or abridgements. This was the oldest translation of all. 
The translator followed the usage of the Peshito Version of the N.T. in his rendering 
of words. From this Syriac text the Armenian Version of the epistles was made. 
(2) The Severian Syriac, so designated because the quotations in Severus were 
taken from it. It was made 'before the times of the Arians,' apparently in the 3rd 
century. This translation again contained the seven epistles of the Middle Recension, 
but was more literal than the other. (3) A third Syriac Version containing the 
additional epistles (to Mary, Hero, the Antiochenes, Tarsians, and Philippians ; Merx 
does not say anything of the Epistle from Mary to Ignatius). To this belonged the 

1 Neither VVOVSO nor vaCWSO gives any sense. Probably we should read 

f<~^ f** *r»S \ '' tr ijjO^aO, and in the spirit mingled with the Father. 
- The meaning of the letters »» t^m in this heading is not apparent. 



fragments, Hero i (see iii. p. 102), and Tars. 1 (see above, p. 198). And from it the 
Armenian translator got the additional epistles. In his Mdetemata Merx did not say 
whether this version was confined to these five additional epistles or contained the 
seven also. But on the appearance of Land's A7iecdota Syriaca, containing some 
hitherto unpublished fragments (see above, p. 190 sq), he was convinced that these 
also belonged to his third version {Zeilschr. fiir Wiss. Theol. 1. c). Thus he sup- 
poses three distinct translations of the seven epistles into Syriac. 

We are constrained to ask whether the demand for the Ignatian letters 
among native Syrians was likely to have been so great as this hypothesis requires. 
But, independently of the a priori improbability, this theory of a second and third 
translation involves strange difficulties of which Merx takes no account, (i) The 
hypothesis of a Severian Syriac is based on the fact that the quotations in Severus do 
not agree with the 'Curetonian.' Yet as Severus wrote in Greek, and not in Syriac, 
it would be most improbable that they should agree. The translator or translators of 
the works of Severus would be much more likely to have translated the Ignatian 
quotations bodily with the text of Sevenis than to have hunted them out in an existing 
Syriac Version. At all events, if they do not agree with the only Syriac Version of 
which we have any knowledge, it is a safe inference that they did so translate them. 
Merx again lays some stress on the fact ('gravissimum est') that the quotations of 
Severus agree with those of Timotheus (p. 55), If they had agreed to any remarkable 
extent, this would be a solid argument in favour of their having been taken from a com- 
mon source, i.e. from a Syriac Version accessible to the translators of both. But even 
then we should have to remember : (a) That the agreement might arise from the fact that 
both followed the Greek closely ; (|3) That, as these translations were apparently made 
in the Monophysite interests and probably under the same influences and about the 
same time, the very expressions in the more striking quotations might be transmitted 
from the one translation to the other. But in fact the only quotations which the 
two have in common are Rom. 6 and Afagn. 8. (i) The first of these extends only to 
nine words, einTpixpaTi fxoi /j.ifj,7jTriv elvai rov Trddovs tov 6eou /xov. It is twice quoted 
in Timotheus and three times in Severus : see pp. 174 sq, 178 sq. The two quotations 
of Timotheus do not exactly agree between themselves, nor do those of Severus 
among themselves. But one of Timotheus which is a strictly literal renderi^ig of the 
Greek agrees exactly with one of Severus. Why should they not so agree ? This is 
essentially one of those stock quotations of which I spoke, where agreement was 
probable. Indeed the only words in which there was room for any real difference are 
eTTirpiireii' and /xifxrjrrjs, of which the former is translated by its common equivalent in 
the Peshito, and the latter by the substantive derived from the verb which represents 
fii/j-elaOai, /j.LixT]Triv yiveadai, in that version, (ii) The second quotation, Magn. 8, is some- 
what longer, though it does not extend beyond a few lines. Here however Timotheus 
and Severus by no means agree. Being literally translated, the passages could not but 
coincide in many respects; yet in points of Syriac idiom there are several differences, and 
in one part there is a wide divergence, attributable to various readings in the Greek text 
of the Ignatian Epistles. Timotheus read \6-^o% dtSios ovk kirh ai-yri% wpoeXduf, whereas 
the text of Sevenis omitted dtdios ovk. This difference is reproduced in the Syriac. 

Merx indeed would insert a negative in Severus by reading JS3 f^\ for »2>31, 
but there are evidences of a much wider diffusion of the reading adopted by Severus 
(see the notes on Magti. 8), and even after this violent change the word atbios remains 
unrepresented. (2) The third version according to Merx supplied the text of the 


additional epistles to the Armenian translator. But, if this was so, and if (as Merx 
maintains) it comprised the seven epistles as well, why should the Armenian 
translator have deserted it in part of his work and have had recourse (as Merx 
supposes) to another Syriac Version — the ' Curetonian ' — for these seven epistles ? 
Moreover it is now ascertained (see above, p. 192) that the very quotations. Trail. 
5, Magn. 8, 9 (in Land's Anecd. Syr. p. 32 sq), which Merx assigned to this third 
version, because they did not agree with the quotations of Sever us, and which convinced 
him that this version must have comprised the seven epistles also {Zeitsch. f. 
Wissensch. Theol. 1. c), are taken from a work of this very Severus himself. 

Thus of the three translations, which Merx supposes, the first alone remains. 
Whether it originally included the spurious epistles (in addition to the seven Vossian 
letters) or whether these were a later addition, may be a matter of question. 

I have dealt with this theory at some length, because I wished to dispose of it once 
for all and to prevent the necessity of referring to it again. The question of the Igna- 
tian writings is so intricate in itself that unless pains are taken to disengage it from 
artificial entanglements which critics have created, it will become hopelessly involved. 
Moreover it seemed necessary to protest against the vicious principle — which underlies 
so much recent criticism — of multiplying documents to account for accidental differences 
of language in quotations. [This note was written some time before the appearance 
of Zahn's Ignatius v. Antiochien, in which he has discussed (p. 174 sq) the theory 
of Merx to the same effect.] 

Ephraem of Antioch [t c. A.D. 545]. 

(i) Epist. ad ZcfwMiwi, Photii Bibliotheca 228 (p. 246). 

Onep ovv eipr]Tai, Kara to rpiTov Ke^aXaiov eK re tcou 
evayyekiKOJV (fxovojv Kal ek tcov aTToaroXiKcov, /cat St) /cat eV 
TCtjv ixaKapioiv TraTepoiv T^fxaiv, ^lyvariov tov ®eo(()6pov Kal 
lovXiov Kal ^AOavaaiov Kal Tp-qyopiMv /cat BacrtXetov, 
SteXey^et toOs 8vcr(Te/3et9, oj? tj tojv apdpcov )(pr}(rL<; {iravTe^ 
yap ovTOL T0VT0t<5 i)(pTJaavTo) ovheyiiav Top^r^v rj hiaipeaiv 
eiTivoei Tyj<; iu(6cre(o<?. 

(2) De Sacris Antiochiae Legibus, lb. 229 (p. 258), 

Kat d 6eo(^6po<^ Se 'lyi^arto?, Spvpvaioi<i imcrTeWoiv, 
o/aoto)? K€)(prjTaL rw apdpco' Kal 6 'P(6pr]<; 'lovXtos iu rfj tt/jos 

AoKLOU ilTKTTokfj ipTjCTLV' "flcTTe dvaOeiXa eCTTO) TTCtS O TOV 

e/c Mapta? avOpoiiTOV ov^ 6po\oycov eivai evaapKov ©eoi'. 

Ephraem is here represented as quoting Ignatius in illustration of the use of the 
definite atricle in the expressions 6 Oeds and 6 dvdpwrros, when applied to our Lord. 
The reference therefore is probably to Sniyrn. i '\t)(toxjv 'Kpiarov tov Qtov tov ovtws 


coficavTa K.T.X. (see the nott, 11. p. 289). Another possible, but less probable, 
reference would be Smyrn, 4 ro\J nXeiov dvOpunrov, 


Jovius THE Monk [c. a.d. 530]. 

Oeco7iomica Tradatio vii. 31, Photii Bibliotheca 222 (p. 195). 

<^t](j\ yap o 0eo(f)6po'^ 'lymrtog, rpta XaOelv rov ap^ovTa 
rov alcovo^ tovtov, tyjv TrapOeviav Mapta?, rrjv avXkrjxjjLU tov 
KvpCov, /cat TTju (jTavpoiariv {Ephes. 19). 


John Malalas [c, a.d. 570?]. 

(i) Chronogr. x. p. 252 (ed. Bonn,). 

'Ei/ rw 8e avUvai avTov [jov UeTpou^ eV Trj ^Vatixrj, Step- 
)(oiJL€vov avTov Sl ^ KvTio^eia^ Trj<; fxeydXr)'? crvueftr) TeXevTrjcrai 
EuoSoi' TOV eiricTKOTTOv /cat irarpidp^v^ kvTio^etaf;' /cat eXaySe 
TO a-)(rjjjLa ryjq eTrtcr/coTTi^S 'Ai^rto^etas Trj<; fjLeyd\r)<; lyuaTLO^, 
TOV dryiov UeTpov tov aTTOcTToXov ^eipoTOvqcTavTO^. 

(2) lb. xi. p. 276. Quoted above, p. 63. 

For the probable date of this writer, and for his untrustworthiness, see below, in. 
p. 437 sq. 


Gregory of Tours [c. a.d. 577]. 

Historia Francorum i. 25. 

Tertius post Neronem persecutioncm in Christianos Trajanus movet 
sub quo... Ignatius Antiochensis episcopus Romam ductus bestiis depu- 


EVAGRIUS [c. A.D. 594]. 

Historia Ecdesiastica i. i6. 

The passage is (juoted at length below, ii. p. 387, where also it is 


Stephanus Gobarus [c. a.d. 575 — 600?]. 
Photii Bibliotheca 232 (p. 291). 

'lymrtos /xeVrot d (deo(f)6po<; /cat, KXr^^ai^? o Srpw/Aareus 
Kal ^vcre^LO^ 6 TlafjL<f)LXov kol ©eoScoprjTos 6 Kvpov ttjv [Jiev 
^LKoXaircov KaTayivcocTKOvcriv alpecnv, tov Se 'NiKoXaov jxt) 
Tov TOLOVTov elvau a7TO(f)aLvovTaL. 

The reference is to Ps- Trail. 1 1 ; comp. Ps-Philad. 6. This is the earliest distinct 
reference to the spurious or interpolated epistles. 

On this writer, who seems to have lived in the latter part of the 6th century, see 
Walch Hisl. d. Ketzer viii. p. 883. The latest writer whom he quotes is Severus of 


Anastasius I OF Antioch [f a.d, 598 or 599]. 
De Redis Veritatis Dogmatibtis . 
(i) Mop(f)rjv SovXov 'qfKJiLecriJievov, iva XdOr) 0eos cov tov 
dp^ovTa TOV aia)uo<5 tovtov {Ephes. 19). 

This extract was taken by Pearson from a MS in the Library of Trinity College, 
Cambridge (Pliid. Ign. p. 81, ed. Churton). I have made enquiries of the Librarian, 
who has searched for this MS in vain. 

(2) 'lyvaTLOv TOV deo(f)6pov kol fjidpTvpos Ik ttJs im- 
aToXijs TTpos Tov<5 iu TdpcTO). 

Ei r^p HAeic OTi OeoY Y'oc hn, eriNoocKec on, reccApA- 


TO AiHNeKec HAyNATo TOYTO noiHCAi" AiA Ti ofN neiNA) i'na 
Aei'lH OTI aAhBooc ANeAABe ccoma OMOionAGec A'N0pcjbnoic" Aia 
MGN r^p TOY npooTOY eAeilcN oti 0e6c, Aia Ae toy AeyTepoy 
OTI KAi ANepcanoc {Philipp. 9). 

This extract is given in Mai Script. Vet. Nm. Coll. vii. i. p. 22 (comp. Ussher p. 
cxxix). Anastasius has wrongly named the epistle quoted. There is some doubt to 
which of the many persons bearing the name Anastasius these extracts should be 
assigned ; but on the whole the first Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch seems the most 
probable author : see Fabric. Bibl. Grace. X. p. 595 sq, ed. Harles ; Lequien Oricns 
Christ. II. p. 736. For a further reference in this Anastasius to the Ignatian letters 
see the next extract. 



Gregory the Great [a.d. 594 or 595]. 

Epist. V. 39, ad Anastasiiim Antiochemim, Op. vii. p. 520 {Veuet. 1770). 

Amen Gratia. Quae videlicet verba de scriptis vestris accepta, 
idcirco in meis epistolis pono, ut de sancto Ignatio vestra beatitudo 
cognoscat quia non solum vester est, sed etiam noster. Sicut enim 
magistrum ejus apostolorum principem habemus communem, ita quoque 
ejusdem principis discipulum nuUus nostrum habeat privatum. 

The words, 'A/xtiV rj x^P's, appear now only in Ps-Polyc. 8 and Ps-Ephes. 21 ; but 
there are reasons for thinking that they may at one time have been found in the text 
of the genuine Ignatius (see iii. p. 266). If however this Anastasius was the writer of 
the work quoted just above, he must have been acquainted with the spurious epistles. 
On Gregory's quotation see above, I. p. 125 sq. 

Leontius of Byzantium [? c. a.d. 600]. 
De Sedis Actio iii. i (Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. xii. p. 633). 

'EyeVovTO 8e Iv rot? yjiovoi^ rot? (xtto ttJs yepvijaeax; rov 

yipiCTTOV fJ'€)(pL rrji; /3a(T(,Xeta<? KcjvcTTavTLVOV StSacr/caXot kol 

7raTepe<; olSe' 'lyvctTto? o @eo(f)6po<;, Elprjualof;, 'lovo-rtvo? 

(f)L\6(TO(f)o<? Koi fxdpTVS, K\yjixr)<; koI IttttoXvto? CTrtcr/coTrot 

'F(ofMr)<;, Aiovvcrt09 d 'ApeoTraytrr^g, Me^o8to9 lTTiarKOTro<s 

Uardpajp, Vp-qyopio^ 6 Oavfjiarovpyos, IlerpQ? o 'AXe^av- 

8p€ta9 eTTiaKOTTO^ Kol fxdpTv;. TovTOVs anavTa'? at fxer 

avToif? yeuofxevaL alpeo'eLS Se^ovrat. 

On this writer see Fabricius Bi^l. Graec. viii. p. 309 sq (ed. Harles), and especially 
F. Loofs Leontius von Byzanz etc. in Gebhardt and Hamack's Texte u. Untersuchun- 
gen III. Hft. i, ii (1887). As the result of a careful investigation, this last writer 
arrives at the conclusion that the original work of Leontius, the Scholia, was written 
about A.D. 540, and that the de Seclis was a later recension dating between A.D. 579 — 
607, and therefore long after the death of Leontius. 

Antiochus the Monk [c. a.d. 620]. 
Honiiliae {Patrol. Graec. Lxxxix. p. 142 1 sq, ed. Migne). 
(i) Horn. I, p. 1432. 
'O TcXeto? TTtcrTos Xt^o9 vcKov 0eot) virdpy^^i i^rot/u-acr/xeVo? 


et? OLKoSofjLrjp ©eoO Trar/aos, dva^epofJievoq €t9 ret v^r] Sta T'179 
lJLr})(avrj<; Irjcrov XpLcrTov, 6 eVrt crravpos, cr^oivoi ^w/xe^'os 
Tw TTvevfxaTL' 7) Se ttlcttls dvOpaj-rrov dyojyevs ecrriv, rf he 
dydirr) dSo9 r) dvacjiepovaa el<s tov &e6v. Koi 6 TOLOVToq 
yivETai 0eo(f)6po<;, -qyovv •x^pL<JTO(f>6po<;, koX i^aog ©eou /cat 
dycoSpofios, Kol rd irdvTa KeKOcriJir]ixevo^ ev rats ivToXai^ 
l7]crov XpLCTTov- Kol ap')(7) ^ojtJs 17 Sta 7TLcrTeco<; /cat dydrrr)<; 
et9 [1. 7)9] oOSez^ TrpoK€KpvTai {Ephes. 9, 14, Magn. i). 

(2) /^., p. 1436. 

Aa/Soj'Te? ovi/ ©eov yi'cGcrtv Sta tt^? TrtVreaj?, /jLt) dyvoijcrco- 
fxev rrjv SoOeLo-au yjjxlv ^dpuv, virep >)? ireTrovdev dkrjdco^; 6 
Kv/3to9. Sta TOVTO yap /cat ^xvpov eXafiev inl Trj<; Kecf>a\'fj<; 6 
Kvptog, tVa nverj rfj eKKkiqcria a(^6apcriav. fjLYjSel^ ovu ctXet- 
(fyeaOoj ovacoSCav aTrtcrrtas tov dpyovro^; rov al(ovo<; {Ephes. 17). 

(3) ^w//. 21, p. 1500. 

Meya oui^ ecrrtv ez^ dyveia ixeveiv et? tt}^' TLixrjv Trj^ 
aapKos TOV KvpCov iv aKav^rjoria- idu yap Kav^rjcrr^Tai, 
dnaiXeTO {Polyc. 5). 

(4) Horn. 22, p. 1501. 

'^Afxeii'ov ovv iaTLv cnoiTrdv /cat eti^at iq XaXovvTa<; fxyj 
elvai. Ka\6v to StSacrKetv, idv 6 \4yoiv Troifj. ef? ovp 6 StSacr- 
/caXos* a;5 etnev, /cat iyeveTO' /cat d crtycuz^ Se TTeTToCrjKev, 
a^ta Tou TTarpo^ laTiv. 6 \6yov ^Itjctov XpLcrTov KeKTr)fX€PO<s 
dXr]0(o^ Suz^arat /cat Trj<; r^crv^ta? aurou dKoveiv, iva rj TeXeto'?' 
Lva St' wz/ XaXet, Trpdorcrrj, /cat St' qjz^ crtya, yivwcTKiqrai. 
ovhev yap XavOdvei tov KvpLOv, dXXd /cat rd KpyvTa T^jxajv 
eyyv<; avTov elaLU {Ephes. 15). 

(5) Horn. 29, p. 1532. 

KaXoz/ ot;!/ icTTLV diToOecrOai ttjv KaKrjv C^fJi'qi' Trjv 
iraXaioiOeicrav /cat ivo^vcracrav k.t.X. {Magn. 10). 

(6) Horn. 57, p. 1605. 

OvSet? yap tticttiv inayyeXXoixevo^ dfiapTauei, ovSe dydirrfv 
e^oiv fXLcrel. (f)avep6i' yap to SevSpop diro tov Kapirov yiveTai, 


o ovv iTTayye\X6fJievo<; XpcaTov elvai, hi cop irpdaaei, 6(f)6-q- 
crerat {Ephes. 14). 

(7) Horn. 80, p. 1673. 

EvaTToSe/cTov ©ew 7179 et'wcre&jg T179 iKK\7]crLa<; (f)povTL'CeLu, 
1^9 ou8e^' OLfieLVov iv dv0pc67roi<;' kol to TrdvTa'^ f^acTat^eiv, oj? 
Kttt T7/xa9 d Kvpto9, /cat TrdvTOiv dve^ecrOai iv ayd-rrr]. Kai cv 
XPV ^y^oyoi hrjOev Trpocjidcrei, Iva pjrj etVw /cat Xtav aXdyw, 
dTTOCTTTclv iavTov^ Tov c7'C(jjLLaT09 TT79 iKKXr)(Tia'; KOL tSta^eti^, 
aW eVt TO avTO jxia Trpocrevy^, jxta Sey]aL<;, et9 pov<;, fxia 
eX.7rt9 eV dydnj], iv rfj rrj a/xw^w, d icrriv ^liqcxov'i 
Xyot(TTd9, ov ovSet' dvjxyjSearepop. irdvTe^ ovv ocfyeiXofxep 
(TVPTpi^eip co<; evrt ei^ Ovaiaarrjpiop, /xta ^v^-q Kap ip noXkols 
T0t9 iJLeXecTiP, jxia ypcujxr) evl OeXr^xaTi, (o<i ev crcoixa virdp^ov- 
769 {Folyc. I, Mag7i. 7). 

(8) ZT^w. 85, p. 1693. 

Sv ovt' ez/Sucrat tt}^ TTicniv ttjv Icr^vpdv. CTTcoixev ovv 
eSpaloi, o>9 aKfxcop, TviTTOfxepot. fxeydXov d0\.y)Tov ianp Se- 
peaOai /cat vLKav- /xctXtcrra Se ©eov eveKep irdpra vnoixepco- 
jxev, Iva /cat av7'd9 iJlJids vTroixeiprj. cnrovSoLOL yepcojxeOa, tou9 
Kaipovs KaTaixd6o)ixev, top virep ^opop TrpoaSoKovpre^, top 
d^popop, TOP dopaTOP, St' i^fxds Se opaTOP, top dxjjqXdcfirjTOP, 
8t' •)7/xa9 8e xprjXaffirjOePTa, top diraOrj, St' '/)//,a9 Se TTaOoPTa, 
TOP ip jxaKpoOvfxia vdpTa St' 'qjxd<; VTrofxeiPCiPTa {Folyc. 3). 

(9) Horn. 92, p. 17 13. 

To cru/A7rao"^etv aXX')^Xot9 /cat <TVPaXy^ip avPTpi^ip re 
/cat (TvyKOTTidp e-udpecTTOP icTTip tw ©ew. /cat yap XP^^' 

(TTOVIxeP TOVTO 7TpdTT6LP, W9 SovXot KOL TrdpeSpOL /Cat VTT- 

TjpiTai TOV 0eov Xdyov tva evo-pecTTcofxep (o icTTpaTevOrjixep, 
d(f) ov /cat Ta oxpcovLo. Kop.i(T6pueda...dyoiPi(T(i)}x^eda ovv tVa 
Tj 7rtcrTt9 Tj^cop KoX rj dydiriq /cat 17 vnoixop"^ cJ9 TreptKe(^aXaia 
/cat C(59 Sdpv /cat TraponXta rjfxlp ecTTMcrap, p.aKpo9vp.ovpTe<s 
jxeT dXXtjXojp /cat ev TrpaoTTfTi hidyoPTe'i, &59 /cat d ©ed9 /xe^' 
rfjicov {Polyc. 6). 


(10) Horn. io6, p. 1756. 

To o^oXct^etz/ ttJ aStaXetTrrcj TTpocrev)Q avajKolov koI 
eTTw^eXe? tjijIv vTrdp^eL (Polyc. i). 

(11) Horn. Ill, p. 1780. 

'Xl<^eXetas 8i6p6oj(TL<i yuvecrOo) Trap' avrov, e/cSt/cett' avTov 
Tov TOTTov iv TToicrrj eTTLixeXeia Tri/evju-art/c^, cfipoi'Tii,eLv tt]^ ip(o- 
aecoq tcov fxeXcou, t)? ovSeu ay^eivov, ttolvtcdv ave^eaOai ev dydiry, 
7rdvTa<; jSacrToit^eLV, oj? kol ovtov o KiJpto?. Trpocrev)(eadco virep 
TrdvTO)v a8taXet77"Tcu5, aiTeiv crvvecriv TTPevjJiaTLKrjv et? to htaKpi- 
veiv avTov to. (TVjxc^ipovTa, yprjyopelv, p.epiyivdv irepl TrdvTOjv, 
ra ikaTTcojxaTa TrdvTOiv koI rets voaov^ /Baorrd^eLv, w? reXeto? 
dO\.r}TT]S' OTTOV yap TrXeCcov kottos, ttoXv kol to KepSo^. tov<; 
KaXovg ixaOrjTds idu <f)iXfj, X^P'''^ avTM ovk ecTTLv, dXXd ixdXXoj/ 
Tov<; dTTei9ecrTipov<; ev TrpaoTrjTi vTroTdccreiv. ov irdv Tpavfxa 
TTf avTrj ifiTrXdcTTpco BepaneveTai. tov^ Trapo^vcrfiovs iv 
/Spo^^ai? Set TTaveiv. ecrroj cfypovLjxo^; iv ndcnv a>9 ol octets kol 
aKepaio^ W9 at rrepio'Tepai' Lva tol fjiev (jiaLvofieva avroiv et? 
TTpocroiTTov KoXaKevT), ra Se ctopara alTrj (f)avep(o6rjvaL avrw* 
Lva fxr]Sev6'? XetVr/rat aXX' iv ttovtI ;)(aptV/u,aTt nepLcrcrevr). 
o Kaipo^ yap diraiTei avTov, cus Kv^epvtJTTjv Trpo? tov<; dvip.ov<; 
Kai Ta9 rptfci'/xta? Kat [,dXas tcov vvevfJidTcov Trj<? TropveCa^ 
(TTrjvai yevvaLco<5, /cat oSrjyelv tov<; x.'^LfJLai,ojjL€vovq itrl tov 
Xt/iteVa TOV 6eXrifJLaT0<; tov %eov {Polyc. i, 2). 

(12) i%>w. 112, p. 1784. 

'O p.ova-yo<^ ovk e)(et kavTov i^ov(jiav...ol ydp aapKiKoX 
ra TTvev/xaTLKa irpdcrcreLv ov SvvavTat, ovoe ol TrvevjxaTLKol 
ra crapKLKd. ^PV ^^^ '^^^ (3ovX6fxevov tyjv ayyeXiKrjv Tav- 
Tr)v TOV [xov-jpovg ^iov dcTKrjcraL TToXiTeiav, KTTjcracrOai 
TTjv (f)p6vr)aL,v TOV o(f)e(o<; kol to aKepaiov Trj<; Trept- 
(TTepd<; {Polyc, 7, Ephes. 8, Polyc. 2). 

(13) Horn. 116, p. 1793. 

'O ofTcus fxa9rjTrj<; BiXei dSiKelcrOai /cat fxy] dSiKelv, /cat 
8ta TaTTeLvcocreoj^; VLKyjcrac tov^ aSt/cowra? avTov, /cat Trpo? 


ra? opya<; avrcov Trpav; elvai, irpo^ to ixeyaXopprjfxov avTcov 
Ta7r€Lv6(f)p(oi/, Trp6<g to aypiov rjjxepo'?, /cat fxrj ofMOiovcrOat 
avTo2<; ev jxrjSePi, dXXa Tjj eirieiKeia, o>9 [xifirjTrjs tov KvpCov, 
cnrovSd(,a}U {xdWov dhLKiqBrjvai rJTrep aStKiTycrat Ttva {Ephes. 10). 

(14) Horn. 124, p. 1820. 

'O 6€0(f>6pos 'lyt'CLTtos i-mcTTekXeL Xeycov Tto enicKcJnco 
npocex£Te, Fna ka'i d Oeoc y^in. antiVyXon efoi tco ynoTAC- 
coMGNto enicKoncp npecBYTepoic re ka'i Aiakonoic" mgt' ay'tcon 
MOi reNOiTO TO Mepoc e'xeiN cn OecL" Kau avui'S' MApryc moi, 

eN O) \etieM^\, OTI AHO CApKOC AN9p00niNHC OYK epNOON, TO 

Ae nNefMA eKHpycceN, AeroN taAg ■ Xcopic toy tnicKonoY 
mhAcn noieiTe. XPV '^^^ oivev rod eTVicTKOTTOv fXTjSev irpdcrcreiv 
rJyLia? • OTTOv yap dv (f)avfj inL(rK07T0<;, iKel to TrXyjOof; rjTO), 
ajcrnep, oirovnep dv ovofxacrOy Xptcrro? 'It^ctou?, e/ca 77 Kado- 

XiKTj eKKXrjcria eTTtcrvmyerat ovk e^ov ovv ecrrtv xcopls tov 

eTncTKoiTov ovTe /SaTrrt^etv ovTe dydir-qv TTOieiv, aXX o av 
iKelvo^ doKLfidcrr), tovto kol t(o @ew evdpecTTOv. o tov 
inicrKOTrov TLficov vtto tov 0eov TifxaTaL' 6 XdOpa eVtcTKOTrov tl 
7rpd(T(T(DV TG> hia^oXo) XaTpevet. dvayKolov Se i<jTLV vrroTacr- 
creaOai /cat tw TrpecrftvTepLO), oj? a770crroXots Ir](Tov XpccTTov, 
Trj<s eXTTtSo? T^fxwv, /caret irdvTa Tpoirov Trdcnv dpeaKELV. ov 
ydp ftpcjfxdTCJV /cat irofxaTcov elalv Sta/coz^ot aXXa iKKXr^cna'; 
®eov vTTrjpeTai. Seov ovv ecrrtv avTov<; ^vXdaaecrOai ra 
eyKXijixaTa qj9 nvp. 6iJiOL(t)<; ndvTes ivTpeTrecrdcoaav tov<; 
8ta/covov9 w? 'irjcrovv 'KptcTTOv, /cat tw iirLCTKOTrov o/g toi' 
TraTepa, tov<; Se Trpear^vTepov^ cw9 avveSpuov Seov Kat w? 
Secr/xov ctTTOcrroXaJv. X^P^^'* tovtcov e/c/cXr^crta ou /caXet- 
Tttt (Po/yc. 6, Philad. 7, Smyrn. 8, 9, TVo//. 2, 3), 

Some of the passages which are here given have been overlooked by previous 
editors. As the references to Ignatius in this writer (with the exception of two in the 
last extract) are all indirect, they are not printed here as quotations. 

IGN. I. 



Chronicon Paschale [c. a.d. 630J. 

(i) p. 416 (ed. Bonn.). 

'Otl Se Tpets ivLavTovs Krjpv^a^ to evayye\iov 6 KvpLO<; 
CTTt Tov eKOvaiov Koi ^cooTTOLOv ri\6e aravpov, StSacr/cet koI 
'lymrtos d 6eo(f)6po<i /cat ixdpTV<;, 6 \oidvvov tov 6eo\6yov 
yvTJ<TLO<; p.aOrjT'q'i yeyov(6<;, r^s Se iv 'Atrto^eta aytwrctTTy? 

iKK\y)(Tia'? €.TTl(TK0TT0<i VTTO T(OV aTTOCTToXoiV KaTacTTaBei^. €V 

Ty Trpos TpaWiavovs toivvv iiTLcrToXf} yeypa(f)ev eVt Xe^eojs 

'AAhGcoc toi'nyn ereNNHce AA^piA to cooma OeoN e)(ON 


KAI enoiHceN eAYTto cooma gk twn thc nApGeNOY cnepMATcoN, 


noTOY MerecxGN, a)C kaV HMeic kai rpeic A6ka'Aac erodN 
noAiTGYCAMeNOc eBAnricGH yno 'Icoannoy aAhGooc kai of 
AoKHcer kai rpelc Iniaytoyc khpy^ac to eYArrtAiON, kai 


HiAatoy HfeMONOC 6 KpiTHC eKpiGH, ewACTircoGH, fno AoyAooN 
eni KoppHC eppAHicGH, eNenTYcGH, akanGinon cTecfjANON 
KAI nop(t)YpoYN iMATiON e(f)dpeceN, KATeKpi'GH, ecTAYpooGH 


aAhGooc, kai eTA(|)H KAI HfepGH EK TOJN NeKpooN {Ps-Trall. lo). 

iSov (f)au€po)<s o TOLOVTOS KOi TT^Xt/covTO? ttJs iKKXr)(TLa<; 
8t8a(r/caXos T/aet? ivuavTovs Krjpv^aL to evayyeXiov tov 
(Ta)Trjpa Xeyeu 

(2) p. 471. The passage is quoted above, p. 65 sq. 



Theodorus the Presbyter [c. a.d. 650?]. 

De Aiithenticitate Libri Dionysii, Photii Bibliotheca i. 

Ilajs fxeixurjTaL Trj<; tov deo^opov 'lyvaTLov iiTLcrToXyjq t] 
fii^Xo<; ; 6 fjikv yap Atoi/vcrtog toI<; tcou dnoorToXcji' ivrJKixacre 
•^pouoL'?, 'lyj^ctrto? 8e inl Tpa'iavov rov Sta fxapTvpiov yjOXrja-ev 
dyajua, 09 Kol vpo f3pa)(v Trj<? TeXevTrj<; ramiqv k-mcrroXriv, rj<; 
Tj /8t/8Xo9 fjLurjfjiopevei, ypdcf)€L 


Maximus the Confessor [f a.d. 662]. 

(i) Sc/w/. in Dionys. de Div. No??i. iv. 12 {Op. i, p. 613, Corder.). 

'O GEios 'IrNATios* /cat e/c tovtov TLve<s olovTai hia^aXXeiv 
evKaipoiq to rrapov crwray/xa, w? (jltj ov tov Beiov Alovvctlov, 
eTretSi) 'lyvaTLOV X4y overt jieTayevecTTepov avTov etvat' ttws 
8e SvvaTau tls tojv ixeTayevecTTepcov fxeixprja-OaL ; TrXctcr/xa 
oe /cat TovTo Sokovv avrot?' d yap dyto^ ITavXos d ^ojrtcras 
Aioi^ucrtoi^ lx€Tay€vecrT€pos rjv rw -^p6ua> tov dyiov HeTpov, 
fxeff OP 6 'ly^ctrto? e7rto"/co7ros ytverat 'Ai^rio^etas, /-terare^eVros 
Her /30V eV 'Pcofxy eTreiprjae 8e d ayto? IlavXo? -)(jp6vov ttoXvv, 
[d] (f)(jL>TLa-a^ Aiopvaiov, /cat Atowcrto? /xer' avrdi^ etpr^crev. 
6 Se euayyeXtcTTT}? 'Iwai^z^s eVt AojxeTiavov e^opt^erat et? 
HdTjxop' w dpTLypd(f)eL Ato^'uc^tos• 'Iy^'aTtos Se Trpd Ao/xe- 
rtavoi} fjiapTvpel' cocrre 7rpoyeuecrTepo<; Alopvctlov. '0 cmoc 
epooc ^rjT-qTeou ttcG? eVt Ovrjcrifxov tov /xera TifModeop lyva- 
TLOV otaXeyo/xeVov /cat ypd(f)OVTO'? to e/wdc epooc ecTAYptOTAi, 
Atoj^ucrtos i^ut' TijJiodeci) ypdcfxou tovtov ixijxv"qTai, ojs lyi^artov 
1787^ ypdxjjavTO';...'^ ra^^a <TVPr]de<; aurw eti^at aTTOcfiOeyixa, cJs 
/cat TO eeo(l)dpoc TroXXct/ct? avrw Xeyd/xei^oV re /cat y/aa^d/xe- 
voi'. TEKfXTJpLOP 8e TO /xt) tt po (TKelcT 6 ai, FpdcfieL 8e Ttcrt, tovt€(t- 
Tt *Paj/xatot9" aXX' ctTrXcS?, Vpd^ei 8e Kat d ^eto9 'lyi/ctTto?. 

14 — 2 


(2) Loci Commimes, Op. ii. pp. 534, 638 (ed. Combefis). 

Sermo 2, ^lyvartov. 
TeAeioi ONTec, xeAeiA (j)poNe?T6" eeAoyci r^p ^mn ey npAT- 
xeiN 0edc exoiMOc eic to nApexeiN {Sfnyrn. 11). 

Sermo 43. Tou ayiov 'lyuaTLov. 

Kan eppcoMeNOC (L ta kata OeoN, nAeON Me Ael (})0Be?cGAi 
KAi npoceyeiN toTc eiKH ({jYcioyci Me enAiNOYNxec r^p Me 
MACTiroYCi {Ps-Trall. 4). 

Anastasius of Sinai [c. a.d. 680]. 
Hodegus 2 {^Patrol. Grace. Lxxxix. p. 196, ed. Migne). 
Tot) ayiov ^lyvariov iTncTKOirov Ai/rto^^eta?. 'Eacatc 
MiMHTHN reNecGAi TOY haGoyc TOY OeoY MOY (Pom. 6). 
On this writer see Fabric. BidL Graec. X. p. 571, ed. Harles. 


Andreas of Crete [c. a.d. 680]. 
Horn. II in Nativitatctn B. Virginis (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 87). 

'fl? ^T^crt TTOV ayto? ojirqp, 'lymrto? ovofxa avTW' Kai 

eAA0e TON ApxoNTA TOY aIconoc toytoy h nApGeNiA MApiAC, kai 

THpiA (J)piKTA, ATINA EN HCYXI'^ ©GOy enpAXGH (EpJus. I9). 


John of Damascus [before a.d. 754]. 

Sacra Parallela {Op. 11. p. 274 sq, ed. Lequien). 

(A) Parallela Vaticana \Regid\. 

(i) a, ix, p. 314 lypaTiov [the passage wanting in R]. 

OeAoyciN YM?N ey npATxeiN Oedc eTomoc eic to nApe- 
XeiN (Smyrn. 11). 

a. xviii. p. 354 Tov ayiov 'lyvariov e'/c r-ij? Trpoq 'E<^ecr. 
[R. fol. 72]. 

OyAeN ecTiN AMeiNON eipHNHc, cn h hac noAeMOc katap- 
re?TAi {Ephcs. 13), 

Tit. e/f rjjs Trpos'E^ecr.] om. 



a. xxi. p. 358 'lyvaTLOv [R. fol. 73 b]. 

T(|) KAi'cApi YnoTAfHTe, eN oTc aki'nAynoc h ynoTArH 
{Antioch. 11). 

(2) e. xvii. p. 514 sq ^lyvariov [R. fol. 191 b]. 

TTANTec TO) enicKo'ncp AKoAoyGelTe, oic 'Ihcoyc XpicToc to) 
nATpi* KAi Tcij npecByTepio) toe roic AnocTC)Aoic" Toyc Ae 
AiakcJnoyc eNTpenecGe, d)c Oeoy IntoAhn Aiakonoyntac. 
MHAcic X^P'c enicKo'noY ti npAccerco ToaN anhkontoon eic thn 
eKKAHciAN. eKeiNH BgBaia eyxApicTiA HreicGco, h ytto tcon 
enicKoncoN oy'ca. dnoy an (})anh d enicKonoc, eKe? to nAfieoc 
HTOi, tocnep, dnoY ^^'n d Xpicrdc, eKe? h kaGoAikh h IkkAhcia. 
OYK e2dN ecTi X<J^P'c ToyeniCKdnoY oyt€ BAnri'zeiN OYTe Ar^nuN 
noiem" aAA' d an skgInoc Aokimach, toyto tcL- Oecu ey'ApecTON. 
d TiMWN eni'cKonoN -^-no Oeoy xeTiMHTAi" d AAGpA enicKonoy ti 
npAcccoN TO) AiABoAoi AATpeyei {Smyni. 8, 9), 

Tit. lyvarLov] rod ayLov 'lyvarlov Trpos ^/j-vpuaiovs. 3 cvrpeireadt] evrpeweaBai. 

diUKOPoCvTas] oni. 5 rQv eirnxKOTruv] tov iniaKotrov. 6 av] eaw. rb] 

T(o. 7 6 Xpiardi] Xpurrbt 'Irjjovs. rj sec] om. 8 iya.iniv'] dydireiv. 
9 TOVTo] add. Kai. 10 6 \d0pa...\aTpevei.] om. 

Tou avTov Trpos IIoXuKapTrot' Xfji^vpur)?' 

TTantac BACTAze, ibc kai ce d Kypioc" nANTooN ANexoy 
eN AfAni-r npoceYX<'^'^c cxdAAze AAiAAeinToic" aitoy cyNe- 
ciN nAeioNA Hc e'xeic" rpHrdpei, akoi'mhton omma kckthme- 
Noc {Polyc. i). 

Tit. ToO auTou] om. S/Ui/pj/ijj] om. 3 dKoifXT)Toi> bfi/Mo] aKvix-qTov iruevfia. 

lov aVTOV. 

TTantwn tag Nocoyc BACTAze, d)C TeAeioc d aGAhth'c. dnoy 
nAei'coN Konoc, noAy KepAoc. KAAoyc maGhtac can (})iAhc, 
XApic coi oyK ecTAi" maAAon Toyc AneiGecTepoyc eN npAoTHTi 
VnoTACce. oy nAN TpAywA th ayth ewnAACTpo) GepAneyeTAi" 
Toyc nApoIycMoyc eMBpoxAic nAye. Aia ToyTO CApKiKoc e? 
KAI nNeyMATiKoc, Tna ta cfjAiNOMeNA COI eic npdcoonoN koAa- 

KeyHC, TA Ae AOpATA aTtCI i'nA COI (t)ANepOOeH, i'na MHAeNOC 

AeinH {Po/yc. i, 2). 

I v6crovs] wcrcrouy. 2 ir\e/wv] irXeloy. 3 aTreideffT^povs] amOecrrcpovs. 

5 i/x^poxais] iv evxo-ls. 6 KoXaKeOyi] (coXa/cei'cis. 


c. xxviii. p. 522 [Tov aylov ^lyvarlov [R. fol. 151]. 

Kan eppcoMeNoc co kata ton OeoN, nAe?ON iwe Ae? 4>oBe?c0Ai, 
KAi npocexeiN toic eiKH (})Yca)CiN Me" enAiNOYNtec r^p Me mac- 
TiroyciN {Ps-Trall. 4). 

I eppw/U.^j'os] iposfi^pos. Kara rbv] ra Kara (om. t6v). i (pvffCxrivl <f)V(novcnv. 

(3) K. vii. p. 566 Tov avTov lyvariov [R. fol. 216]. 

TToAAa (})poNto eN Oeo), aAA' eMAyxoN Merpco, Tna mh cn 
KAYXHcei AndAcoMAi {Trail. 4). 

(4) TT. X. p. 642 'lyi/artov [R. fol. 278J. 

TTApBeNiAc zypoN MHAeNi eniriGer enicct)AAec r^p to kthma 


Tit. 'lyvaTlovl TOV aylov 'lyvariov vpos JloXmapTrov. i eirtW^et] eiriTide. 

1 yivrjTaC] yiverai. 

To?c Neoic eniTpene r^weTN, npiN AiA(})8Apa)ciN eic eiepAC. 
TT. xiii. p. 650 'lyvaTLOV [R. fol. 286 b]. 


TOYTOY AiaBoAoc (Trail. 4). 

Tit. 'lyvariov] rov aylov 'lyvariov wpos ' Vw/j.aiovs. 

(5) cr. xi. p. 687 ^lyvariov [R. fol. 308 b]. 

Oi CApKiKOi TA nNCYMATiKA npAcceiN OY Aynantai, oyTe 01 


'Y\\..'lyvarlov\rov ayiov'lyvarlov irph^'YA(pi(!lov%. i o^i\ oii^k. 2 crapKiKa] 

add. dffwep ovSi i) triarii rh rrji diriariai oiid^ tj aTrtaria ra rijs irlareus. 

(6) V. ix. p. 702 'lyuaTLOV [R. fol. 346 b]. 

MHAeic ymu)N kata toy hAhcion e)(eTco ti" mh A(})opMAc 
AiAoTe Tolc eONeciN, i'na mh Ai' oAiVoyc a^ponac to eNGeoN 
nAfleoc BAac({)hmhtai {Trail. 8). 

Tit.'lyvarlov] TOV aylov 'lyvariov. 3 pXaacprjfXTJrai] /SXac^ijyitryTat (sic). 

[v. xii. [?] BacrtXetoi; tt/dos UoXvKapTTOv, R. fol. 350 b wanting 
in Lequien. 


A0AHTOY AepecGAi ka'i nikan* maAicta Ae eNeKe Geof hanta 
Aei hmac YTTOMCNeiN {Polyc. 3).] 


(7) X- i"^- P- 724 'lyvartov [R. fol. 373]. 
XpicTiANOc eAYTOY eioyciAN oy'k e'xei, aAAa tcL Oeco cxoAa- 
2ei {Polyc. 7). 

Tit. 'l7vaTtoi;] toD (17^011 'lYvart'ou. I irxoXdfet] crxoXd^et;/. 

(B) Parallela Rupefucaldina. 

(i) a. ii. p. 747. Tov dyiov 'lypaTLOv. 

TeAeioi oNTec, reAeiA (})poNe?Te" SeAoyci r^p hmIn ey npAT- 
reiN Oedc eroiMOc eic to n^pexem (Smyrn. 11). 

a. xviii. p. 750. Tov aytov lyuariov e/c rrjs Trpos 'E(^e- 
o"tovs eVtcrroX^?. 

Hanta, on an neMUH oiKoAecnoTHC eic iAian oIkonomian, 
OYTCoc HMAC AeT ynoAelAcGAi, (x>c ayton ton neMy anta {Ephes. 6). 

a. Ixxvi. p. 772. 'E/c T'i7S 77pos E<^eo"tovs iTrLaTo\rj<; tov 
dyiov ^lyvaTLOv tov (deo(f)6pov. 

ToYC MepicMoyc (})eYreT6, a>c ap)(hn kakoon. eiooGACi tingc 
AoAcp noNHpu) to onoma XpicTOY nepi(|)epeiN, aAAa tina npAc- 
C0NT€C anaIia 0eoY' ofc Ae? ymac coc GnpiA eKKAi'NeiN* eici 
TAp KYNec AycccoNTec AaGpoAhktai' ofc Aei ymac ^yAaccgcBai 
ONTAC AYcGepAneyTOYc {Smyrn. 8, Ephes. 7). 


YCTepeiTAi TOY ApToy Toy Oeoy- ti r^p eNoc ka"i AeyTepoy 
npoceY)(H TOCAYTHN icxYN e'x^'' TTOco) maAAon h tc toy eni- 
cKonoy KAi HACHC THC ekkAhciac 6 oyN MH epxoMCNOc eni TO 


TAi Ae 'YnepH(t)ANOic 6 Oeoc ANTiTACceTAi {Ephes. 5). 

Mhi nAANAcGe, AAeAcpoi Moy" oiKO(})Gdpoi BAciAeiAN Oeoy oy 


AtreGNHCKON, ndcoi maAAon can ni'cTiN eN kakoAiAackaAia 
(})Gepei, ynep Hc 'iHcoyc XpicTOc ecTAypoaGn. oti oytoc pynA- 
poc reNOMeNoc eic to nyp to acBccton x^P^cei, omoi'ooc kai 
6 AKoytoN AYToy {Ephes. 16). 

'Ek tj]^ Trpos TpaXXaets eTrtoToXr^?' 

TTapakaAco ymac, oyk e'rco aAA' h x-'^P'c Toy Kypioy hmwn 



TpiAC Ae BoTANHc Anex6c0Ai, HTic 6CTIN Afpecic KAi HApewnAe- 
KoyciN 'Ihcoyn XpicTON KATASionicxeyoMeNOi, wcnep Ganaci- 


HAecoc AamBansi cn hAonh kakh to AnoGANeiN' (|)YAAccec9e 
OYN Toyc ToioyTOYC {Trail. 6, 7). 


OYTOi r^p OYK eici (|)YTeiA toy nNeYMATOC {Trail. 11). 
'E/c ttJs tt/dos $iXa8eX^tous eTrtcrroX-^g. 

Ane)(ec0e toon kakcon Botanoon, wn XpicTOc 'Ihcoyc oy 
reooprei^, Ai^ TO MH eiNAi aytoyc ^ytgian toy nATpdc. mh 
nAANAcGe, AAeA4)0i moy* eT tic cxizonti akoAoyOcI, BaciA6ian 
OeoY of KAHpoNOMei {Fhilad. 3). 

(2) /?. i. p. 775. Tov ayiov 'lyvarCov e/c ttJs irpos 'Ec^ecrtovs 



reTxAi {Ephes. 13). 

(3) y. xvii. p. 777. ToiJ dyCov 'lyvartou tov &60(()opov. 


TYNAiIiN, oTc KAi hnooGhcan kata fNtOMHN 06OY {Antioch. g). 

(4) S. X. MS fol. 139 b. ToG dyLOv 'lyvaTiov. 


B. xii. p. 778. Tov dyiov 'lyvajLOV tov <deo(f)6pov Ik rrj^ 
77/309 ^(f)e(TLOV<i i7rL(TTo\rj<;. 

EcxAToi KAipoi, AAeAct)or AoinoN aicxynGoomcn. (|)oBHGa)- 


eYp€6oiM6N {Ephes. ii). 

8. xxxi. p. 778. 'lyi/artou tov ®eo(f)6pov Trpos 'E^ecrtoug. 
°Otan hyknooc eni to ayto fit^ecQe, kaGaipoyntai Aynamgic 
TOY ^atana, Ayctai d'AeGpoc ay'toy en th omonoi'a ymojn thc 
ni'cTeooc {Ephes. 13). 


8. xxxiv. p. 778, Tou dyCov lyvariov e/c ri^s irpos HoXu- 
Kapnov iTTLa-ToXTJs. 

Oi AoyAoi mh epATOiCAN AHO TOY KOiNOY eA6Y0 epoYcBAi, 
aAA' eic AoIan OeoY nAeloN AoYAeyeTCOCAN, Fna KpeiTTONoc 
eAeYOepiAc yno 0eoY tyX">cin {Polyc, 4). 

(5) c. xlviii. p. 779. Tov dyiov 'lyvariov tov @eo(f)6pov i.K 
Trj<s Tvpos %ixvpvaLOv^ eTn(TTokrj<;. 

riANTec TO) enicKoncp AKoAoYeeTre, coc'Ihcoyc XpicToc tco 
HATpi', KAi TO) npecBYT6pia> d)C TOic AnocToAoic Toyc Ae Aiako- 
NOYc 6NTpenec9e, wc OeoY entoAhn. MHAe'ic X^P'c enicKo'noy 
Ti npACcerco toon anhkontoon In ckkAhcia. BcBai'a eYX<^P'CTiA 
HreicGoo H YTTO TOY enicKonoY ofcA, h co can aytoc enirpeyn. 
dnoy AN (j)ANH 6 enicKonoc, CKe? to nAfiGoc, cocnep onoY can 
h'Ihcoyc XpicToc, eKe? h ka9oAikh 6kkAhci'a. oyk eSoN ecTi 
Xcopic enicKonoY ofTe Bahti'zgin 0Y"Te AfAnAc noie?N, aAA' co 


Fna AC(|)AAec H KAI BcBaion uan npACCGTAi. ey'AoTON eCTI 


kaAooc e'xei OeoN kai eni'cKonoN eiAeNAi. d timoon eni'cKonoN 
Ynd OeoY TeTiMHTAi, d AASpA eniCKonoY ti npAcccoN to) AiaBo- 
A(p AATpeyei {Smyrn. 8, 9). 

'Ek ITfi Trpo'i UoXvKapTTOv. 

Tcp eniCKoncp npocexeTe, i'na ka'i y^in d Oedc. ercoANTi- 
yYX^N TOON YTTOTACCOMeNcoN enicKdncp, npecBYTepicp, Aiakongic* 
MST AY'TOdN Moi TO Mepoc feNOiTo CN Oeo) {Polyc. 6). 

IT/Dos 'E(^ecrtov9. 

ZnoYAACoiMeN mh antitaccccGai too enicKdno), Fna wmen 
Oecp YTTOTACcoMeNoi. KAI ocoN BAenei tic citwnta enicKonoN, 
nAeoN AYTON (|)oBei'c9co' hanta r<^p on ncMnei d oJKoAecndTHC 


neMnoNTA. TdN roYN eni'cKonoN d)c ayton ton KypiON Aei 
npocBA^neiN {Ephes. 5, 6). 

iov avTOv. 


KoVeiN T(|) eniCKonto kata mhAemi'an YndKpiciN' ene'i ofx' ton 


enicKonoN toyton ton BAenoMeNON hAana tic, aAAa ton 


6 Adroc aAAa npoc OeoN ton ta kpy'4)ia eJAoTA. npenoN oyn 
ecTi, MH monon kaA6?c0ai xP'ctianoyc, aAAa kai elNAi' cocnep 
KAi TiNec enicKonoN men kaAoyci, X'^P'c ^e aytoy hanta npAC- 
coYciN. 01 toioytoi oyK eycYNeiAHTOi' moi (j)ai'nontai, Aia to 
MH BeBAicoc KAT entoAhn cYNA9poizec6Ai {Magn. 3, 4). 

'Ek TTJ^ avrrj^. 

MhAgn ecTOO eN ymTn o Aynhcgtai ymac wepiCAi, aAA' 
eNooOHTe TO) enicKoncp kai to?c npoKAOHMeNoic elc TonoN ka'i 
AiAaxhn A(t)0ApciAC. cocnep oyn d Kfpioc hmoon angy toy 
nATpdc OYAeN enomccN, ofTe Ai' caytoy oyVe Aia toon AnocTO- 
AooN, oyToac mhAe ymgic angy toy tnicKonoY mhAcn npAcceTe, 
MHAe neipACHTe efAoroN ti (})AiNeceAi iAia ymin {Magn. 6, 7). 

Tod avTOV. 

"Otan TO) enicKoncp yTTOTACCHcOe, OAiNscBe moi oy kata 


AnoGANONTA {Trail. 2). 
Tov avrov. 

TeKNA 4)60Tdc AAH6ei'AC, ())eY'reT6 TdN MepiCMdN KAI TAC 

kakoAiAackaAi'ac. dnoY Ae d hoimmn ecTi, eKeT Cue npoBATA 
AKoAoYOeiTe {Philad. 2). 

^ > ^ 

Tou avrov. 

Maptyc moy eN (p AeAeMAi, oti aho CApKoc ANOpconmHC oyk 
erNOiN' Td Ae HNeYMA eKHpYcce TAAe* Xcopic enicKonoY mhAcn 
noielTe* thn cApKA ymoon oic naon OeoY THpelTe' thn cncocin 
Ar^HATe* TOYC MepiCMOYC (j)eYreTe' mimhtai riNecSe 'Ihcoy 
XpiCTOY, <i>c AYTdc TOY nATpdc ay'toy {Philad. 7). 

(6) TT. XXV. p. 785. Tov aytov tepo/xaprv/jos 'lyt'artov @eo- 
(f)6pov Ik Tyj<; upos 'E^ecrtovs avrov iTnaToXrs. 


MeN H ni'cTic, TeAoc Ae h atahh' ta Ae Ayo In cNdTHTi r'NOMeNA 
Oedc ecTi' ta Ae aAAa hanta eic kaAokataBian AKdAoY0A eiciN. 
OYAeic niCTiN enArre^AoMeNOc e'xeiN AMApTANer ofAek ata- 


nHN KeKTHMeNOC Mice?. (})ANepON TO AeNApON And toy KAp- 

noY AYTOY" ofTOoc ol enArre^^oMENOi XpicTof cTnai, At' (Ln 
npAccoYCiN d(})0H'coNTAi. OY r^p NYN enArreAiAC to eproN, 
aAAa AYNAMei nicTeojc can tic efpeGH eic tgAoc {Ephes. 14). 

Tov avrou. 


(J)epoYCA npdc OeoN {Ephes. 9). 

E/c T^s 7rpo5 MayvT^crtovs jov avTOv iTTL(rToXrj<;. 


MATi KAAe?TAi nAe?0N TOYTOY, OYK ecTi TOY OeoY {Magn. 10). 

TT. xxxvii. MS fol. 243. Tou ayiov 'lyuariov tov %eo<l>6pov 
7rp6<s TOP ayiov YiokvKapTTov. 


Kypi'oy eN AKAYXHciA MCNeToo" KAi CAN tncocGh nAeON TOY 
eniCKonoY e(t)GApTAr npenei Ae to?c tamoyci kai ta?c t^moy- 
MENAic MeTA rNCOMHC TOY enicKonoY THN Incocin noie?c0Ai, 


{Folyc. 5). 

ripos 'Az^rtoxet?. 

TlApeeNiAC ZYfON mhAcni eniTieei (sic)- enic(})AAec r^\> to 




Tolc NetoTepoic eniTpene r<5^Me?N npiN h AiecJjeApcjjciN (sic) 
eic eTA?pAC (sic). 

V. xl. MS fol. 245. 'lyuaTLOv. 


TOYTOY AiaBoAoc {Trail. 4). 

(7) a. iv. MS fol. 254 b. ^lyvcLTiov tov %eo<^6pov, 


(8) V. xvii. p. 788. Tov ay tov 'lyi/artov Ik Trjq Trpos IIoXv- 

KapTTov eTncTToXrjs. 
ZTHKe oic AKMCON TYnTOMeNoc" \AerAAoY aGAhtoy eCTI 


Aepec9Ai ka) nikan" maAicta Ae 6NeK6N Oeof hanta hmac 
VnoMeNeiN AeT, "na ka'i aytoc hmac ynoMeiNH {Polyc. 3). 

'Ek T17S (x.v7r\%, 

MAKpo6YMe?Te Mer* aAAhAcon en npAy'THTi, ojc d Oedc m69' 
HMooN AiA nANTOC {Folyc. 6). 

(9) </). xix. MS fol. 275 b. Tou dyiov lypariov e/c r^s Trpos 

Mayi/r^crtous ifncrToXrj's. 
TTANxec OMOHBeiAN OeoY AABoNxec aAAhAoyc eNxpenecOe, 


aAAhAoyc Aia nANTOC ATAHATe {Magn. 6). 

(10) X' ^^^- P- 7^9- Tov aytov 'lyuariov e/c 7179 irpos May- 

i>7)aLov<5 iTncrToXyj^- 

TTpenoN ecxi mh monon akoycin xP'ctianoyc, aAAa ka'i ei- 
NAi {Magn. 4). 

X- xxi. MS fol. 278. Tou avTOv iK Trjq Trpos HoXvKapTTOV. 

XpicTiANOC eAYTOY eloYciAN OYK eyei aAAa toj Oeco cxo- 
AAzei {Folyc. 7). 

The chronology of the life of S. John Damascene is very uncertain. The two 
definite facts are that he was living A.D. 730 and that he died before A.D. 754 (see 
Langen Johannes v. Damaskus p. ai). 

The Parallela Sacra., which bear his name, appear in forms more or less different 
in different MSS. Two very distinct forms were published by Lequien, designated 
here Parallda Vaticana and Parallela Riipefiicaldina respectively. The former might 
well have been compiled by John of Damascus, though some critics assign it to a later 
date. The latter appears to have been the work of a person who lived a century 
earlier than S. John Damascene. It seems to have been made after the capture of 
Jerusalem by Chosroes (a.d. 614) but during the reign of Heraclius (tA.D. 641); see 
Lequien Joann. Damasc. Op. 11. p. 274 sq (comp. i. p. xi), Langen I.e. p. 204 sq. An 
investigation of the work of Leontius and John {Sacr. Per. Libr.), from which Mai 
{Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii) has published extracts, will probably throw some light 
on these collections ascribed to John of Damascus. The subject has been taken up 
by Loofs (see above, p. 205) since my first edition appeared, and we may hope that 
his further labours will solve many questions connected with it. See also Rendel 
Harris Fragments of Philo p. x sq. 

(A) The Parallela Vaticana, as the name denotes, were printed by Lequien from 
a Vatican ms. A collection very similar to this was found by Prof. J. Rendel Harris 
in a Paris MS Reg. 923 (see Igttatiatia p. 94 sq, in the yoiirnal of t lie Society of Biblical 
Literature and Exegesis, Dec. 1886). Of this ms he has given a full description in his 
Fragments of Philo p. vii sq (Cambridge, 1886). 'The character,' he writes (p. xiv). 


' is a sloping uncial of a period at least as early as the ninth century.' So far as 
regards the Ignatian fragments, its contents are nearly identical with those of the 
Vatican MS. I have not therefore thought it necessary to print them separately; but 
have contented myself with supplying in brackets the few sentences which are want- 
ing in Lequien's reproduction of the Vatican MS and giving for the rest a collation of 
the various readings of Far. Reg. 923 at the foot of each passage. In my apparatus 
criticus the readings of the Paris MS are not recorded as distinct from those of the 
Vatican, except where they vary or where there is some other good reason for record- 
ing them. In my first edition I made use of Lequien's second edition (Venet. 1748), 
in which the Greek headings to the Ignatian fragments were omitted. I have now 
restored them from his earlier edition (Paris, 171 2). 

(B) The Parallela Rupefucaldina were taken by Lequien from a MS which once, 
as the name implies, belonged to Card. Rochefoucauld. This is the same MS from 
which Cotelier quotes some Ignatian fragments, designating it Claromontantis. It 
was supposed to be lost, but Rendel Harris discovered and identified it in the Middle- 
hill collection {Phillips \a,^q — Meerman 94). On fol. i it has a colophon which gives 
its previous history ; ' Collegii Claromontani Parisiensis Societat. Jesu ex dono emi- 
nentiss. Cardinal. Rupefucaldi. ' In the Catal. Cod. MSS Coll. Claromontani it is 
numbered 150. A description of this MS will be found in Harris's Fragments of Philo 
pp. X sq, XX sq. Harris has likewise given a collation of the Ignatian fragments 
{Ignatiana p. 93 sq), adding two or three which are omitted by Lequien. He points 
out also that Lequien 'very seldom reprinted an extract which he had already given 
under the Vatican Parallels.' Some of Lequien's errors are important. Thus, where 
Lequien (p. 789) has ir/)6s 'E^efft'ows as the heading of a quotation from Magn. 4, the 
MS gives the name of the Epistle correctly. In the present edition I have followed 
Harris's corrections of Lequien for these fragments, as I have had no opportunity of 
consulting the MS myself. 

In the Vatican extracts use is made of the Long Recension (e.g. Ps-Trall. 4 kS.v 
eppwfjAvoi S) K.T.X.), as well as of the Middle Form (the genuine Ignatius). In the Roche- 
foucauld extracts on the other hand, though the collector quotes the spurious Epistle 
to the Antiochenes, there is no distinct example of the use of the interpolated epistles. 
In some cases indeed his quotations coincide with the text of the Long Recension 
(e.g. Ephes. 11 kv T(p v\Jv ^Icj), see II. p. 61; Folyc. 6 -Kpic^xnipii^); but these are 
questions of reading, not of recension. The same may perhaps be said of Trail. 4 
6 apx^iv rod alQvos tovtov dia^oXoi, as Harris maintains (p. 95 sq). It would seem 
therefore that the collector of the Rochefoucauld extracts used a MS, in which the 
spurious epistles were attached to the seven genuine letters in their uninterpolated 
form, as we find them in GL. Harris indeed has objected (p. 96) to this statement 
of mine. He writes: ' I have shown reason to believe that the passage Fs-Trall. 4 is 
quoted in all three recensions of Parallels [Vat., Reg., Rupef.]; and therefore, as far 
as it is concerned, they all quote from the Long Form or some other, and no distinc- 
tion is to be made between the recensions etc' Here he has apparently fallen into 
a confusion between two passages quoted in these Parallels from Trail. 4. The 
one, XPV^'^ K.T.X., appears in all the sets of Parallels, as he has shown, though it is 
not recorded in Rupef. by Lequien. It is evident from his context that he is referring 
to this passage. The other, Kau ippufiivos u, he has nowhere shown, so far as I 
can discover, to be in Rupef. Yet this is not found in any but the Long Recension 
of the Ignatian Epistles. It was to this latter that I mainly referred. Further 


evidence may perhaps prove the distinction which I have drawn to be wrong ; but it 
is quite consistent with all the known facts. 

The extracts, tt. x. p. 642 (tt, xxxvii. Rupef. fol. ■243) IXapOevia^ k.t.\., and To?y 
vediT^pois (v^ots) K.T.X., do not appear in any Ignatian epistle, and the ascription is 
therefore an error. They are however so quoted by Antonius. 

Theodore of Studium [a.d. 759 — 826]. 
(i) Catechesis 3. 

'0 e/woc Ipooc ecTAYpooTAi Xptcrros {Rom. 7). 

Quoted by Cotelier on Rom. 6, and by Grabe in Spicil. 11. p. 229: by the latter 
from the Oxford MS, Barocc. 130. 

(2) Catechesis 127. 

Sv^'eVerat Se koX d 9eo(l)6po<; ^lyuaTtos, raSe Xeyoiv 

TTpO(})YAACC0O YMAC And TCjON ewpiCON TOON ANepoonoMdp4)coN 

aLpeTLKOJV ofc OY MONON of Ae? YMAc nApAAexecSAi, aAA' ei 
Aynaton, MHAe CYNANTAN (S/uyrfi. 4). 

Quoted in the Greek by Cotelier Ra^r. Apost. 11. p. 4. The corresponding pas- 
sage in the Latin translation will be found in Migne's edition, Patrol. Graec. XCIX. 
p. 677. 

(3) Epist. ii. 155, ad Theophilufn (p. 1485, ed. Migne). 

Kiyei roivvv kol 6 Oeo^opoq 'lyvartos* Toyc micoyntac 
OYN TON OeoN micgIn )(pH, KAi STi] TO?c exOpoic AYTOy eKxeTH- 


TA eONH TA MH eiAOTA TON OeoN [Ps-PhUad. 3). 

(4) Iambi Ixx (p. 1797, ed. Migne). Ets tov dytov Tyvanov tov 

"Y^yoiv epcora ^picrrov iv crfj KapSCa, 
dnoaToXcov (TV(TKrjvo<5 (o(f)67]<;, rpKr^taKap' 
dd\oL<s Be Oepjxolq iK(f)XoyC[,o)P rrju irXdvTjv 
iiTLcrToXai's crov IlavXo? aXXo? rts TreXet?. 

(5) Menaea Decemb. 20, pp. 138, 146. 

*n ttJs CTTeppd^ Kol dSafxavTivov aov ^xr)(rjs, d^LOixaKaptcrTe 
*lyudTL€. (TV yap 7rpo9 tou ovt(o<5 crop ipao-Trjv dvivBoTOv 
e)(^cou TTjV ai^eaiv eXeyes* Oyk gctin eN gmoi nyp c})iAdYA0N, 


fAcop Ae maAAon zoiN KAi AaAoyn In Imoi, eNAoSeN moi AeroN, 
Aefpo npdc ton nAxepA {Rom. 7). 

"ZTTJkr) l/A\//v^o9 Koi eixTTPOv; eiKUiv, 7) eTT^crto? crov iTricTTr) 
koprrj, 6eo(f)6pe ^lyvdne, rets /xvcrraycoytas crov /cat ret? 
dpL(TTeLa<? crov Krj pvTTOVcra, rr^v virep ttj^ VLcrTecoq /xe^/Dts 
at/iaT09 dvTLKardcTTacrLV, rrjv [JLaKapcav iKeCvrjv /cat doiSLfiov 
(f)0)pyjv TYjv ort cTtoc eiMi Oeoy A-eyovcrav, ka'i Ai' oAontcon 


(TTov {Ro?n. 6) (TV yeyovco'^ npia^eve croiOrivai rets t/;v;;^a9 

These are headed toO SrouStToii. I presume that Theodorus Studites is meant. 

(6) Afial. Sacr. Spicil. Solesm. Par. i. p. 571 sq, ed. Pitra (1876). 

Two anonymous hymns to Ignatius, which the editor (p. 445) assigns to Theodore. 
In the first are the following expressions ; 

X/ato-Tov Se rvyoiv., rov crov epcoTO's, )(atpet9 ..ere iqyKa- 
Xtcraro Kvpcoq iraiZiov ovTa...{xeya<; aveTeiKa^ 17X105 rats 
iKKX7](TLaL<;, ajanep a/crtvag [_ ] eVtcrroXct? crov iKTrefiwcop 


This writer uses both forms of the Ignatian letters. The quotation in (3) is from 
the interpolated epistles ; that in (2) from the genuine text. 

Joseph the Hymnographer [c. a.d. 820?]. 

' Hynm. 5 (de S. Ignatio) Anal. Sacr. Spicil. Soles??!, i. p. 388. 

The following are the passages in this hymn which recal the language of Ignatius 

l^pdiavosycf-p ravra cus ycrOero, 6 drjp 6 duijfjLepos, O-QpCoLS 
/3/Da)/xa SoXoj 6e(T7Til,eL ere ecrecrOai, crirovhrj rrjv ^Vat^rjv 
(^OdcravTa, koI Xeo7rdpSoL<5 TTLKpols crwSrjaas e'/c tt^s ewas 
7rp6<; Svo-/u,a9 Tper^eiv TrpoTpeneTaL {Rotn. 2, 4, 5). 

Sv[X7r(x6e'l<5 ev ijxol, ^ikoi, fxiqh^ ok(o<; yiveade, irpo tov 
'Fajfxrju Ihelv, fxdKap, 'Poj/xatots eypac^es. &rjpa)v fxe yeveadai 
idcrare fipcofjia. tl {xol crvixcj^epeL /caXcus eiTicrTa^ai, crapKo^ 
fxov fxr} fj)eicra(rdaL' crtro? etjut yap Seov, /cat ^ovXo^at oXa>9 


dkecrOel^ keoPTOiv (TToixacnv yevecrOat apTO<s t^Svs rw Xoyw 

Tw (TTCLvpojdivTi Bi c/xc Kol Xoy^evdivTi Tiqv irXevpdv tovtop 

(f)€p(o iv crrepvoLS, tovtov (fyXeyoixaL raJ iroOci) (see esp. /^om. 4, 5). 

This Joseph also was a Studite and apparently a contemporary of Theodore. 
There is however some confusion about the verse-writers bearing this name; see 
Fabric. Bt'il. Graec. x. p. 79, ed. Harles. 

Michael Syncellus [c. a.d, 820], 

Encom. in Dionys. Areopag., Dionys. Op. 11. p. 233 (ed. Corder.). 

Tpd(f)€L Se Koi 6 Oeios lyvctrtos-'O ewoc epcoc ecTAYpooTAi. 
TOVTO yap TO pr)TOv o 6eo<^6po<; ^IyvdTLO<;, fxekXcov iv 'Pcojxr) 
fxapTvpLKaiq dOX-qcreLV /cat Toi'i Xeovai ^opa Kara rrjv tov 
rvpdvvov Tpaiavov Trpocna^iv irapa^XiqdrjcrecrBaL, Trepl to 
Trj<; avTOv TvpavveCai; evvaTOv eTo<i Kara t(ov evcrefiecTTdTcov 
■^pL(TTLav(t)v Bicoyfxou iyeipavTos, Pw/xatot? eTTLCTTeXXajp ye- 

Michael Syncellus also was a contemporary of Theodorus Studites. 

NiCEPHORUs OF Constantinople [f a.d. 828]. 
(i) Chronographia Brevis (ed. de Boor, Lipsiae 1880). 

p. 93. Tpataj'os en^ iO\ pJr)va.% S"'. 

'EttI tovtov 'lymrto? o @eo(f)6po<5 \_iv 'Pw/^i^] iixapTvpyjae, 
[^OrjpioLq /3opa TrapaSoOeCs]. 

p. 129. Kat ocrot iu 'Ai^rto^eta iTrecrKOTrrjcrav dvo 
Xptcrrov /cai t(ou arrocTToXoiv. 

a. YieTpo<; 6 diroarToXo^ err) ca. 

yS'. EvoStos €T7) Ky\ 

y. 'lyi^arto? o 0eo(;^o/Dog d kol iirl 

Tpa'Cavov fxapTvpijcras err) 8'. 

8'. "Yipov eTT) K. 

[p. 135. Kat ocra Trj<? via^ a7roAC/3v<^a. 

a. UepiohoL YleTpov crTiyoiv ,^^v\ 


y . TleptoSos (dcofid crTi^oiv a^. 

8'. EvayyeXtot' /cara Soixav crTL^oiv ar. 

€. ^iha^Tj diTocrTokoiv aTi^oiv cr. 

5"'. KXriixevTO^ a , yS" (ttl-^ojv ^^^. 

^\ 'lyvaTLOv, YloXyKapnov, Ilot^teVo? kol 'Epfia.l 

The numbers of verses differ in the different authorities for the text ; Init we are 
not concerned here with these differences. 

This work is found in the Mss in two forms, the one fuller than the other. De 
Boor considers that the shorter form represents the original Nicephorus, and that the 
longer was a recension made soon after his death. It cannot be much later, as it was 
translated into Latin by Anastasius about a.d. 870. 

The words not contained in the shorter form are here placed in brackets. The 
list of books is one of these later additions. 

(2) Antirrhetica {Spicil. Solesm. r. p. 356, ed. Pitra). 
Tov ayiov LepojxdpTvpo'5 lypanov, eK rrj<; -rrpos <I>tXt7r- 


ETc d eNANGpconHCAC, oyre 6 ttathp e(})Are kai eni- 

€N {Philipp. 3). 

Pitra does not write out the extract in full ; neither does Cotelier, who in his 
note on the Ignatian passage mentions its being quoted by Nicephorus, as also by 
Theodoras Graptus in an unedited work Adv. Iconomachos. 

Georgius Hamartolus [c. a.d. 850]. 
Chronicon iii. 135 {Patrol. Graec. ex. p. 525, ed. Migne). 
'EttI avTov \jov TyData^'ov] '^Vfiecvi' 6 tov KXeova 6 iu 
*Ie/3oa"oXv/xot9 e7rtcrK:o770? kol 'lymrtos o &eo(f)6po<; e/xaprv- 
prjcrav. kol BacrtXetSTy? /cat MevavSpos kol KrjpLi>do<; koI 
Nt/coXao? els t(ov t^ SiaKOPOiv, ol alpecndp-^aL, c^dpol rrj^ 
dXrjdeia'^ iyvoipilpvTo. 

The mention of these heretics suggests that this writer derived his information 
directly or indirectly from the Long Recension of the Ignatian epistles; Ps-Trall. 1 1. 


Ado of Vienne [f a.d. 874]. 
Libcll. de Festiv. SS. Apost. {Patrol. Lat. cxxiii. p. 181 sq, ed. Migne). 
(i) p. 189. 

XIV Kal. Martii. Natalis sancti Onesimi, de quo beatus apo- 
IGN. I. 15 


stolus Philenioni familiares litteras mittit quern beatus idem 

apostolus episcopum ordinans praedicationisque verbum ei committens, 
apud Ephesiorum civitatem reliquit, cui episcopus post beatum Timo- 
theum et ipse resedit ; de quo et beatus Ignatius, Ephesiis mittens 
epistulam, ita dicit ; Quoniam ergo suscepi multitiidinem vestram in 
nomine Domini in Onesi^no, diledo praeceptore nostro, vestro autem episcopo., 
obsecro eum secundum lesum Christum diiigere vos, et vos ornnes in Con- 
cordia eius in ipso esse. Benedictus enim Domiims, qui veins talibus talem 
episcopum donavit habere in Christo. Hie, Romam perductus atque ibi 
pro fide Christi lapidatus, sepultus est Christi martyr primum ibi ; inde 
ad loca, ubi fuerat ordinatus episcopus, corpus eius est delatum. 

(2) p. 191 sq. 

Pridie Nonas Maii. Natalis sancti Euodii, qui ab apostolis Antiochiae 
episcopus ordinatus est, de quo beatus Ignatius ad Antiochenam eccle- 
siam ; Pauli et Petri facti estis discipuli ; nolite perdere depositum quod 
vobis contJne?idavermit. Meme?itote digne beatissimi Euodii, pastoris vestri, 
qui primus vobis ab apostolis antistes ordinatus est. N071 confundamus 
patrem, sed efficianmr certi filii et non adulterini. Hie martyr apud 
Antiochiam urbem, cui praefuit, sepultus est. 

For the account of Ignatius himself in this writer see below, p. lyi. 

Antonius [c. a.d. 900?]. 
Loci Communes {Patrol. Grace, cxxxvi. p. 765 sq, ed. Migne). 
(i) i. 14, p. 809. 


Kypioy, CN akayxhci'a MCNeTco" kai kan rNoocBH nAeoN Tof eni- 
cKonoY, e(j)0ApTAi. npenei Ae to?c rAMofci kai taic P'^MOYMeNAic 


TTApGeNiAC ZYroN mhAgni eniTi'Ger enic(|)AAec r^\> to kthma 


To?c NecoTepoic eniTpene tamcTn, npiN AiA^OApoJciN eic 


(2) i. 26, p. 857. 


AycTAi {Ephes. 13). 


(3) ii- 3> P- 1016. 

ZnoyAACATe mh ANTiTAccec9Ai TO) enicKonoi, i'na fixe Oeco 


nAeoN AYTON c})oBeTc0e" hanta r<^p on newnei o oiKoAecnoTHC 
eic Iaian oikonomi'an, oy'tooc Ae? hmac ayton Ae)(ec9Ai, ojc ayton 
TON newnoNTA. ton oyn eniCKonoN toe ayton ton KfpiON Aei 
npocBAeneiN {Ephes. 5, 6). 

(4) ii. 4, p. 1020. 

TTantac BACTAze, coc ce 6 KYpioc' nANXooN anexoy gn 
AfAnH" AiTOY CYNeciN nAei'oNA h'c exeic. hantoon tac nocoyc 
BACTAze* dnoY r^p nAei'wN Konoc, noAY to KepAoc [Polyc. i), 

(5) ii. 19, p. 1060. 

'0 ZamoyhA nAiAApiON a)N d BAeirooN skAhBh, kai tw X^P^ 
TWN npo4)HTa)N erKATeAeyen. AanihA ngoc wn eKpiNCN OMore- 
elNAi. 'lepeMiAc Aia to ngon nApAiTOYM€NOC THN erxeip'20- 


eiMT AiOTi npdc hantac ofc can elAnocTeAco ce nopeYCH. 


XpieTAi YTTO ZamoyhA eic BaciAca {Mar. Ign. 2, 3, 4). 

(6) ii. 23, p. 1066. 

Oi AoyAoi mh epATcocAN And TOY KOiNOY eAeYOepoyceA!' aAA' 
eic AoIan OeoY nAeON AoYAsYeTCOCAN, Fna KpeiTTONoc eAeyOe- 
piAC And 0eoY tyx<J^cin {Polyc. 4). 

(7) "• 43> P- 1 1 12. 

KaAoyc maGhtac can (|)iAhc, X'^^P'^ •-°' *^YK ecTi' maAAon 
TOYC Anei6ecTepoYC eN npAYTHTi Y^^dTACce. oy han TpAywA 
TH AYTH eMnAACTpcp eepAnefeTAr toyc nApo^YCMOYC eMBpoxAJc 
nAye {Polyc. 2). 

(8) ii. 67, p. 1162. 

OyAcn ecTiN AM6INON eipHNHC, cn h hac d noAeMOc kata- 
Ayctai {Ephes. 13), 

(9) ii. 84, p. 1204. 


roYTOY AiaBoAoc {Trail. 4). 



(lo) ii. 89, p. 1216. 


AepecGAi KAi NiKAN" maAicta Ae eNGKeN 0eoY hanta hmac 
YHOMeNeiN Ae?, Fna kai aytoc hmac yttomginh {Polyc. 3). 

MAKpoGYMeixe Mer' aAAh'Acon en npAfxHTi, oic 6 Oedc iweS' 

HMCDN AlA nANTOC {PolyC. 6). 

The date of this writer is variously given from the 8th to the 12th century. Cave 
(Hist. Lit. II. p. 219) adopts the later epoch on the ground that he quotes Theo- 
phylact ; but Fabricius {Bibl. Graec. ix. p. 744 sq, ed. Harles) asserts the writer 
quoted to be not, as Cave assumes, Theophylact of Bulgaria (t c. A.D. 1112), but 
Theophylact of Simocatta (+ c. A.D. 628). They refer, I suppose, to the passage, 
p. 1 1 70, Migne. Photius the patriarch is several times quoted. Antonius therefore 
cannot well be placed much before the close of the 9th century. 

It is evident from the quotations, YicpOevla^ ^v^jov k.t.X. and Tots peurepois k.t.X. 
(i. 14), that this collection is not independent of the extracts in the Parallela of John 
of Damascus. This is not the only instance in which the close connexion between 
these two works appears; see Philippiaiis p. 252. The two passages here are not 
directly ascribed to Ignatius, but follow on the one correctly so ascribed, without any 
fresh ascription. 


Severus of Ashmunin [c. A.D. 975]. 

De Conciliis etc. iv. 

<uSLj; ^ ^Jj-^^ u^J^ '^ <jJW^ aj^^lkj! i^jijsi (jMy^sMcS 

' B om.^^3^^. ' B om. Jj-j^I ^ A U^u-t. 

* B has only Jjjb. ' ^ i^y^^- " ^' °"''- ^s^[}. 


' B ijl ' B adds j^. ' A <0. 

The fourth chapter of the book. The teachings of the ancient 
Fathers regarding the Headship before the breaking up of the faith, 
and a httle of what happened after the (said) breaking up. Ignatius, 
patriarch of Antioch, the third after Peter (the Apostle), has said in his 
Epistle to the people of Smyrna : And ye too, be ye perfect in our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who is of the seed of David {the prophet) according to the 
body, {and) the Son of God {in reality) ; He ivas born of the Virgin Mary, 
and 7vas baptized by John, and ivas crucified for our sake in the time of 
Pontius Pilate {Smyrn. i). And he has said in his Epistle to Antioch: 
Whosoever acknoivledges now the Christ, and does not confess that He is 
the Son of God, the Creator of the world, and says that here there is 
another son {besides Him), and turns away from xvhat the prophets have 
prophesied and the disciples have announced, he is a temple unto Satan 
{Ant. 5). 

The words omitted in B are placed within brackets ( ). 

The MS Arahe Stippl. 79, fol. 45 sq, has substantially the same text, but with the 
addition of these words after "Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch": 

Jljj i^j |lc 2^ Jo JUuJI Jjto- S^"^^ ^ U^^^^^ ^'^J 

Ijjb JXo (j_jCj [read \j^\ j^ ^^j ^. Ci\J\ ^^ ifju^i*] 

.p ^^\ Iilk3^ i^ >j U c:^^^ ^^j J ^^ Jiyi 

And this Ignatius it was on whose head the Lord placed His hand, 
and said to His disciples : Whosoever ivishes to become great, he must 
become like this child. And he was at this time a child, and he became 
patriarch of Antioch, the third etc. 

Severus ibn al-Mukaffa was bishop of Ashmunin, or Hermopolis Magna, in 
the Thebaid. His best known work is a history of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, 
to which Renaudot was chiefly indebted in his Hist. Patriarch. Alexandr. Jacobit. 
(Paris 1713). The following facts fixing the date of Severus have been supplied to 
me by Ur Rieu from a British Museum MS of his history, Add. 26101. (i) Speak- 
ing of a chapel of S. Mark built by the patriarch Sanutius I, who was ordained a.d. 
859, he says that it had now been standing 115 years (fol. 32 b ; comp. Renaudot 
p. 323). This therefore could not have been written before A.D. 974. (2) It is stated 
(fol. 43 b ; comp. Renaudot p. 367) that Severus was bishop of Ashmunin under 


Ephrern Syrus, who was patriarch for three years about a-D- 975, and that he took 
a prominent part in a disputation against the Jews before the Khalif al Moezz, who 
died A.D. 975. (3) Severus is mentioned (fol. 52 b; comp. Renaudot p. 377) as the 
intimate friend of Wadih ibn Raja, a convert from Islamism who died under the 
Khalif al Hakim (a.d. 996 — 1020). For references to this Severus see Assem. Bibl. 
Orknt. II. pp. 70 sq, 143, III. p. 543, Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. p. 623, Lequien Oriens 
Christ. II. p. 596, Cave Hist. Lit. 11. p. 106, as also in the several Catalogues of the 
Arabic and Ethiopic Mss in the British Museum, Bodleian, and Paris Libraries. 

The work from which the above extract is taken is a treatise ' On the First Four 
Councils and the causes of Schisms' in refutation of Eutychius ibn al-Batrik (see 
Zotenberg Catal. des mss Synaqiies de la Bibl. A^ation. p. 190; comp. Assem. Bibl. 
Orient, ill. p. 543). It is preserved in four Paris MSS, three Arabic {A}uieii Fotids 90, 
Suppleme7it 55, 79) and one Carshunic {Ancien Foftds 154; see Zotenberg 1. c). 
The extract here given belongs to the beginnuig of the fourth book, and is taken from 
the MSS, Ancien Bonds 90 fol. 19 sq, and Suppl. 55 fol. 94, designated A, B, 
respectively in the collation. 

Pearson {Vind. Ign. p. 90, ed. Churton), after speaking of Ignatian quotations in 
Greek and Latin authors, continues ; ' Est et aliud [testimonium] ex Arabico 
depromptum ; cujus cum nee auctor satis certo nee aetas mihi hactenus innotuit, illud 
postremo loco adjungendum putavi, quemadmodum a viro docto Bernardo Oxoniensi 
e codice Ms D. Thevenoti, qui numero octavus est in Catalogo Verlanii, exscriptum 
mihique communicatum est. Ita igitur Ibn Zorha Jacobita (si bene meminit amicus 
noster) libri sui adversus Eulychen cap. quarto; Dicit Ignatius etc': after w^hich 
Pearson gives in Latin the Ignatian extracts which I have printed above in the Arabic. 
Through the kindness of M. Zotenberg, who has investigated the matter for me, I 
have been able to trace the quotation to its proper source. The Paris MS Ancien 
Fonds 90 (mentioned above), which wants some leaves at the beginning, contains a 
number of miscellaneous theological treatises by Ibn Zorha, Johannes Saba, Abul- 
Farag, and othe^rs. Among these is the above-mentioned work 'On the Councils,' 
which contains the extract. This Isa ibn Zorha was a famous Jacobite writer (Ann. 
Heg. 331 — 398), but he is not the author of the work in question. In a title 
however added by a later hand the treatises in the volume generally are ascribed 
to him ; and in this way Pearson's informant was misled. 

This extract has been edited for me from M. Zotenberg's transcript and colla- 
tions by Dr Wright, to whom also I am indebted for the translation. 

Solomon of Bassora [c. a.d. 1220]. 

Liber Apis. 

(i) 'John the son of Zebedee, he also was from Bethsaida of the 
tribe of Zabulon. He preached in Asia at first, and afterwards he 
was sent into banishment to the island of Patmos by Tiberius Csesar, 
and then he went up to Ephesus and built a church there. Now there 
went up with him three disciples j Ignatius who was afterwards bishop 
of Antioch and was thrown to beasts at Rome, and Polycarp who was 
bishop in Syria [Smyrna] and received the crown [of martyrdom] by 


fire, and that John on whom he conferred the priesthood and the seat 
of the bishopric after him.' 

(2) ' The child whom our Lord called and set up and said, Unless 
ye be converted, and become like a child, ye shall not enter the kingdom of 
heaven, was Ignatius, the same that was patriarch of Antioch. And he 
saw the angels ministering in two bands, and instituted that they should 
minister in the church in the same manner : and after a time this insti- 
tution was abolished : and when Diodorus went with his father in the 
embassy to the country of Persia, and saw them ministering in two 
bands, he came to his own country Antioch, and renewed the practice 
of ministering in two bands.' 

Foi- this Syrian writer see Assemani Bibl. Orient, ill. p. 309. This book called 
'the Bee' is preserved in a Vatican MS (see Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. p. 576) and in 
Brit. A/us. Add. 25875 (see Wright's Catalogue p. 1067). From this latter Cureton 
published and translated the extracts which are here given (C. /. p. 220 sq, p. 251 sq). 
The latter of the two passages is also quoted by Assemani {Bibl. Orient, ill. p. 321). 
The whole work has been translated into Latin by Schonfelder (Bamberg, 1866). 

For the introduction of antiphonal singing, and for the reference to Diodorus, see 
above, p. 31. 

Gregory Barhebraeus [c. a.d. 1285]. 
Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (ed. Abbeloos et Lamy). 

(i) I. p. 42. 'After Euodius Ignatius Nurono. He was bound at 
Antioch and sent to Rome. And on the journey he confirmed all the 
faithful that came in his way ; and he said / am the tvheat of God who 
am ready to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be pnre bread 
on the heavenly table. And he saw angels singing in two bands and he 
taught the Church to do so. And when he arrived in Rome, Trajan 
commanded that he should be cast to wild beasts ; and he was de- 
voured as he had before prophesied.' 

' After Ignatius Nurono Eron in the time of Plinius Secundus. He 
condemned many Christians to death and deposed them from their 
rank, etc ' (comp. Euseb. H. E. iii. t^i). 

(2) II. p. 34. 

'And he [Simeon Barsaboe] ordered that they should sing in two 
bands in the Churches of the East, just as in the west it had been 
ordered from the time of Ignatius Nurono the disciple of John the 
Evangelist the son of Zebedee.' 


In the preceding pages those quotations and references are omitted 
which fall under the following heads ; 

(i) All testimonies later than the close of the ninth century. To 
this rule exceptions are made in the case of the three last, which are given 
for their intrinsic interest as showing the tradition of Oriental Churches. 
References to later testimonies will be found scattered up and down 
these volumes ; e.g. for the English writers who quote the Anglo-Latin 
Version see above, i. p. 77. 

(2) All the Acts of Martyrdom of S. Ignatius. These will be 
found in their proper place, 11. p. 363 sq. 

(3) All Martyrologies and Calendars, with the exception of the 
very early Syriac Martyrology (see above, p. 150), whose great anti- 
quity claimed for it a special mention. Notices will be found in 11. 
p. 418 sq of several of the Martyrologies and Calendars thus omitted. 

(4) All Service Books. Thus the Greek Mensea (Dec. 20) give a 
considerable space to Ignatius. Some notices relating to the Menaea will 
be found in different parts of these volumes, e.g. i. p. 222, 11. pp. 202, 
207, 223, 422). For the rest, it may be said generally that the prayers, 
invocations, etc, in the Mengea are founded on the Acts of Martyrdom 
(including the incorporated Epistle to the Romans) and the panegyric 
of S. Chrysostom. 

(5) All secondary Latin authorities. The notices in such writers 
are made up of (i) the notice in the Vtri ///usf res of ] erome (see above, 
p. 155); (2) the version of Eusebius If. E. iii. ^d by Rufinus (see 
above, p. 168); and sometimes also (3) the BoUandist Latin Acts of 
Ignatius (see 11. p. 371). Thus the passage in Gildas {de Excid. Britann. 
iii. 7, p. 373, ed. Migne) is taken from Rufinus; the account in Freculph 
of Lexovium {Chron. ii. 2. 11, Magn. Bibl. Vet. Pair. ix. i. p. 509) is 
copied almost word for word from Jerome ; while the narratives in Ado 
{Libell. de Festiv. Apost. p. 191, Migne) and in the Martyrology of the 
so-called Bede {Op. v. p. 11 12, Migne) are derived chiefly from the 
BoUandist Acts, with a slight intermingling of Jerome. 

A most important testimony to the Ignatian letters is found in the 
different versions, recensions, and spurious imitations. These however 
have been considered in the previous chapter, and therefore all mention 
of them is omitted here. 



THE history of the Ignatian Epistles in Western Europe, before and 
after the revival of letters, is full of interest. In the middle ages 
the spurious and interpolated letters alone have any wide circulation. 
Gradually, as the light advances, the forgeries recede into the back- 
ground. Each successive stage diminishes the bulk of the Ignatian 
literature which the educated mind accepts as genuine ; till at length 
the true Ignatius alone remains, divested of the accretions which per- 
verted ingenuity has gathered about him. 

Mention has been made more than once already of the Correspond- 
ence WITH S. John and the Virgin, bearing the name of Ignatius. 
This consists of four brief letters : (i) A letter from Ignatius to S. John, 
describing the interest aroused in himself and others by the accounts 
which they have received concerning the marvellous devotion and love 
of the Virgin; (2) Another from the same to the same, expressing 
his earner,t desire to visit Jerusalem for the sake of seeing the Virgin 
together with James the Lord's brother and other saints ; (3) A 
letter from Ignatius to the Virgin, asking her to send him a word of 
assurance and exhortation ; (4) A reply from the Virgin to Ignatius, 
confirming the truth of all that John has taught him, and urging him 
to be stedfast in the faith'. 

It can hardly be doubted that the forger took the existing Ignatian 

^ This seems to be the correct order (i), (2), the correspondence with the 

of the letters, as it preserves a proper Virgin preceding the letters to S. John, 

climax. It is ionnd in A/agduL "jG, Caiens. p'or the letters themselves see iii. p. 

395. On the other hand in Lincoln. 101, 69 sq. 
Land. Alisc. 141, the order is (3), (4), 



cr J c 



"2 r" "r; 


. ,. g ~ ^ s2 jj t/3 








^^^ ^ 


t-4 HH M M 

E .2 







Sj G- 

H rJ 














p o ci.^2 5 ^ o 5: to- > js s^ ;« 




M pj fO-^vo^O* t^od OnO w W ro 


l-l W (H M 



5 s 




C t« S -P . ,. § g 

- -:>« 


rr' IJ 
« Si 

il|s:s.l^^l1 111 

rH|li|?;IIU 1 



i-H N CO •^ lOvd l>»CO CN O I-* N 

W '^E-'.S 

l-l 1-4 1-1 

d, .!£ 

p ,rt ■" 


cr H'S 




CI. g w G 

J- .3 p rt 




M N th 

d -^^ 

J. ' 



^ 2 



III is iti^ 

p Ch42 2 q S "^ S o 


d -H 

r*- . . . . ClJ • • • 


^~, :^ 


"^ ^^ 


*-• 1— H 


Epistles as his starting-point. Among these there is a letter to one 
Mary of Cassobola, who is addressed as xP'o"''o^opos Ovya-Tijp Mapia, 
' Christifera filia Maria.' A careless reader might assume that the 
Virgin was meant thereby', for the epithet would seem to be singularly 
applicable to her; and thus he would be tempted to enlarge the 
correspondence. In the letter to the Virgin at all events the forger 
uses this very same epithet, ' Christiferae Mariae suus Ignatius,' and 
speaks of having written to her before, 'Scripsi tibi et alias.' 

These letters are found only in Latin, and internal evidence seems 
to show that this was their original language". As the motive is 
obviously the desire to do honour to the Virgin, we are naturally led 
to connect this forgery with the outburst of Mariolatry, which marked 
the eleventh and following centuries. The workmanship is coarse and 
clumsy, and could only have escaped detection in an uncritical age. 

Certainly the writer succeeded in his aim. The manuscripts of 
this correspondence far exceed even those of the Long Recension in 
number, and the quotations are decidedly more frequent. In some 
quarters indeed S. Ignatius was only known through them, the other 
letters not possessing sufficient interest for the age, and therefore gradu- 
ally passing out of mind. 

It is even alleged that the great S. Bernard himself vouches for 
their genuineness, and his supposed authority swayed the judgment 
of critics for some time after the revival of letters ; but this view, 
though commonly held, seems to rest on a misreading or a misinter- 

^ The instance given above (p. 127, epistles in Greek (a.d. 1560), the diffi- 

note 2), where this same mistake has culty is met in another way. The words 

actually been made in the second half xpiaTo<p6pi^ Ovyarpl Mapia. are rendered 

of this 19th century, will show that a ' Christi filiae ac matri Mariae.' 

misapprehension was far from improbable ^ Cotelier (on Philipp. 14) states that 

in the nth. • he read in a catalogue of Mss belonging 

The persistence of this error is illus- to the Church of S. Peter at Beauvais the 

trated by some curious facts. In the entry ' Epistolae duae aut tres B. Ignatii 

opening salutation of the epistle, XP'"'- martyris ad B. Mariam Virginem et ad 

To06/3y dvyarpl Mapig., ' Christiferae S. Johannem Evangelistam, quae in- 

filiae Mariae,' the word 'filiae' is left ventae sunt Lugduni, tempore concilii 

out in several mss of the old Latin Innocentii Papae iv, et de Graeco in 

Version. The omission is evidently due Latinum conversae.' What foundation 

to the feeling that this mode of address in fact this statement may have, I am 

was not suited to the Lord's mother, unable to say. This Council of Lyons 

to whom the epistle was supposed to was held in a.d. 1245. Some special 

have been written. Again, in a modern honours were conferred on the Virgin l)y 

Latin translation by J. Brunner, which it ; see Labb. Co/ic. XIV. 42. 
is attached to Gesner's edition of these 



pretation of his meaning. In one of his sermons this father writes as 
follows ' : 

' Therefore, dearly beloved, give ye glory, and bear Christ meanwhile 
in your body, a delightful load, a pleasant weight, a wholesome 
burden... That great Ignatius, the scholar of the disciple whom Jesus 
loved, our martyr with whose precious reliques our poverty hath been 
enriched, saluteth a certain' Mary in several epistles^ which he wrote 
to her, as Christ-bearer. Truly an exceptional title of dignity and a 
commendation of exceeding honour. For the carrying of Him, to be 
whose slave is to be a king, is not onerous, but honorable... Happy 
the man who shall have so borne Christ as to deserve to be introduced 
into the holy city by the Holy One of all.' 

^ In Psahn. xc Serm. vii. § 3, 4 (il. 
p. 124, Venet. 1726) 'Glorificate itaque, 
dilectissimi, et portate interim Christum 
in corpore vestro, onus delectabile, suave 
pondus, sarcinamsalutarem.... Magnus ille 
Ignatius, discipuli quern diligebat Jesus 
auditor, martyr noster, cujus pretiosis 
reliquiis nostra ditata est paupertas, 
Mariam qtiandam in pluribus quas ad 
earn scripsit epistolis, Christiferam con- 
salutat. Egregius plane titulus digni- 
tatis et commendatio honoris immensi. 
Nempe cui servire regnare est, gestare 

hunc, non onerari est, sed honorari 

Felix qui sic tulerit Christum, ut a sancto 
sanctoi-um in sanctam civitatem mereatur 
induci. ' 

^ The word qtiandani was doubtless 
omitted by transcribers acquainted with 
the letter to the Virgin, but ignorant of 
the letter to Mary of Cassobola. To 
such the expression would appear out of 
place. In some instances qicidcm is sub- 
stituted for quandam with the same view, 
as in Laitr. xxiii. 20. Internal proba- 
bility and external evidence alike show 
that quandam is correct. The passage of 
S. Bernard sometimes accompanies the 
Correspondence in the Mss, for the pur- 
pose of recommending it to the reader ; 
e.g. Magd. 76, Lau}-. xxiii. 20. 

* The expression 'pluribus Uteris' must 
be set down to an error on S. Bernard's 

part. He may have got the idea of 
'several letters' in either of two ways — 
from a lapse of memory which substituted 
a second letter from Ignatius to Mary of 
Cassobola for the letter from Mary of 
Cassobola to Ignatius, or from a confusion 
which combined the two letters to the 
two Maries, each designated ' Christifera,' 
and supposed them both addressed to 
Mary of Cassobola. This latter hypo- 
thesis however supposes him to have had 
a superficial acquaintance with the letter 
to the Virgin, which seems improbable; 
and the former therefore is to be pre- 
ferred. The extant Clairvaux MS (see 
above p. 127), though early, does not 
contain the correspondence with the 
Virgin and S. John. Can it be that the 
'pretiosae reliquiae,' to which S. Bernard 
refers, were the literary remains of 
Ignatius with which the library had 
recently been enriched ? 

If any one doubts whether such a 
mistake as I attribute to S. Bernard be 
possible, he may be convinced by finding 
that it is actually made by the editor of 
a standard edition of S. Bernard's works 
(Venet. 1726), who maintains that his 
author is not speaking of the Virgin, 
'sed de alia quadam, nempe Cassabolita 
seu Castabolita, ad quam duae extant 
epistolae sancto Ignatio martyri adscrip- 
tae, in quibus Christifera salutatur.' 


Here it is clear from qtiandam that some comparatively unknown 
person bearing the name Mary is intended. But the omission of the 
word in some texts has given occasion to the belief that S. Bernard 
is speaking of the Virgin. Of its genuineness however there can be no 
reasonable doubt. The whole context shows that S. Bernard regards 
Ignatius as using the epithet ' Christ-bearing ' in the same sense in 
which it might be appHed to his own hearers. The allusion therefore 
is to Mary of Cassobola. 

At the first streak of intellectual dawn this Ignatian spectre 
vanished into its kindred darkness. In vain feeble attempts were 
made to arrest its departure. The mention in the Chronicle of the 
so-called Dexter was alleged, but this was found to be a coarse forgery. 
The authority of the great Bernard was pleaded, but this proves to 
be a case of mistaken identity. So it was held a sufficient condemna- 
tion of this correspondence in an age when internal characteristics 
were not over narrowly scrutinized, that it is never quoted by the 
ancients, and accordingly it was consigned at once and for ever to the 
limbo of fooHsh and forgotten things'. 

After this stupid pretender's claims had been set aside, S. Ignatius 
was represented, less unworthily indeed, but still very inadequately, 
in Western Europe by the epistles of the Long Recension. The 
Latin mss of this recension are, as we have seen, by no means 
uncommon. The Latin text was printed early (a.d. 1498) and re- 
printed several times. The publication of the Greek text suc- 
ceeded after an interval of nearly sixty years (a.d. 1557). At first 
no doubt seems to have been entertained respecting its genuineness. 
Ignatius was certainly cited by the ancients, and this was the only 
Ignatius known. Moreover the epistles quoted in early times bore 
the same names; and the quotations themselves, though they did not 
coincide, had a rough resemblance to passages in these extant letters. 
There seemed therefore to be no alternative left, but to accept them as 

Yet the very suspicious character of the epistles caused uneasiness 
to the critical spirit. The divergence of the text from the quotations 
in early Christian writers, such as Eusebius and Theodoret, were in some 
instances so great that in Ussher's language (p. xvii) it was difficult 
for one to imagine 'eundem legere se Ignatium qui veterum aetate 
legebatur.' It appeared clear moreover that Eusebius was only ac- 

1 Yet Halloix (lllustr. Script. Vitae i. can still say of its genuineness, 'iion est 
p. 300), writing as late as a.d. 1633, improbabile,' 


quainted with seven epistles, and that none besides the seven men- 
tioned by him were quoted for many generations after his time. Lastly, 
when early Christian history came to be more carefully studied, these 
epistles were found to contain gross anachronisms and other blunders. 
The writer for instance condemns the heresies of Basilides and 
Theodotus among others {Trail. 11), though the opinions of the 
former were not promulgated during the lifetime of Ignatius, and the 
latter cannot have flourished till considerably more than half a century 
after his death. He also supposes a heresiarch Ebion {Philad. 6), as 
Tertullian and later writers have done, but it is now acknowledged that 
no such individual existed and that the name was a designation adopted 
by the members of a sect or community generally. These are among 
the more prominent historic absurdities in which the epistles of the 
Long Recension abound. 

Besides these difficulties and misgivings which the critical faculty 
suggested, there were others due to a less honourable motive. Theo- 
logical and ecclesiastical prejudice entered largely into the views of 
the combatants. These epistles contained certain passages which 
favoured, or seemed to favour, the Roman supremacy {Rom. inscr., 
comp. Ign. Mar. 4). Protestant controversialists were offended at these. 
Again the writer appears throughout as a staunch advocate of epis- 
copacy. To Reformers, like Calvin, who had adopted presbyterianism 
on principle, this was an unpardonable crime. It is a noteworthy 
circumstance that Romanist writers for the most part maintained the 
authenticity and integrity of the twelve epistles of the Long Recen- 
sion. One noble exception is the Jesuit Petavius who, remarking 
on the quotations in early writers, recognized distinctly the fact 
that these epistles were interpolated. On the other hand Protestant 
writers, as a rule, did not deny a genuine nucleus, though they 
ruthlessly excised everything which conflicted with their theological and 
ecclesiastical prepossessions. Thus the Magdeburg Centuriators ' did 
not go beyond expressing their doubts concerning these epistles, and 
even Calvin is defended by later Protestant writers against the impu- 
tation of condemning the letters altogether, though he had declared 
in his Institutes that ' nothing was more foul than those nursery stories 
(nihil naeniis illis...putidius), which were published under the name of 
Ignatius', and had denounced 'the insufferable impudence of those who 

^ The references to writers quoted in sq, Vind. Ign. Appx. i sq, Jacobson 
this paragraph will be found in Pearson Patr. Apost. I. p. 27 sq, and other col- 
Vind. Ign. procem., Cureton C. I. p. xvii lections of authorities. 


equip themselves with ghosts Hke these (talibus instruunt) 
for the purpose of deceiving.' A type of the more moderate opponent 
is Abr. Scultetus (a.d. 1598), who, pointing out some real and other 
imaginary blots in these letters, acquiesced in the verdict ' esse quidem 
epistolas hasce Ignatii, sed adulteratas, sed interpolatas.' Even later 
(a.d. 1 641), on the very eve of Ussher's great discovery, Saumaise did 
not go beyond the assertion ' Omnes illas Ignatii epistolas supposi- 
ticias esse vel certe multis locis interpolatas', while he expressed his 
own view of their origin in the words ' Epistolae illae natae et 
suppositae videntur circa initium aiit medium secundi saecult, quo 
tempore primus singularis episcopatus supra presbyteratum introductus 
fuit.' Little or nothing was gained, even from the writer's own point of 
view, by a theory which shifted the authorship but hardly touched the 

One serious and sober attempt, which was made during this pre- 
Usserian epoch, to separate the spurious from the genuine Ignatian 
literature, deserves special notice. An edition of the Ignatian letters 
was pubhshed a.d. 1623 by Vedelius, a Genevan Professor. He 
divided the epistles into two classes, printing the seven named by 
Eusebius by themselves as genuine, and throwing the remaining five 
into a second volume or appendix as spurious (to, {f/evSeTrcypat^a koI 
Tct v66a). As regards the Seven Epistles, he maintained that they 
were corrupted, and he pointed especially to the interpolations from 
the Apostolic Constitutions. For the rest, he proceeded with great 
moderation. Though an ardent controversialist against Bellarmin and 
other Romanists, he betrays no excessive eagerness to get rid of 
passages which seem to make against him. Thus he allows the open- 
ing words of the Epistle to the Romans to stand. If he is frequently 
wrong in his attempts to discriminate between the genuine and the 
spurious, his failure in this respect was inevitable. The problem was 
insoluble without the aid of external testimony. 

While continental opinion was thus vague and divided, Anglican 
writers seem generally, though not universally, to have accepted the 
twelve Epistles without hesitation. This was the case for instance 
with Whitgift and Hooker and Andrewes', The opponents of their 
genuineness were for the most part men of inferior note, and (so far 
as they argued the case) derived their arguments from foreign scholars. 

1 Whitgift's Works 11. pp. 171, 304, Keble) ; Andrewes' Works i. pp. 392, 
428 (Parker Society's ed.); Hooker's 394(0x00.1841). 
Works III. pp. 4, 173 sq, 185, etc (ed. 


In England, as on the Continent, the question can hardly be said to 
have been considered on its own merits. Episcopacy was the burning 
question of the day; and the sides of the combatants in the Ignatian 
controversy were already predetermined for them by their attitude 
towards this question. Every allowance should be made for their 
following their prepossessions, where the evidence seemed so evenly 
balanced. On the one hand external testimony was strongly in favour 
of the genuineness of certain Ignatian letters; on the other hand the 
only Ignatian letters known were burdened with difificulties. At the 
very eve of Ussher's revelation a fierce literary war broke out on this 
very subject of episcopacy — evoked by the religious and political 
troubles of the times. In the year 1639, Hall then Bishop of Exeter, 
instigated by the Primate Laud, wrote a work entitled Episcopacy by 
Divine Right Asserted {Works ix. p. 505 sq, ed. Pratt, 1808). He 
confines his quotations to those confessedly 'genuine epistles... seven 
in number' (p. 571), which Eusebius knew and which Vedelius acknow- 
ledged; but in these seven he quotes and defends passages (e.g. 
Philad. 4) which Vedelius had justly condemned as interpolations. 
Two years later (a.d, 1641) he published An Humble Remonstrance 
(ix. p. 628 sq) on behalf of Liturgy and Episcopacy. This was 
attacked in An Afisi^ier to the Book entituled an Humble Reinonstrance 
(London, 1641), by five Presbyterian ministers, under the name 
Smectymnuus, a word composed of the initial letters of their names. 
To this Hall replied in A Defence of the Humble Remonstrance (ix. p. 
643). In this work also he quotes Ignatius (p. 672); but here the 
passage quoted {Smyrn. 8) is the same in the interpolated recension 
as in the original. We may conjecture that he had received a hint 
meanwhile from Ussher, and so abstained from quoting the interpolated 
text. A collection of tracts also was published at Oxford this same 
year in defence of episcopacy ; and in this collection was included 
one written by Ussher himself at the earnest importunity of Bishop 
Hall (see Ussher's Life and Works i. p. 225) and entitled The Origi?ial 
of Bishops and Metropolitans {ib. vii. p. 41 sq). In this tract Ussher 
significantly confines his quotations from Ignatius to two or three 
passages in which the interpolated recension agrees with the original 
text, but he does not breathe a word about his discovery, though the 
sheets of his great work on Ignatius were passing through his hands 
at the time'. A storm of writings followed on both sides of the ques- 

^ The leading facts relating to Ussher's remains, are as follows, (i) In his An- 
labours on Ignatius, as collected from his stuer to a yestiit, published in 1625, he 



tion. Among the champions of episcopacy in this meMe the most 
notable was Jeremy Taylor, then a young man, whose elaborate work 
Of the Sacred Order and Offices of Episcopacy ( Works vii. p. 3 sq, ed. 
Heber, 1822) appeared in 1642, and who quotes the Ignatian letters 
freely (vii. pp. 37, 47, 52, 72, 89, 102, 103, etc) as authoritative, 
though in one passage (vii. p. 155 sq) he confines himself to the seven 

quotes the Long Recension without any 
expression of misgiving {^Life and Works 
III. pp. 428, 354). (2) On Aug. 27, 1628, 
Dr Prideaux refers to Ussher's intention 
of 'printing Ignatius' at Oxford (xv. p. 
419), and on March 15, 1629, Ussher 
himself writes to Dr Ward, 'I have writ- 
ten a large censure of the Epistles of 
Ignatius, which I forward to publish be- 
fore I have received the transcript of the 
Latin Ignatius which you have in Caius 
College' (xv. p. 482). This 'censure' 
was never published. Probably it set 
forth Ussher's theory, founded on the quo- 
tations in English writers but not yet con- 
firmed by the authority of any MS. He 
seems to have been desirous of giving it 
to the world at once, because it would 
be the more telling if confirmed after- 
wards (as he anticipated) by manuscript 
authority. Doubtless its substance was 
incorporated afterwards in his published 
work. (3) From the letter last quoted 
it appears that he had already taken 
steps to procure a transcript of the Caius 
MS (see above, p. 82). On May 25, 1630 
Dr Ward writes to Ussher that he was 
' in good hope that this had been the same 
with an old printed translation which he 
had; but comparing them together he 
found them differ much' (xv. p. 504). 
He had applied first to Dr Whalley and 
then to Mr Foster (see above p. 82) to 
make a transcript, but had not succeeded. 
He promises however to see to it 'at the 
return of our students', i.e. after the end of 
the Long Vacation. On July 28, 163 1, 
the transcript is actually in the hands of 
Ussher's agent (xv. p. 542), and on Aug. 9, 
1632, Ussher speaks of it with approbation 
(xv. p. 559) ; see above, p. 82 note. 

IGN. I. 

(4) On March 10, 1637, Ussher, after 
mentioning some characteristics of the 
Caius MS as contrasted with the common 
texts, adds ' I intend before long to pub- 
lish Ignatius myself (xvi. p. 34). (5) 
In the years 1639, 1640, he is making 
enquiries about Oriental translations (xvi. 
pp. 58, 64). (6) On Sept. 30, 1640, he 
writes that 'the printer is following him 
hard' with the sheets of Polycarp and 
Ignatius (xv. p. 64). (7) On May 31, 
1644, he sends a presentation copy to 
Saumaise (xvi. p. 72). There does not 
appear to be in the extant correspondence 
any notice of the other Latin MS, Mont- 
aciUianus (see above p. 83) ; from which 
it may be inferred that this latter did not 
come into his hands till a comparatively 
late date. Possibly he first learnt of its 
existence from Mountague's notice of it 
in his Origines Ecclesiasticae published 
A.D. 1640 (see above. I.e.), which would 
naturally attract his attention as in the 
passage quoted it differs from the vulgar 
Latin Version. The long delay in Ussher's 
publication of his Ignatian work is pro- 
bably due partly to the political and 
ecclesiastical troubles of the times, partly 
to his being engaged on other important 
literai7 work, notably his Britatinicarinn 
Ecclesianim Antiiptiiatcs which appeared 
Aug. 10, 1639. H^ seems to have set to 
work on his Ignatius in earnest as soon 
as this last-mentioned book was off his 
hands. I do not know the date of the 
letter to Dr Twiss ' Of the Sabbath ', in 
which he mentions the Caius MS, as being 
free from the interpolations of the vulgar 
text in Magn. 9 and as agreeing else- 
where with the quotations in the ancient 
fathers (xii. p. 584 sq). 



letters mentioned by Eusebius that he may give his adversaries every 
advantage. In the ranks of the opponents a still more famous name 
appears. Milton's short treatise Of Prelatical Episcopacy ( Works in. 
p. 72 sq, Pickering, 1851) was published in 1641 and is chiefly directed 
against Ussher. Like all his theological tracts at this time, it is brim- 
full of fiery eloquence and reckless invective. He fiercely attacks the 
Ignatian Epistles, deceived by Ussher's reticence and little suspecting 
the strength of his adversary's position. It is however creditable to 
his critical discernment that he lays his finger on real blots in these 
letters as then read, passing over the passages which had been quoted 
by Ussher'. Those places, which he himself quotes, 'must' he says 
* either be adulterate, or else Ignatius was not Ignatius, not a martyr, 
but most adulterate and corrupt himself.' ' To what end then,' he 
adds pertinently, ' should they cite him as authentic for episcopacy, 

when they cannot know what is authentic of him? Had God ever 

intended that we should have sought any part of useful instruction 
from Ignatius, doubtless He would not have so ill provided for our 
knowledge as to send him to our hands in this broken and disjointed 
plight; and if He intended no such thing, we do injuriously in think- 
ing to taste better the pure evangelic manna by seasoning our mouths 
with the tainted scraps and fragments from an unknown table, and 
searching among the verminous and polluted rags dropt overworn from 
the toiling shoulders of Time, with these deformedly to quilt and inter- 
lace the entire, the spotless, and undecaying robe of Truth' (pp. 80, 81). 
So he denounces as impiety the ' confronting and paralleling the sacred 
verity of Saint Paul with the offals and sweepings of antiquity that met 
as accidentally and absurdly as Epicurus his atoms to patch up a 
Leucippean Ignatius ' (p. 92)". 

^ The one exception is Smyrn. 8, sulseness remains, but why should Ig- 
' wherein is written that they should fol- natius not have been 'insulse'? 
low their bishop as Christ did His Father, 2 After this account of this controversy 
and the presbytery as the Apostles' (p. had passed through the press for my 
80). This had been quoted by Ussher. first edition, Mark Pattison's instructive 
Milton remarks that, ' not to speak of the volume on Milton appeared. He re- 
insure and ill-laid comparison,' it 'lies on presents the matter in quite a different 
the very brim of a noted corruption' and light (p. 75); 

thus is discredited by its environments. "The incident of this collision between 

Here again he showed his critical sa- Milton, young and unknown, and the 

gacity. The mention of the bishop sacri- venerable prelate whom he was assaulting 

ficing, and the assertion of the superiority with the rude wantonness of untempered 

of the bishop to the king, which justly youth, deserves to be mentioned here, 

offend him in the context, disappear in Ussher had incautiously included the 

the Vossian letters. The charge of in- Ignatian epistles among his authorities. 



Out of his own mouth he was convicted. The better ' provision for 
our knowledge ' came full soon. To the critical genius of Ussher 
belongs the honour of restoring the true Ignatius. As I have already 
stated (see above, p. 76 sq), he observed that the quotations of this 
father in certain English writers from the thirteenth century onward 
agreed with those of the ancients, and he divined that in England, 
if anyrt'here, copies of the original form of these epistles would be 
found. He made search accordingly, and his search was successful. 
He discovered two Latin mss, containing a text of which the Long 
Recension was obviously an expansion, and agreeing exactly with the 
quotations in Eusebius, Theodoret, and others. There could be no 
doubt then, that this Latin translation represented the Ignatius known 
to the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. But the Greek text 
was still unknown ; and Ussher could only restore it from the Long 
Recension with the aid of his newly discovered Latin version, by 
lopping off the excrescences and otherwise altering to bring it into 
conformity thereto. 

Ussher's book appeared in the year 1644. Altogether it showed 
not only marvellous erudition, but also the highest critical genius. It 
was however marred by one blot. Though Eusebius mentions seven 
epistles of S. Ignatius, Ussher would only receive six. The exception 
was the Epistle to Polycarp, which he condemned as spurious {Polyc. 
et Ig?t. Ep. pp. viii sq, cxxviii, App. Ig?i. p. 85 sq). He was led into 
this error chiefly by the authority of S. Jerome, who, as I have already 
pointed out (p. 156), misunderstood the language of his predecessor 
Eusebius and confounded the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans with the Epistle 

This laid the most learned man of his 
day at the mercy of an adversary of less 
learning than himself. Milton, who at 
least knew so much suspicion of the 
genuineness of these remains as Casau- 
bon's Exercitations on Baronins and 
Vedelin's [Vedelius'?] edition (Geneva, 
1623) could tell him, pounced upon this 
critical flaw, and delightedly denounced 
in trenchant tones this ' Perkin Warbeck 
of Ignatius', and the 'supposititious off- 
spring of some dozen epistles'. This 
rude shock it was which set Ussher upon 
a more careful examination of the Ignatian 
question. The result was his well-known 
edition of Ignatius, printed 1642, though 
not published till 1644" etc. 

This representation is inconsistent with 
the dates. I have shown that at least as 
early as 1631 Ussher had seen the true 
solution of the Ignatian question ; that 
some years before the date of Milton's 
tract he had declared his intention of 
publishing Ignatius; that in the treatise 
which Milton attacks he had carefully 
confined his quotations to those parts of 
which he was prepared to maintain the 
genuineness ; and that, so far from de- 
tecting a critical flaw in Ussher, Milton 
led astray by his reticence had exposed 
himself to attack. But Ussher from his 
lofty vantage ground could afford to be 
generous, and he appears never to have 
retaliated on his gifted youthful assailant. 

16 — 2 



to Polycarp'. He failed to perceive that Jerome, having no direct 
knowledge of the Ignatian Epistles, went wrong from sheer ignorance. 
The objections from the internal character of the epistle, which Ussher 
quotes from Vedelius {^App. Ign. I.e.), have no force, and indeed the 
Epistle to Polycarp, being substantially the same in all the three recen- 
sions, is the best standard and the safest test of the style of S. Ignatius. 
This part of Ussher's theory was almost universally rejected, as it de- 
served to be; but his main argument was irrefragable, and those who 
have since attempted to reinstate the Long Recension have beaten 
their heads against a stone wall. 

As yet however the original Greek of the Middle Recension was not 
forthcoming. Ussher had heard of a ms in the Medicean Library^ at 

^ Pearson, in refuting Ussher's objec- 
tions [Vind. Ign. p. 50 sq), justly re- 
marks, 'Neque enim Hieronymum hie 
imprimis spectandum esse puto, neque 
Eusebium ex Hieronymo interpretor, 
sed, uti par est, Hieronymum ex Eusebio 
ex quo sua transtulit.' He shows con- 
clusively that Eusebius speaks of seven 
epistles ; but he is less happy in his 
attempt to impose the same meaning on 
Jerome. This he does by means of a 
parenthesis— a solution which Casaubon 
had suggested — ' Smyrnaeos 
(et proprie ad Polycarpum commendans 
illi Antiochensem ecclesiam) in qua et 
de evangelio etc' Ussher had laid some 
stress on the fact that Honorius of Au- 
gustodunum {de Script. Eccl. 17, Migne's 
Patrol. CLXXii. p. 199) omits all men- 
tion of the Epistle to Polycarp. To this 
Pearson replies that Honorius is no inde- 
pendent or trustworthy authority, as he 
derives all his information from Jerome 
and very frequently perverts or misunder- 
stands him (p. 54). On the other hand 
he quotes Nicephorus {H. E. iii. 19), 
who rightly interprets Eusebius, koX 
1,fxvpvaLois aXXijc dtaxapaTTei, Kal auT(^ 
di idiq. Tijj TTpoidpu) Tavrr/s IloXvKapTrq) 
iripav eTr^areWe. The fact that the 
Latin version of this epistle in the Long 
Recension ends abruptly (§ 3 'propter 
nos ut hominem'; see above, p. 133) 
was also drawn into this controversy : 

and Ussher and Pearson each endea- 
voured in accordance with his own theory 
to find some reason in the intrinsic con- 
tents of the epistle why the end should 
be omitted (Ussher p. cxxviii, Pearson 
p. 59). The simple solution seems to 
be that the Greek MS which the trans- 
lator used was defective here, probably 
by the loss of a leaf. The Latin Ver- 
sion elsewhere (e.g. in the superscription 
of this Epistle to Polycarp) exhibits 
traces of indistinctness or mutilation in 
the copy from which it was made. Thus 
the fact has no bearing on this con- 

2 Ussher was probably put on the scent 
of the Medicean ms by the Ignatian 
quotations in Turrianus whom he men- 
tions. I have observed the following 
quotations from the Medicean MS in this 
writer; Adv. Magd. Cent. pro Can. Apost. 
(Coloniae 1573) i^- 5 (P- 4.^3) 'Credite 
in dilectione' from Philad. 9; ib. iv. 7 
(p. 442) 'Sic fides est waYwyeiis y]jxQ)v . . . 
Dilectio vero est 656s 7/\iaa els 
deov', from Ephes. 9. This latter quo- 
tation is given likewise in Dogniat. de 
Justif. fol. 38 a (Romae 1557). In Adv. 
Magd. Cent. etc. ii. 10 (p. 203) the MS is 
mentioned by name; 'Hoc solum ad- 
monere volui, in exemplar! vetustissimo 
et emendatissimo bibliothecae Mediceae 
Florentinae, non 'Ai'a/cXT7T(jj sed S.y)vt^ 
[misprinted A^^<^] esse,' a reference to 


Florence, which promised to supply the deficiency {Folyc. et Ign. Ep. p. 
xxvi, App. Ign. praef.), but had not succeeded in getting a transcript. 
The discovery however was not long delayed. Two years after the 
appearance of Ussher's work, Isaac Voss (Amstel. 1646) published six 
out of the seven epistles of the Middle Recension from this Florentine 
MS; while the absence of the seventh — the Epistle to the Romans — ■ 
was easily accounted for by the fact that the ms was imperfect 
at the end, so that this epistle (as in the corresponding Latin) must 
have been incorporated in the Acts of Martyrdom of the saint, with 
which the volume would close, and both together must have disap- 
peared with the missing sheets. About half a century later the missing 
Greek Acts of Ignatius with the incorporated Epistle to the Romans 
were discovered in a ms belonging to the Colbert collection (see above, 
p. 75), and published by Ruinart (Paris a.d. 1689) in his Acta Mar- 
tyrum Sincer-a. Thus the Greek text of the seven epistles of the 
Middle Recension was completed. 

By Ussher's labours the question between the Long and the Middle 
Recension was — or ought to have been — set at rest for ever'. Yet 
notwithstanding the cogency of the evidence critics have boldly stepped 
forward from time to time gind endeavoured to reinstate the shattered 
idol. Whiston early in the last century (a. d. 17 ii), Meier^ towards the 
middle of the present (a.d. 1836), have led this more than forlorn hope, 
and probably the succession will be kept up at long intervals till the end 
of time. Such critical eccentricities form a curious study in literary 
history, but do not need any serious refutation. 

But before we finally dismiss the Long Recension two points deserve 
consideration. First. The question has been treated hitherto almost 
entirely in reference to the Seven Epistles which occur in both the Long 
and the Middle Recension. Little has been said, except incidentally, of 
the five or (including the letter of Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius) the six 

Ign. Mar. 4. Though Turrianus praises was not a professional critic however, 

the Medicean MS for its correctness, he there is no reason to suppose that he did 

failed to see that it contained the key to so from deliberate preference. About the 

the solution of the Ignaliau question. same time Morinus [Coiniiunt. dc Sacr. 

^ It took some little time however Eccl. Ordin. Par. iii. p. 45 sq, Paris 1655, 

before the results of Ussher's labours quoted by Cureton C. I. p. xiv) defends 

were generally accepted. Thus Jeremy the Long Recension. In Suicer's The- 

Taylor in his Doctrine and Practice of saurus (ed. r, 1682; ed. 2, 1728) it is 

Repentance {Works IX. p. 94), published still quoted as if authentic, 

ten years after the appearance of Ussher's "^ Theolog. .Stitdien ti. Kritiken 1836, 

edition, still quotes the Epistle to the Mag- p. 340. 
nesians from the Long Recension. As he 


Ignatian Epistles which occur only in one form and which I have tacitly 
assumed to belong to the Long Recension. Is this assumption justifiable 
or not? Secojidly. Having thus ascertained how many epistles belong 
to the Long Recension, we shall be in a position to answer another and a 
more important question, to which the previous one forms a preliminary 
step. At what date and with what object was this Recension compiled? 

I. In considering the relation of the Additional Epistles to the 
Seven of the Long Recension, I shall reserve for the moment the 
Epistle to the Philippians, because the external evidence is slightly 
deficient, and for this and other reasons a separate authorship has been 
claimed for it by some able critics. With this reservation the iYdditional 
Epistles are five in number; the letter of IMary with the reply of 
Ignatius, the letter to Hero, and the letters to the Tarsians and Antio- 
chenes. The points of investigation then are twofold : First, Is the 
resemblance of these letters to the Seven of the Long Recension suffi- 
ciently close to justify us in assigning them to the same author: and 
Secondly, Does the external evidence — the phenomena of mss and the 
catena of quotations — lead to the same or to an opposite conclusion ? 

(i) If we had only internal testimony to guide us, the evidence 
would even then be overwhelming. In the investigation which follows 
I shall content myself with indicating the lines of search without follow- 
ing them out in detail. Any one who will read carefully through in 
succession the interpolated portions of the Seven Epistles in the Long 
Recension and then the Additional Epistles, may easily satisfy himself as 
to the strength of the position. We find in the Additional Epistles (a) 
the same employment of scriptural texts and scriptural examples, (b) 
the same doctrinal complexion and nomenclature, (c) the same literary 
plagiarisms, and (d) the same general style and phraseology, which 
characterize the Long Recension — these being just the points which 
differentiate the Long Recension from the ]\Iiddle. 

(a) While the Middle Recension is very sparing of Biblical quota- 
tions, so that the whole number throughout the Seven Epistles may be 
counted on the fingers, and even these (except in one or two instances) 
are not formally cited, the Long Recension abounds in them. Even in 
the passages otherwise copied bodily from the Middle Recension they 
are interpolated at every possible opportunity; and the portions which 
are peculiar to the Long Recension — more especially the doctrinal 
portions — frequently consist of a string of Scriptural passages threaded 
together by explanatory remarks from the author himself (see esp. Ephes. 


9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, Rom. 3, 8, Magn. i, 8, 9, 10, 12, Trail. 7, 8, 10, 
Philad. 3, 4, 9, Smyrn. 2, 3, 6, 9). This feature is reproduced in the 
additional letters, more especially in the Epistles to the Tarsians and 
Antiochenes, which not being letters to private individuals contain 
more direct doctrinal teaching (see esp. Tars. 2- — -7, A?iL 2 — 5, 10, 
Hero I, 5). 

AlUed to this feature is the frequent reference to Scriptural charac- 
ters, which distinguishes the epistles of the Long Recension. When 
the writer breaks loose from the restraints of the Middle Recension, on 
which his work is founded, he very frequently exercises his freedom in 
this vfay {Ephes. 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, Magn. 3, 12, Trail. 7, Philad. i, 
4, 9, Smyrn. 7). This feature again is faithfully reproduced in the 
Additional Epistles {Mar. Ign. 2 — 4, Tars. 2, 3, A?it. 10, Hero 3, 5). 
Of the New Testament worthies who are mentioned both in the Long 
Recension and in the Additional Epistles, a prominence is given to 
Stephen as the model deacon {Trail. 7, Tars. 3, Ife?v 3). There is 
also a special fondness for coordinating the Apostles S. Peter and S. 
Paul, for which the genuine Ignatius had furnished the precedent {Rom. 
4), and which this later interpolator uses on every possible occasion 
{Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 5, 7, Magn. 10, Tars. 3, Philad. 4, Ant. 7), 
connecting the joint names not only with Rome {Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 
7) as the genuine Ignatius had done, but also with Antioch {Magn. 10, 
Ant. 7). Even beyond the limits of the New Testament examples are 
sought; the early bishops of Rome and Antioch — Linus, Anacletus, 
Clemens, Euodius — are brought forward in the Additional Epistles not 
less than in the Seven, as occasion serves {Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 7, 
Philad. 4, Ant. 7). If the three private letters do not afford such 
numerous instances of Scriptural quotations as the other two, they do 
not fall at all behind them in the production of Scriptural characters. 
The letter from Mary to Ignatius — a singularly clumsy and inartistic 
work — is from beginning to end a mere expansion of a section in the 
Epistle to the Magnesians (§ 3), where the supposed Ignatius defends 
the youth of a certain bishop and ransacks the Bible for instances of 
youthful piety and wisdom — such as Samuel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Solomon, 
Josiah — in defence of his position. The self-consciousness of the 
writer, as he thus reproduces his own work, betrays itself curiously, 
when he makes this Mary apologize to Ignatius for reminding him of 
what he must well know and for thus appearing to make a superfluous 
display of learning (§ 5 TrepixTos ctvat So'^w koX cftavriTiwcra). 

(b) Of the doctrinal features nothing need be said here. When the 
proper time comes for the discussion of this subject, it will appear that 


throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same 
heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this 
respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles. 

(c) The same is true likewise of their literary obligations. This is 
the case with the plagiarisms from the genuine Ignatius (e.g. the use of 
the characteristic Ignatian ovatfxrjv; Ign. Mar. 2, Tars. 8, 10, Ant. 12, 
14, Hero 6, 8, Trail. 13, Philad. 4, besides Magn. 2, 12, Ephes. 2, 
Polyc. I, 6, Rom. 5, in which latter passages it is taken from the pre- 
existing text), though naturally these plagiarisms are more frequent and 
more obvious in the Additional Epistles, where the forger was left 
to himself and an Ignatian colouring was wanted, than in the in- 
terpolations of the Seven, where the Ignatian substratum was ready to 
hand. Still more decisive are the passages taken from the Apostolic 
Constitutions. If the reader will follow out the references given below 
(p. 262), he will find that they extend throughout these Ignatian 
Epistles, and that the use made of this work differs in no wise in the 
two sets of letters. The same also may be said of the obligations to 
Eusebius {Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 9, Magn. 6, 8, 9, Philad. i, 6, Ant. i, 7), 
though these are much scantier. 

(d) In style and expression also the Additional Letters are closely 
linked with the interpolated portions of the Seven. Thus we find in 
both sets of epistles the same terms applied to false teachers. They are 
'dumb dogs' {Ant. 6, Ephcs. 7; see the note on the former passage); 
they are 'foxes ' or 'fox-like ' (a'AwTn^l, aAwTro'?, Philad. 3, Ant. 6); they 
are 'serpents' {Philad. 6, Atit. 6); they are 'wolves in sheep's skins' 
(AvKos £v Trpo^oLTov Sopa, Hero 2, Ephes. 5, comp. Philad. 2). Again 
the same words are met with in the two sets of letters : such as 
ayvwo-Tos {Trail. 6, Sniyrti. 6, Ant. 5); dXoydv {Mar. Ign. 2, Smyrn. 
6); 6.ir6Xavcn<i, diroXavaTLKos {Sniyrn. 6, Tars. 2); a.$iwfia (of 'office,' 
Ant. 8, Hero i, Smyrn. 6)3 iXdxLo-TO'i (applied to himself, Hero 6, 
Ephes. 1 2, Rom. 4) ; iva-(o[xdTU)(TL<i {Philad. 6, Ant. 4) ; iire^eLv {Ign. 
Mar. 4, Philad. 4); KvpioKToVos {Trail 11, Tars. 3; comp. XP'^" 
TOKTovo^ Magn. II, Hero 2, ^^^pia-TOfjiovos Philad. 6)3 XaoTrXdvos {Mar. 
Ign. 4, Philad. 5, Ephes. g); TrcpiTTos ('superfluous,' ' officious,' Mar. 
Ign. 5, Trail. 10, Ant. 11); Trio-roraTos {Ephes. 6, 11, Ign. Mar. inscr.); 
■KoXid {Mar. Ign. 2, Magn. 3); pe/x/3os {Philad. 4, Aiit. 11); xP'^^O' 
<^dpos {Ign. Mar. inscr., Magn. 3, Sniyrn. 12, Hero inscr., Ephes. 6; comp. 
XpLo-ToXrjTTTos, Ant. 12). So again the word XeirovpytKos occurs in both 
in the same connexion {Philad. 9 at AciTovpytKai...8vi'a/A€6s, Hero 7 ra 
XeiTovpyiKa rdyp-ara) ; and generally there is great fondness for adjectives 
in -tKos (e.g. ayycAiKos Trail. 7, yeuo-TiKos Trail. 6, ypa<^iKos Ign. Mar. 


3, StSacTKaXiKos Philad. 5; ^ye/^oviKOS Philad. 5, 9eiK6<; Magtl. 8, KoajXLKo? 
Ephes. 19, Rom. 4, Xot/xiKo's Trail. 8, rAr^rtKos ^;;/. 10, <\>i\ik6^ Ign. Mar. 
i). Again there is a recurrence of the same phrases, such as Ik -n-poa-wTrov 
Tov @eov of the prophetic utterances {Trail. 8, Ant. 3); (^wrt^eo-^at vtto 
ToS 7ri/£v/AaTos or T(3 TTvevfJiaTt {PJillad. 4, ^4?^/. 4) ; o \opo<i TaJv irpoffirjTwv 
{Afar. Ign. i, Philad. g ; comp. Ign. Mar. i) ; cnrepfjia AauctS koI 
'AlSpadfx. {Mar. Ign. i, Pom. 7). Again there is a partiality for cer- 
tain other words, famiUar in themselves, such as ixaKaptos, TravTOKpaTOip, 
7r€i.0ap^€tv, TToijxaiveiv, ^^opevs, etc. 

(ii) With these results obtained from the examination of the letters 
themselves external evide?ice entirely accords. 

It is true that these Additional Epistles are found attached likewise 
to the seven letters of the Middle Form, both in the Greek mss of this 
recension and in the Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic translations'. 
It is true also that some of these spurious letters are quoted by fathers 
who certainly had before them the Middle Form of the Seven Epistles. 
Thus externally they are connected with the Middle Recension, as well 
as with the Long. These facts have been adduced by some, to show 
that they were the product of a different hand from the interpolations 
of the Seven Epistles in the Long Recension, on the ground that, being 
found in connexion with both forms alike, they must in their origin 
have been distinct from either^; by others, to discredit the Seven of the 
Middle Form by suggesting that external evidence is decidedly more 
favourable to the genuineness of these six obviously spurious epistles 
than to that of the Seven in any form, because a double testimony, as it 
were, is thus borne to them^ 

The fallacy underlying such inferences is transparent. Though at a 
later date the six obviously spurious epistles were attached to the Seven 
of the Middle Form, there can be no reasonable doubt that in the first 

^ The main facts will be seen from the ^ This seems to have been the view of 

table on p. 234. The details are given in Pearson {Vind. Ign. p. 58, ed. Churton); 

the accounts of the respective authorities, but I do not remember that he has any- 

p. 73 sq. The statement with regard to where explicitly stated his opinion, 

the Syriac is an inference from its rela- ^ Thus Cureton Corp. Ign. p. 338 sq 

tion to the Armenian version, combined 'So far therefore as the evidence of all the 

with extant Syriac quotations and frag- existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, 

ments, but it is not open to any reason- of both the recensions is to be considered, 

able doubt; see above, p. 91 sq, III. p. 102. it is certainly in favour of the rejected 

The case with regard to the Coptic will epistles rather than of those which have 

be seen on p, 108. How many epistles it been retained', with the context; see also 

contained, we are unable to say, as only p. Ixxvii sq. These passages are highly 

a fragment remains. instructive in their honest perversity. 



half of the fourth century, when Eusebius wrote, this was not the case. 
He gives a more than usually full account of the career of Ignatius 
(see above, p. 146), whom he describes as still widely renowned (Trapa 
TrXeto-Tois ilcreTi vvv StaySoT/ros). His account of the letters is obviously 
meant to be exhaustive. He even quotes references to them in writers 
of the succeeding generations. Elsewhere (as for instance in the case of 
the Roman Clement), when he is acquainted with any spurious or doubt- 
ful works ascribed to the same author, he is careful to mention the fact. 
Here there is nothing of the kind. He enumerates the Seven Epistles 
alone; and of these he speaks without a shadow of misgiving'. 

^ Cureton's views respecting the testi- 
mony of Eusebius are too extravagant to 
find general acceptance ; but as they 
seem to have confused some of his readers, 
it may be worth while once for all to ex- 
amine them. 

(i) He maintains very positively that 
Eusebius hesitates as to the genuineness 
of the Seven Epistles (pp. Ixxi, 337). 
His two arguments are: (a) The historian 
throws doubt on their genuineness by 
using 'the guarded expression' \670s ^x«'- 
But in the Jirsi place this expression (see 
above, p. 146) refers not to the letters of 
Ignatius, which he quotes categorically 
without any shadow of misgiving, nor to 
any facts related in those letters, but sole- 
ly to the incident of his martyrdom, to 
which the letters, from the nature of the 
case, could not bear direct testimony; and 
secondly, the examples of \b-^o% ^x" else- 
where in Eusebius show that the ex- 
pression in itself does not throw any doubt 
on the facts recorded but signifies neither 
more nor less than 'it is related'; H. E. 
ii. 17, 22, iii. 37, iv. 28, v. 5 bis, vii. 32, 
viii. 17 appendix; see also the note to 
/car^Xet X67os on p. 58, above. (^) 
Cureton considers it ' to be quite evident 
from the following passages that he [Eu- 
sebius] did not esteem the genuineness 
and authenticity of the Epistles of S. Ig- 
natius and S. Polycarp to be equally 
established with that of the First Epistle 
of S. Clement to the Corinthians, which 
was usually acknowledged'; koX 6 IIo- 

Xi^KapTTOS 5e ToiTuv avrQv /x^/xi/ijra: ev ry 
(pepofj-ivri avToO TTpbs 'i'LXi.TTrrjaiovs eTnaro- 
\fi (iii. 36), wffwep ovv afxiXei tou 'lyvariov 
if ah KareXe^afxev ewLaroXals Kai rod KXtj- 
/xevTos ev rrj dvu^oKoyqfiivrj irapa TrdaLv, 
rfv eK Trpoadnrov Trjs 'Fu/ji,aiwv iKK\7]crias 
TTj Kopivdiuv dieTVTTiljffaTO (c. 37), ij fxev 
ovv Tov K.\ri/j,evTos o/xoXoyov/xiur] ypafprj 
TTpooijXos' e'ipyjTai d^ Kal to. 'lyyarlov Kal 
IloXvKdptrov (c. 38). By this juxtaposi- 
tion of separate passages Cureton would 
make it appear as though the antithesis 
in Eusebius were between the (pepo/j-evT] 
on the one side, and the dvoinoXoyrjixivr], 
6iJ.oXoyovp.iv7], on the other. But (i) 
Taken in connexion with their several 
contexts, the expressions do not suggest 
anything of the kind. The genuine E- 
pistle of Clement to the Corinthians is 
called 'acknowledged' to distinguish it 
from another Epistle to the Corinthians 
also bearing his name, but not universally 
received. It has no reference whatever 
to the writings of Ignatius or Polycarp. 
(2) The expression (pepofxivr) is only used 
of Polycarp's letter, and there is no ground 
for extending it to those of Ignatius. (3) 
It is highly improbable that Eusebius 
should have entertained a doubt of the 
genuineness of Polycarp's letter, which 
he knew to be quoted by Polycarp's dis- 
ciple Iren^us and which he himself uses 
as bearing testimony to the Epistles of 
Ignatius. (4) The word (pipeaOai does 
not suggest any such doubt. Eusebius 
uses it of the First Epistle of S. John (iii. 



The testimony of Theodoret (see p. 170 sq), who wrote about the 
middle of the fifth century, if not so decisive, tends in the same direction. 
Though quoting somewhat largely from the Ignatian letters, he does 
not quote beyond the limits of the Seven. The same is true of Timo- 
theus of Alexandria (p. 173 sq), who wrote a few years later, and of 
Severus of Antioch (p. 178 sq), whose literary activity belongs to the 
earlier decades of the sixth century. The silence of this last-mentioned 
writer is the more significant, as he quotes largely and widely from the 
letters of Ignatius. In fact the tenour of external evidence will be suffi- 
ciently plain when it is stated that, whereas the Seven Epistles are 
quoted by a fairly continuous series of Greek, Latin, and Syriac writers, 
beginning with Irenjeus and Origen in the second and third centuries, 
not a single quotation from the Additional Letters has been discovered 
prior to the last decade of the sixth century at the very earliest (see 
above, p. 205). 

Moreover a comparison of the positions which the six Additional 

25 TT]v (pepofiiprjv 'loidwov irporepav), 
which in this same passage he classes 
among the o/xoXo-yov/xeva, and of which 
he has said just before Trapa re toIs vvf 
Kal rocs ^T dpxO'i-ois avafj-rpiXeKTOS w/xo\6- 
■yriTai (iii. 24): he even applies it to this 
very Epistle of Clement, iii. 16 tovtov drj 
oHv rov KXrifievTOi ofMoXoyov/jievT) fxia 
(piperai : and in short it is frequently 
employed by him to denote a writing in 
general circulation ; e.g. of S. Mark's 
Gospel (ii. 16), of works of Philo and 
Josephus (ii. 18, iii. 10), of Gaius the 
Roman presbyter (iii. 28), of Papias (iii. 
39), of Quadratus (iv. 3), of Musanus (iv. 
28), and so commonly (e.g. iii. 25, iv. 15, 
18, 23, 29, V. 5, 13, 23, 24, vi. 31, 32, 
35, etc), so that it implies not much more 
nor less than 'extant.' As applied to the 
Epistle of Polycarp, its meaning will ap- 
pear from another passage which Cureton 
has not quoted, iv. 14 6 7^ tol HoXi'/KapTros 
fv TTj driXoideiffy irpbs ^(.Xnnrrjaiovs avrov 
ypaipfi (p€pofj.4vrj eis oevpo KixpV'O-''- ''"''' 
fjLapTvplais K.T.X., 'circulated to the present 

(ii) Cureton considers the silence of Eu- 
sebius about other epistles besides the 
Seven to be far from conclusive that they 

'either did not exist at the time when he 
wrote or were rejected by him as spurious 
(p. 337).' He says, 'One obvious reason 
why he should have omitted to mention 
them is the fact that they contain no in- 
formation respecting the episcopal suc- 
cession, which, as I have remarked, was 
one of the chief objects of his history (p. 
Ixxviii).' But (a) There is not the faintest 
indication that he valued the Seven 
Epistles because they served this purpose. 
If he had done so, it is at least strange 
that he should lay the chief stress on the 
Epistle to the Romans, which is wholly 
silent about the episcopate. (|3) Setting 
aside the Epistle to Polycarp (which by 
the way Eusebius does not quote), the Ad- 
ditional Epistles bear at least as directly 
on episcopal succession as the Seven, and 
the letters to the Antiochenes and to 
Hero would be especially valuable, for 
they contain a list of bishops {Ant. 13, 
UtTO 8). Indeed this attempt to raise 
a prejudice against the Seven Epistles 
quoted by Eusebius through the mani- 
festly spurious epistles is so perverse 
as to carry with it its own condemna- 



letters occupy with reference to the Seven in the collections of the 
Long and Middle Forms, as exhibited in the table on p. 234, reveals 
plainly the history of their connexion with the two recensions respec- 
tively. Of the Seven Epistles four are dated from Smyrna artd three 
from Troas. Of the six Additional Epistles two — the letter from Mary 
and the answer of Ignatius — are represented as belonging to the time 
when he is still peacefully ruling at Antioch ; three — Tarsians, Antio- 
chenes, Hero — are dated from Philippi; and the remaining one — 
Philippians — professes to have been written after he had already reached 
Italy (see iii. p. 128). Now in the Long Recension these six epistles 
are artfully intermingled with the Seven, so that attention may not be 
attracted to their spuriousness by their isolation. Yet there is some sort 
of symmetry, as they are interposed two and two, thus showing that 
the order was not the result of pure accident. Again, though the proper 
sequence of time and place is not strictly observed in the arrangement 
(as indeed it was not in the seven original Ignatian Epistles which the 
forger had before him), yet the letter from Mary and the answer of 
Ignatius are placed first, as dating from a time anterior to the journey 
to Rome. With the Middle Form the case is different. Here we have 
two different arrangements with the Additional Epistles included, the 
one of the Greek and Latin copies, the other of the Armenian. The 
differences of order seem to show that the two collections were made 
independently; and, if so, it is the more remarkable that they agree in 
the one essential point of keeping the Additional Epistles distinct from 
the others and appending them as a sort of supplement to the rest'. In 
the Greek and Latin copies the Additional Epistles stand in the same 
order in which they occur in the Long Recension, if picked out from 
the rest, the Epistle to the Philippians hov/ever being omitted by an 
accident of which an explanation will be offered presently (p. 254). In 
this collection the position of the Additional Letters, as an appendix, is 
slightly obscured by the fact that the Epistle to the Romans is removed 
from its proper place as one of the seven original letters. This was a 

1 Cureton argues that 'no prejudice 
can result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, 
to the Antiochenes, and to Hero, from 
the circumstance of their being placed 
after the others in the collection [he is 
speaking of the Latin and Greek, for he 
was not acquainted wdth the Armenian]; 
for they are evidently arranged in chrono- 
logical order and rank after the rest, as 
having been written from Philippi' etc 

(p. 338). The answer is twofold ; (i) The 
order is not chronological in the earlier 
part, where the epistles dated from Smyrna 
are mixed up with those dated from Troas; 
(2) He has omitted all mention of the 
letter of Mary and the answer of Ignatius. 
Professing to have been written while 
Ignatius is still at Antioch, they come 
after the seven letters dated from Smyrna 
and Troas. 


natural consequence of the addition of the Acts of Martyrdom at the 
end of all the epistles; for, as the Epistle to the Romans was already 
incorporated in these Acts, its removal from an earlier place in the col- 
lection followed as a matter of course. Whether the addition of these 
Acts and the consequent displacement of the Epistle to the Romans 
took place simultaneously with the attachment of the Additional Epistles 
or not, may be an open question. In the Armenian collection the 
Epistle to the Romans has not been displaced — the Acts of Martyrdom 
not having been attached to this collection; and the Additional Epistles 
therefore stand by themselves, as an appendix. On the other hand 
they do not, as in the Greek and Latin collection, occur in the same 
order as in the Long Recension. A principle however is discernible in 
the arrangement. The Epistle to the Antiochenes, as being addressed 
to Ignatius' own church, stands first; and the five remaining letters are 
arranged in a chronological sequence. But the main inference from 
both collections is the same. In each case a person, possessing the 
Seven Epistles of the Middle Form, comes across a copy of the Long 
Recension which contains thirteen epistles, and he sets himself to supply 
the apparent defect in his own collection. This he does by picking out 
the missing epistles from the recension which had thus accidentally 
fallen into his hands and adding them to his own copy. 

Thus the evidence of the mss confirms the result of the examina- 
tion of the Additional Epistles themselves and assigns them to the same 
pen which interpolated the Seven Epistles, or in other words to the 
author of the Long Recension. Of five out of the six this seems to be 
absolutely certain. But respecting the remaining one — the Epistle to the 
Philippians — some doubt has been entertained. It is wanting in the 
Latin and Greek' copies of the Middle Recension, and it stands last in 
the Armenian collection of the same. Again it is thought to be 
deficient in external evidence as compared with the other Additional 
Letters. For these reasons there is at least a presumption that it 
was written later than the other five and by a different hand. This 
suspicion moreover has been thought to be confirmed by the style of 
the epistle, in which distinctive peculiarities have been discerned ^ 

1 Though the existing Greek MS (the fair confidence to say that they agreed in 

Medicean) of this collection is imper- omitting this epistle, 
feet at the end, so that the part which - The Epistle to the Philippians was 

ought to contain the Epistle to Philip- assigned to a different author from the 

plans is wanting, yet the close resemblance other forged epistles by Ussher (pp. Ixxix, 

of this MS to the MSS of the Latin Version cxxviii) ; and this view is apparently 

in all tlie main features enables us with Cureton's, C. I. pp. 538, 341, 


With this opinion I am unable to agree. The position in the Arme- 
nian collection is the most natural position ; for though, as already 
explained, the chronological arrangement is not observed throughout, 
still it cannot be a surprise, if the epistle which professes to have been 
written some time after the others should be placed last. On the other 
hand the mere fact that it is included in the Armenian collection is a 
strong argument for the identity of authorship. For like the others this 
epistle was certainly translated into Armenian from the Syriac, and 
therefore must have formed part of the Syriac collection \ If therefore 
the opinion which competent judges pronounce respecting the com- 
paratively early date of the Armenian Version be correct or nearly correct 
(see above, p. 86), we have hardly any alternative but to suppose this 
epistle to have been forged simultaneously with the others; for on the 
opposite supposition there will be no time to spare for all the vicissitudes 
through which it must have passed. Moreover its absence from the 
Latin and Greek copies may be easily explained. In its original position 
in the Long Recension Trpos 4>iXi7r7rj;crtoT;s stands immediately before 
Trpos ^tAaSeX^as, and a collector, cursorily turning over the pages and 
supplying the lacking epistles in his copy of the Middle Form in the 
manner which I have supposed, might easily be deceived by the similar 
beginning, and notice only one epistle — the Epistle to the Philadel- 
phians, which was already in his copy^ On the other hand the collec- 
tion from which the Armenian Version is descended was made in a 
less perfunctory way. Nor again, as regards quotations, can it justly be 
said that the external evidence for this epistle, as compared with the 
other Additional Letters, is defective. It so happens that the passage 
in Anastasius given above (p. 204) is the earliest quotation from any 
of these six letters, if the Anastasius in question was the first patriarch 
of Antioch bearing the name, as seems most probable; and the fact 
that he inadvertently misquotes it as from the Epistle to the Tarsians 
is not unimportant, as showing that the two formed part of the same 

Thus the external evidence, taken as a whole, favours the identity 

1 It maybe regarded as quite certain 'good ' [ii^i. raXo;/ for i»AA. aiVxpoi/]; 

that tliis epistle passed through the me- . , 1 .1 • . ,, , 

.';.,,. , ,. with several other instances scattered 

dium of a byriac Version ; e.g. ^ 4 kuXwv , ■, -^ , 

P I through Fetermann s notes. 

is translated ' corruption ' [niila^ when ., r^,^.^ ^,^^y ^^^.^^^ explanation is like- 
differently vocalized, signifying either 'cor- wise offered by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 114) 
ruption ' or ' a rope '] ; § 5 tov Oavarov whose book had not appeared when the 
'form' Frx^OSJartA 'likeness' for above was written. 

K'^CiS'lA death] ; atcrxpa, aiaxpov, 


of authorship. And the same conclusion, follows from the style and 
character of the epistle itself It is true that the strange expedient 
of addressing Satan in a long monologue gives to this epistle a unique- 
ness, which distinguishes it from the other five ; and altogether the 
writer has aimed at producing a more complete and systematic expo- 
sition of his theological views here than in the other letters. But these 
special features do not affect either the complexion of the theology or 
the characteristics of style. In these respects I can only see such a 
strong resemblance as points to the same mind and the same pen. 
There is a recurrence of the same favourite theological terms as in the 
other epistles; d ©609 tcov 6\wv (§ i ; comp. Tra//. 3, Philad. 9, Smyrn. 9, 
Ant. 3, Hero 7, Ephes. 7) and d /xdvos d\r]0tv6<i (§ 2 ; see below, p. 269) 
applied to the Father ; Xdyos ©eds or d ©eds Xdyo? (§§ 2, 3 ; comp. 
Afar. Ign. i, Trail. 10, Magn. 6, Tars. 4, 6, Philad. 6, Smyrn. i) 
and ;u.ovoyei'?fs (§ 2; comp. Magn. 6, Tars. 6, Philad. 4, 6, Smyrn. i, 
Hero inscr. 7, 9, Ephes. 7, 16, 20, Rom. inscr.) to the Son; 7rapa.KXr]To<; 
(§ 2, 3, several times; comp. Philad. 4, 5, 9, Ephes. 20) to the Holy 
Spirit; ivavOpuiireLv, erav^pwTTTjo-ts (§§ 2, 3, 5; comp. Afar. Ign. i, Anl. 3, 
4) to the Incarnation. There is the same jealous maintenance of the 
vTrepoxyj of the Father (§ 12 ; comp. Smyrn. 7), and the same anxiety to 
vindicate the epithet ayeVvTyros to Him while denying it to the Son (§ 7), 
which are leading characteristics of the other epistles ( Trail. 6, 9, Magn. 6, 
7, 8, II, Philad. 4, Anl. 14, Hero 6, Ephes. 7, 18). The same heretics are 
denounced, and in the same terms; e.g. those who say that Christ suffered 
only in appearance, SoKifcrct or (f)avTaaLa not dXrjOeLo. (§ 3, 4 ; comp. 
Trail. 9, 10, Tars. 2, 3, Smyrn. 2, 3), and who therefore are 'ashamed 
of the passion,' to Tra^og eVatcr^wecr^ai (§ 4; comp. Trail. 6, Philad. 6, 
Smyrn. 7, Anl. 4, 5, Nero 2); those who maintain that the Son is a 
mere man, i/^tXd? dvOpuiTro? (§ 5; 6; comp. Trail. 6, Tars. 2, 5, 6, Philad. 6, 
Anl. 2, Hero 2, Ephes. 19); those who identify Christ with d lirX Trdvrm' 
©eds (§ 7; comp. Tars. 2, 5). The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed 
stated much more fully in this epistle (§ 2) than in the others; but it is 
definitely declared elsewhere (Trail. 6, Philad. 4, 5, 6), and the anxiety 
which is evinced to bring together the names of the Three Persons, 
frequently by inserting the mention of the Holy Spirit where the Middle 
Recension speaks only of the Father and the Son, shows how prominent 
a place it held in the writer's convictions (Philad. 9, 11, Trail, i, 5, 
Smyrn. 13, Anl. 14, Hero 7, Ephes. 9, 15, 20, 21, Pom. i, 8). Above 
all, he puts forward the same strange Christology which appears in the 
other epistles, denying that Christ has a human soul as well as body 
and maintaining that the Divine Logos takes the place of the former 


(§ 5; comp. Philad. 7, and see below, p. 271). This one coincidence 
would have been conclusive in itself, if the other resemblances had left 
the matter at all doubtful. Again the Christian observance of certain 
festivals is directed (§13; comp. Trail. 9, Magn. 9), and the Jewish 
observance of fasts and sabbaths denounced {ib.-, comp. Magn. 9), in 
similar terms. Those who oflfend in these respects are Christ-murderers, 
like the Jews, ^pto-TOKToVoi (§14; see also § 3 ov-)(^ tjttov twv tov Ku'ptov 
(TTarpcocravTwv, comp. Trail. 10; § 15 koivcovo? ecrri twv aTro/cretvaj/Tov tov 
Kv'ptov), a very favourite mode of expression in the other epistles 
(icrptoKToi/os Trail. 11, Tars. 3; ^to-TOKTo'vo9 Hero 2, Magn. 11; ^kjto- 
^vo<i Philad. 6; comp. xpto-To/Lia;(os Smyrn. 2). Again the injunctions 
respecting marriage and virginity are conceived in the same spirit and 
expressed in similar language (§ 13; comp. Hero 2). The similarity 
extends even to the use of individual words and expressions which 
have no direct theological bearing. The employment of such very 
common Ignatian expressions as dvTLij/vxo? (§ 14) or ovaifx-qv (§ 15) 
would be an obvious expedient, and no stress can be laid on these. 
But the case is different with yaXa/cTOTpoe^t'a (§8, 9; comp. yaXaxTOTpo- 
<p^iv Trail. 10), (TOifxa ofJLOioiraOe'i (§ 9; comp. Trail. 10), (rvvd<^€ia (§12 
applied to marriage, as in Philad. 4; comp. Ephes. 4), TrapaTrXrj^La 
(§ 11; comp. Mar. Igtl. 2 TrapairXrj^), crvarTr]fx.a (§ 15 to crv(TTr]fj.a twv 
irapOeviov ; comp. Trail. 7 ri Se Trpecr^vrepLOv aAX' 17 crvaTrjfjLa lepov), vorjTo. 
Kol alaO-qTOL (§ 1 1, and see § 5 ; comp. Philad. 5), o TrapaSo^os roKero's (§ 8, 
of the incarnation; comp. Hero 4), to ivepyijaav ev Moyay kol Trpo^T^rats 
Koi aTTocTToXots (§ i; exactly the same expression which is used of the 
Spirit in Philad. 5), reXeia <^pove2v (§15; comp. Smyrn. 11), Trto-TOTaros 
(§ 15; see above, p. 248), TrpwroTrXao-Tos (§ II of Adam and Eve; comp. 
Nero 4). Other parallels again are the expressions applied to Satan, 
o SpctKWV o a.7ro(TTdrrj<;, 6 tov Xptcrrou ^wptc^cts, o tov dytov irvevfxaTos 
aXXoTptw^et's (§11; comp. Philad. 6 tov SpaKovTa TOV aTToaTdTrjv, and ib. 
TOV dy'iov Trt'evp-aTos /cevos kol tov XpLtTTOv aXAoTpto?) ; or the form of saluta- 
tion da-Trdt^eaOaL tov Xaov Kvptou diro fJUKpov ews [xeyaXov (§ 15 ; repeated 
word for word Hero 8, Anl. 12); or the parting benediction eppwaOe crapKi 
"A^XT? T^v^vfxaTi (§15; comp. Tars. 10 tppwaOe (rojp-aTt Kat ^v^^rj kol -Kv^vfJiaTi 
kvi). Again the unusual desiderative form eVtSetKTiav (§ 10) has a parallel 
in (jiavrjTLOLv (Mar. Ign. 5). And doubtless this list of coincidences of 
language is very far from exhaustive. Lastly- — to complete the case — we 
find in this epistle the same stock quotations from and allusions to the 
Scriptures, as in the others : e.g. i Tim. iv. 10 (inscr. ; comp. Ephes. 9, 
Magn. i); I Cor. i. 10, Phil. ii. 2 {§ i ; comp. Ephes. 2, 6, Trail. 6, 
Philad. 6); Ephes. iv. 4, 5, 6 (§ 1,2; comp. Ephes. 6, Philad. 4); Deut. 


vi. 4 (§ 2 ; comp. Ant. 2) ; i Cor. viii. 6 (§ i, 2 ; comp. Tars. 4) ; John 
i. 14 (§ 3, 5 ; comp. Ephes. 7, Trail. 9, Smyrn. 2, Ant. 4); Prov. ix. i 
(§ 3; comp. Smyrn. 2); Is. vii. 14 (§ 3; comp. Ephes. 18, Ant. 3); Eph. 
ii. 2 (§ 4; comp. Smyrn. 7, Philad. 6); i Cor. ii. 8 (§§ 5, 9; comp. Trail. 
11); Eph. V. 28 (§ 13; comp. Philad. 4, Tars. 9, ^;'?/. 9); Matt. iv. 23, 
etc. (§ 5 ; comp. Magn. 11); Matt, xxviii. 19 (§ 2 ; Philad. 9). So also, 
when describing the attacks of Satan on the saints of old, he employs 
the same instances from the Old Testament, describing them in very 
similar language (§ 12 ; comp. S^nyrn. 7). 

2. Having thus shoAvn that all the six Additional Letters — including 
the Epistle to the Philippians — proceeded from the same hand which 
interpolated the Seven, we are in a position to enquire next, at what 
time and with what purpose this collection of thirteen letters was pro- 
duced. And here again the subject naturally divides itself into an in- 
vestigation of the external and internal evidence respectively. 

(i) The direct external evidence is not very early. The first Greek 
writers who distinctly refer to the Long Recension are Anastasius 
of Antioch and Stephanus Gobarus (see p. 204), towards the close of 
the sixth centurj'. But a long interval might elapse before this recen- 
sion superseded the other, more especially as the frequent quotations 
from the earlier letters in Monophysite writers secured to them a 
vitality and a prominence which barred the way to the later pretender. 

On the other hand the indirect evidence afforded by the presence of 
the six Additional Epistles in the Armenian Version indicates a higher 
antiquity than these Greek quotations might suggest. I have already 
pointed out that the history of this version obliges us to assume a very 
considerable lapse of time after the first appearance of the Greek text, 
before the translation was made (p. 87 sq). And, if Armenian scholars are 
only approximately right in assigning this version to the fifth century, 
we can hardly place the date of the six Additional Letters, and therefore 
of the Long Recension generally, much later than the end of the fourth. 

(ii) But, if the external testimony is somewhat vague and indecisive, 
the epistles themselves contain indications which narrow the limits 
more closely. 

(a) The ecclesiastical status, as it appears in these letters, points to a 
time not earlier than the middle of the fourth century, while on the other 
hand there is nothing in the notices which suggests a date later than 
the end of the same century. 

A passage in the Epistle to the Philadelphians (§ 4) would hardly 
have been written before the conversion of Constantine, for it supposes 

IGN. I. , 17 


that the State had become Christian. The governors are enjoined to 
render obedience to the emperor; the soldiers to the rulers; the 
deacons to the presbyters ; the presbyters and the deacons and the 
whole clergy together with the laity and the soldiers and the governors 
and the emperor to the bishop*. 

Again the multiplication of the lower ranks of the clergy points to a 
mature state of organization. Besides the three higher orders, there are 
already subdeacons, readers, singers, door-keepers, labourers, exorcists, 
(iTTopKia-TaC), confessors (Ant. 12; comp. Philipp. 15). The fact that the 
writer can put such language into the mouth of S. Ignatius without any 
consciousness of a flagrant anachronism would seem to show that these 
offices v/ere not very new when he wrote. Now of these lower orders, 
the subdeacons, readers, door-keepers, and exorcists, are mentioned in 
the celebrated letter of Cornelius bishop of Rome (a.d. 251) preserved 
by Eusebius {^H. E. vi. 43), and the readers existed at least half a century 
earlier (Tertull. de Praescr. 41). In the Eastern Church however, if we 
except the Apostolic Constit2itions, of which the date and country are 
uncertain, the first reference to such offices is found in a canon of the 
Council of Antioch, a.d. 341, where readers, subdeacons, and exorcists, 
are mentioned — this being apparently intended as an exhaustive enume- 
ration of the ecclesiastical orders below the diaconate ; and for the first 
mention of doorkeepers in the East we must go to the still later 
Council of Laodicea, about a.d. 363^ (see in. p. 240 for the references, 
where also fuller information is given). But while most of these lower 
orders certainly existed in the West, and probably in the East, as early 
as the middle of the third century, the case is different with the 'singers' 
(t//aATat) and the 'labourers' (/coTriarat). Setting aside the Apostolic 
Constitutions, the first notice of the ' singers ' occurs in the canons of 
the above mentioned Council of Laodicea^. This however may be 
accidental. The history of the word copiatae affords a more precise and 
conclusive indication of date. The term first occurs in a rescript of 
Constantius (a.d. 357) 'clerici qui copiatae appellantur,' and a little 
later (a.d. 361) the same emperor speaks of them as 'hi quos copiatas 
recens usus instituit nuncupari.' Moreover it is worthy of notice that 

1 The application of Prov. xxii. 29 ed. 4. 

opariKov dvdpa Kal o^iiv iv rots epyocs ^ In the 15th canon they are styled 

aiiTOv ^acnXevaiv Set Trapearavai to a wise ol KavoviKol xj/aXrai: in the 24th canon all 

and active bishop (Ej)/ies.6) perhaps sug- the orders below the diaconate are enu- 

gests the same inference. merated thus; vTrrjpiraL [i.e. vwo5i.o,Kovoi] 

2 On the date of this Council see r/ avayvuKTrai rj xpaKrai -7 ewopKLaral 17 
Westcott History of the Canon p. 428, dvpupol r) to rdy/jM tQv affKrjruv, 


our Ignatian writer in describing this office avoids the substantive 
/coTTtctTas and employs instead the corresponding verb totjs KOTnwvTa^, 
betraying, as I suppose, the consciousness of treading on dangerous 
ground and desiring to disguise an anachronism under the veil of a 
less distinctive expression' (see iii. p. 241, for the references and for 
additional information on this subject) ^ 

Again the notices of fasts and festivals (see especially Philipp. 13, 
14) tend in the same direction. From the observance of Wednesdays 
and Fridays indeed no definite result is obtained ; for these days are 
known to have been kept as fasts at least as early as the age of Clement 
of Alexandria [Strom, vii. 12, p. 877) and Tertullian (de Jejiui. 14). Of 
the quadragesimal Lenten fast again, which is also mentioned in these 
epistles, Augustine [Epist. Iv. § 32, Op. 11. p. 141) says that 'the custom 
of the Church has confirmed' its observance, and the 'forty days' are 
mentioned as early as a canon of the Council of Nicsea (Labb. Cone. 11. 
36; comp. Athan. Ep. Encyd. ad Episc. 4, Op. i. p. 91), though in the 
middle of the third century, when Dionysius of Alexandria wrote (Labb, 
Cone. I. 857), the fast seems not to have extended beyond the Paschal 
week. Moreover it is thought that our Ignatian writer, when condemn- 
ing in strong terms those who 'celebrate the passover with the Jews,' 
refers to the Quartodecimans (see Ussher p. xcv sq). If so, he ventures 
on a bold anachronism which would hardly be possible before the 
middle of the fourth century; for the Church of Antioch, which Ignatius 
himself represented, and the Churches of Asia Minor, with which he 
was on terms of the closest intimacy, observed the Quartodeciman 
practice from the earliest times, until the Council of Nicsea decided 
against this practice and established uniformity throughout Christendom 
(Athan. de Synod. Ar. et Set. 5, Op. i. p. 574; £p. ad Afr. Epise. 2, Op. 
I. p. 713 ; Chrysost. eum Jud. Jejun. iii. 3, Op. i. p. 608 sq). He has 
however been careful to disguise his meaning under an ambiguous 
expression, that the anachronism might not be too apparent. But, 
whether this be the true reference of the words or not, the language of 

^ The sentence in the text (together (a.d. 416), Cod. Theod. Lib. xvi. Tit. ii. 

with the greater part of the present chap- Leg. xlii. It would appear from the lan- 

ter) was written before Zahn's work Igna- guage there used, that the office, though 

tius von Antiochien appeared. Zahn ex- already firmly estabhshed and powerful, 

presses himself in precisely the same way, was comparatively recent ; ' eorum qui 

I.v.A. p. 129. parabolani nuncupantur,' ' eos qui para- 

* Perhaps the absence of any mention bolani vocantur.' If the office existed 

ofthe/a;-rt<5(?/rt«zin these Ignatian Epistles when our Ignatian author wrote, it must 

is also significant. They are first men- have been so recent that the anachronism 

tioned in a law of the younger Theodosius would have betrayed itself. 

17 — 2 


the warning against Je\vish practices {Philipp. 14) has its closest 
parallels in the decrees of councils and synods about the middle of the 
fourth century, 

(/3) The rough date which is thus suggested for this forger)' 
accords likewise with the names of persons and places which are introduced 
to give colour to the fiction. The name Maris or Marinus {Mar. Ign. 

I, Hero 9) becomes prominent in conciliar lists and elsewhere in the 
fourth century (see below, iii. p. 137). It is worthy of notice also that 
the Maris of the Ignatian letters is represented as bishop of Neapolis on 
the Zarbus, meaning thereby apparently the city of Anazarbus (see iii. p. 
138). But among the victims of the persecution under Diocletian, one 
Marinus of Anazarbus is commemorated in the Martyrologies' on Aug. 
8. Indeed the mention of Anazarbus itself suggests as late a date as 
the fourth century, for it is only then that this place takes any position 
in ecclesiastical history. The name Eulogius again [Mar. Ign. i), like 
Marinus, appears in conciliar lists at this epoch (see below, iii. p. 140). 
One Eulogius became bishop of Edessa a.d. 379 (Lequien Oriens Christ. 

II. 958). So likewise the name Vitalis^ {Philipp. 14) points in the same 
direction. One Vitalis was bishop of Antioch early in the fourth 
century, a.d. 318 or 319 ; another, a friend of ApolUnaris, was bishop of 
the Apollinarian party, apparently also at Antioch, some half-centur)' 
later (Greg. Naz. Epist. 102, Op. 11. pp. 94, 96; Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvii. 
21, 23 sq ; Sozom. H. E. vi. 25; Chron. Pasch. p. 548, ed. Bonn.; 
Labb. Cone. 11. 1014); a third, a bishop of Tyre, seceded with the other 
Semiarians from Sardica (a.d. 343) and was present at the synod of 
Philippopohs (Labb. Cone. 11. 710). 

(y) Another valuable indication of date is found in the plagiarisms 
of this Ignatian forgery from preceding writers. The most obvious of 
these is the opening sentence of the Epistle to the Antiochenes {'EXatfipd 
fxoL KOL Kovcj>a TO. Sea/xo. 6 Kvptos TreiroLrjxcv), which with one insignificant 
exception {TreTroL-rjKev for liroiyjaev) is taken verbatim from the commence- 
ment of a letter addressed by Alexander of Jerusalem to this same 
church early in the third century (Euseb. H. E. vi. 11). It is scarcely 
less clear again, that the distinction made in Philipp. \ 2 between Matt. 

^ Martyrol. Roman, vi Id. Aug. ' Ana- without any indication of the place, 
zarbi in Cilicia S. Marini senis qui sub ^ The VitaHs (BiraXios) of Philifp. 14 

Diocletiano etc' In the Martyrol. Hie- is called Vitus (B/roj) in HeroB. A Vitus, 

ron. xi Kal. Sept. is the notice ' In Anti- bishop of Carrhae, was present at the 

ochia natalis S. Marini'; and in the early Council of Constantinople (Labb. Cone. 

Syriac Martyrology published by Wright, 11. 11 34), where he stands next in the list 

under Aug. 24, a Marinus is mentioned to a Eulogius and not far from a Maris. 


iv. 10 VTTaye ^arara and Matt. xvi. 23 viraye OTrtcro) /xov IS derived from 
Origen (see iii. p. 200), and therefore cannot have been written before 
the middle of the third century. The obligations to Eusebius again can 
hardly be overlooked or questioned. The notice of Ebion (P/ii/ad. 6) 
is taken from Eus. H. E. iii. 27, as the close resemblances of language 
show (see iii. p. 213). A polemical passage relating to the Logos 
{Magn. 8) seems to be suggested by the Eccl. Theol. ii. 8, 9 (see in. p. 
169), while the preceding context {Magn. 6) is apparently borrowed 
from the companion treatise, c. Marcell. ii. i, 4 (see iii. p. 170). The 
comments on the fall of Satan {Philipp. 11) present close resemblances 
to Praep. Ev. vii. 16 (see in. p. 199). The remark on the descent into 
Hades {Trail. 9) is evidently taken from the Doctrine of Addai, as 
quoted in Eus. H. E.\. 13 (see iii. p. 158); and from Eusebius also, 
rather than from the letter itself, was doubtless derived the plagiarism 
from Alexander of Jerusalem of which mention has been made already. 
Again the comparative chronology of the bishops of Rome and Anti- 
och in Ign. Mar. 4 is derived by inference from the sequence of the 
narrative in Eus. H. E. iii. 34, 2>^, 2>^, and our Ignatian writer has like- 
wise followed the historian in making Anencletus, instead of Linus, the 
successor of Clemens, thus deserting in this instance the Apostolic Cofi- 
stitutio7is which (as will be seen presently) he copies servilely elsewhere. 
These plagiarisms throw the date of this Ignatian forgery as far 
forward as the middle of the fourth century at least. The coincidences 
with later writers than these, though not decisive, are sufficiently close to 
raise a suspicion. Thus the 'hoar head' of a prematurely wise youth in 
Mar. Ign. 2 is described in language closely resembling that of S. Basil 
when speaking of Daniel {Com?n. in Esai. 104), whom our Ignatian 
writer also mentions in his context (see in, p. 141 sq). Again the 
expression in Trail. 6 ov xptcTtavoi aXAa xpLa-T€{nropoL appears in Basil 
Ep. 240 )(pL(TT€fjiTropoL Kol OV ^icTTLavot (sQQ III. p. 1 5 3), and this can 
hardly be accidental, unless indeed it had become a proverbial expres- 
sion (see III. p. 175). On the whole it appears more probable than 
not, that the writer was acquainted with S. Basil's works. On the 
other hand no stress can be laid on the fact that he (Magn. 9) in 
common with Gregory Nazianzen calls Sunday 'the queen of days' 
(ill. p. 174), for this seems to have been a recognized designation. But 
the resemblance in the opening of Ign. Mar. i to the opening of one of 
Chrysostom's letters {Epist. 27) is very close (see in. p. 145); and yet 
perhaps not close enough to establish a plagiarism, if there should be an 
absence of other indications in these Ignatian letters pointing to so late 
a date. 


The obligations of our Ignatian forger however to another source are 
far greater than to any of the writers hitherto mentioned. The coinci- 
dences with the Apostolic Constitutions are frequent and minute, as 
may be seen by references to the notes in this edition; iii. pp. 141, 143, 
152, i55> 15S, i59> 160, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 172, 174, 176, 177, 
182, 187, 193, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, 213, 
216, 217, 218, 223, 224, 225, 239, 240 sq, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 
262, 264. These resemblances were far too prominent to escape notice, 
and demanded an explanation from the very first. Those who, like 
Turrianus, accepted both the Apostolic Constitutions and the pseudo- 
Ignatian Epistles as genuine, had a very simple and natural solution. 
Ignatius was supposed to have borrowed from Clement. Writers like- 
wise, such as Vedelius, who condemned the Ignatian Epistles as forged 
or interpolated, supposed that this false Ignatius was indebted to the 
Apostolic Constitutions for the passages which they had in common. 
No one, so far as I know, maintained the converse solution, that the 
writer of the Apostolic Constitutions borrowed from these Ignatian 
letters, whether the latter were regarded as genuine or as spurious. 

Ussher was not satisfied with this view. The resemblances seemed 
to him so striking that he could only ascribe the two works to a 
single hand. Both the Apostolic Constitutions and the Ignatian 
Epistles of the Long Recension were, he supposed, the work of one and 
the same author, who lived in the sixth century {Ign. et Polyc. Ep. 
p. Ixiii sq). 

Pearson again {Vinci. Ign. p. 155 sq) started a theory of his own. 
He supposed the existing eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions to 
have been put together subsequently to the age of Epiphanius from pre- 
existing StSacTKaXtat or h^ayul, which bore the names of Clement, 
Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. To these works, and not to the epistles of the 
Apostolic fathers, he believed the reference to be in the Stichometria of 
Nicephorus (see above, p. 225), where they are included among apocry- 
phal works. From the StSacrKaXta of Ignatius he conjectured that the 
Ignatian interpolator borrowed the passages which the two documents 
have in common, unless indeed (which he thought less probable) the 
SiSao-KaXta itself was made up from the pseudo-Ignatian epistles. 

The hypothesis of Pearson has not found any favour. The solution 
of Ussher also has commonly been rejected by subsequent writers on 
the Apostohc Constitutions, though apparently not without one notable 
exception (Lagarde Rel. Jur. Eccl. Grace, p. vii)'. Meanwhile the 

1 After this sheet was passed through the was published, this view found another 
press for my first edition, but before my work able advocate in Harnack Texte u. Un- 


problem has been complicated by new discoveries. Not only have 
shorter recensions of the Ignatian Epistles come to light, but the Apo- 
stolic Constitutions also have been discovered in a briefer form. Such 
a form of the first six books of the Constitutions in Syriac was pub- 
lished in 1854 by Lagarde {Didascalia Apostolorui7i Syriace), and with 
the help of the larger document he re-translated them into Greek 
(Bunsen's A7ial. AnteJiic. 11. p. 35 sq). As in the case of the Ignatian 
Epistles, so here also it is a question of dispute whether the Greek is an 
enlargement from the short form represented by the Syriac, as main- 
tained by Lagarde {Rel. fur. Eccl. Graec. pp. iv, Ivi), Zahn (/. v. A. 
p. 145 sq), and others, or whether on the other hand the Syriac is an 
abridgment of the longer form extant in the Greek, which is the opinion 
of Bickell (Geschichte des Kifchenrechis i. p. 148 sq) and others. For 
reasons however which will appear hereafter, we may waive this ques- 
tion, and address ourselves to the investigation whether the Ignatian 
writer is indebted to the author of the Constitutions or conversely, or 
whether (according to Ussher's theory) the two are the work of one hand. 
The result of such an investigation is to establish the priority of the 
Apostolic Constitutions. In one passage {Trail. 7) the Ignatian writer 
accidentally betrays the source of his obligations. He enjoins reverence 
for the bishop 'according as the blessed Apostles ordained {ol fxaKapioL 
Stera^avTo aVocrToXot) for you'. The reference is to Apost. Const, ii. 20 
(see below, in. p. 155). If indeed this allusion had stood alone, we 
might have felt doubtful about the correctness of the inference. But 
there is no lack of passages showing on which side the indebtedness 
lies. Thus in Apost. Co?ist. ii. i it is stated that Josias began his 
righteous reign when he was eight years old; but in Magn. 3, which 
partly copies the language of Apost. Const, ii. i, he is apparently repre- 
sented as only eight years old when he extirpated the idolatries, and in 
Mar. Ign. 4 accordingly he is spoken of as 'hardly able to speak' and 
as 'still lisping with his tongue' at this time, though the Biblical 
chronology makes him twenty years old. The Ignatian writer has been 
misled by the passage in the Constitutions and has not referred to his 
Bible to correct his misapprehension (see in. p. 143). So again in 
Magn. 4 the false Ignatius, after mentioning Absalom, states that 
Abeddadan lost his head for a like reason. The statement is inex- 
plicable in itself; but turning to Apost. Const, vi. 2, we find that the 

tersuchungen ii. i. p. 241 sq (18S4). For sher's opinion as to maintain that the 

reasons why I am unable to accept his two works issued from the same school, 

results, see below, p. 265, note 2. ' if not from one and the same hand ' (Tf- 

Bunsen also so far acquiesces in Us- natius v. Antiochien eU. p. 206). 


author has by an accidental error ascribed to Abeddadan (Obed-Edom) 
the words and deeds assigned in the Biblical narrative to Sheba 
(see III. p. 167). Here also our Ignatian writer has trusted the author 
of the Constitutions too implicitly. Again, in Ephes. 15 we have the 
statement that Jesus Christ 'first did and then taught (Trpcarov iTrotrjorev 
Kal TOT€ iS[Sa$€v), as Luke beareth witness.' The reference is not 
apparent till we turn to Apost. Const, ii. 6, where the expression is 
' began first to do and then to teach ' (yjpiaTo -n-pwTov Trotetv koL tote 
SiSaoTKeti/), whence we see that the passage in question is Acts i. i (see 
III. p. 262). Again in Antioch. 9 wives are bidden to honour their 
husbands and ' not to dare to call them by name'. The meaning of 
this prohibition is only then explained, when we refer to Apost. Const. 
vi. 29, where the same injunction to obey and honour husbands appears 
with the added sanction ' as the holy Sarah honoured Abraham, not 
enduring to call him by name but addressing him as lord' (see iii. p. 239). 
In several other passages also the Ignatian Epistles are elucidated by 
the Constitutions. Thus in ^«/. 12 the deaconesses are designated 'the 
keepers of the sacred doors,' as if it were their main or only business; 
while in Apost. Const, ii. 57 we find this assigned to them as their 
special function. Again in Magn. 9 the statement that the purpose of 
the sabbath was the study of God's laws (fjieXiTr] v6[j.wv) is explained by 
the fuller treatment of the same topic in Apost. Const, ii. 36, vi. 23 (see 
III. p. 172). In other passages likewise, where there are parallels, the 
priority of the Constitutions may be inferred from the additions in the 
Ignatian letters. Thus in the enumeration of church officers, Ant. 12, 
the mention of the copiatae, ' the grave-diggers,' which is absent from the 
corresponding passages ol ihe Apost. Const, iii. 11, viii. 12, suggests that 
the office had been created, or at least that the name here assigned to 
it had been given, during the interval which elapsed between the 
composition of the two works (see iii. p. 240 sq). 

Thus the priority of the Apostolic Constitutions seems to be deci- 
sively established. Moreover the plagiarisms are taken from the work 
as we have it now. Modern critics are disposed to attribute the 7th 
and 8th books to a different hand from the earlier six. This is a ques- 
tion into which we need not enter. The obligations to these two last 
books, more especially to the eighth, are hardly less considerable in 
comparison with their length than to the earlier and larger part of the 
work. Of the references given above (p. 262), the following refer to 
these two books; iii. pp. 152, 158, 159, 167, 168, 176, 177, 182, 193, 
202, 216, 218, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 264. Though Zahn (/. v. A. 
p. 146 sq) disputes the inference, the strength of the parallels compels 


us to extend the plagiarisms to these 7th and 8th books'. It is true 
indeed that our Ignatian writer {Ign. Mar. 4, Trail. 7) has adopted 
another view from the author ot the Constitutions (vii. 46) respecting 
the succession of the early Roman bishops (see 111. p. 147), preferring 
in this instance to follow Eusebius (see above, p. 261). But it is difficult 
to understand the weight which Zahn assigns to this fact, or to see how 
it affords any presumption against his free use of the seventh book 
in other parts. 

Nor again (as I have already intimated) will it be necessary for our 
purpose to consider whether or not the Apostolic Constitutions, as we 
have them, are a later recension of some earlier work or works — as 
for instance, whether they are an expansion of the Syriac document 
which has been mentioned already. If the priority had been assigned 
to the Ignatian Letters and the author of the Apostolic Constitutions 
had been proved the plagiarist, the question would have been compli- 
cated, and the history of the development of the Apostolic Constitutions 
would have had a direct bearing on the question before us. As it is, we 
are spared this trouble. Other clear indications show that our Ignatian 
letters were forged and interpolated not before the middle of the fourth 
century. There is nothing in the Apostolic Constitutions, even in their 
present form, inconsistent with an earlier date than this, while their 
silence on questions which interested the Church in the middle and 
latter half of the fourth century is in itself a strong presumption that 
they were written before that date. But as Zahn has truly said (/. v. A. 
p. 145), the pseudo-Ignatian letters contain far clearer indications of 
date than the Apostolic Constitutions. They should therefore be taken 
as the starting point for any investigations respecting the origin of the 
latter, and not conversely ^ 

^ Zahn's attempts to account for the later books of the Apostolic Constitutions 

coincidences in the passages which he (or at least the seventh, for Harnack says 

notices will not, I think, command as- nothing of the eighth), as well as with the 

sent ; and he altogether overlooks several first six ; (2) That the Apostolic Constitu- 

of the most cogent parallels; e.g. viii. 12 /wwj were interpolated and made to assume 

in Trail. 10; vii. 37, 41, viii. i, 12, in their present form, before the Epistles of 

Magn. 11; viii. 46 in Tars. 3; vii. 25 in Ignatius were treated in the same way 

Philad. 9. The section, Hero 5, is made (pp. 261, 263, 266, 267). Here we part 

up of passages from these books of the company. Harnack supposes that the 

Constitutions. Bickcll (i. p. sSsq) in like interpolator of the Ignatian letters was 

manner overlooks the closer parallels. hims'ilf the interpolator of the Apostolic 

2 I find myself in agreement with Har- Constitutions. To this view I see serious 

nack (see above, p. 262, note) in these objections; (i) The Ignatian interpolator, 

respects; (i) That the Ignatian interpo- as I have shown, appears in some cases 

lator betrays an acquaintance with the to have been misled by and to have mis- 



(8) The doctrinal teaching of these Ignatian Epistles affords another 
evidence of date not less decisive than any of the former. There may 

interpreted the work of his predecessors ; 
(2) The Ignatian interpolator takes a dif- 
ferent %'iew of the early Roman succession 
(see above, p. 261). Whereas the author 
of the Apost. Const, (vii. 46) makes Cle- 
ment the immediate successor of, Linus, 
the Ignatian interpolator following Euse- 
bius gives the succession Linus, Anencle- 
tus, Clemens. Harnack will hardly carry 
conviction to his readers, when he sug- 
gests that the interpolator of the Consti- 
tutions omitted Anencletus because he 
did not consider Anencletus to have been 
consecrated by an Apostle, like his 
predecessor Linus and his successor Cle- 
mens (p. 253) ; (3) The interpolator of the 
Constitutions betrays no definite know- 
ledge of the Christological controversies 
which followed upon the Nicene Council. 
His dogmatic interests are not very keen; 
but, where he does deal with doctrine (vi. 
4 sq), the points at issue are simpler and 
savour of an earlier age. His own doctrinal 
position is apparently the vague Semi- 
arianism which prevailed so extensively 
prior to the Nicene Council. Harnack 
indeed (p. 246) sees in the creed, which is 
given Apost. Cotist. vii. 41, an attack on 
Marcellianism ; mainly or solely, it would 
appear, in the clause oJ Tri% ^aaiKeias ovk 
iarai. Ti\os. But (i) This clause formed part 
of the Creed of Jerusalem (Cyril. Hieros. 
Catech. xv. 27; see Touttee pp. 80, 223, 
239 sq) which must have been older than 
Marcellus, as the language of Cyril shows; 
and (2) Marcellus himself adopts these 
very words, writing to his ' colleague ' or 
' fellow -minister ' (cruWeiroi^pyfJJ) Julius 
bishop of Rome (Epiphan. Haer. Ixxii. 2), 
det wj', dei av/j.^acriKeiiwi' ry Gecp /coi 
iroLTpl, ov TTJs ^aaiXelas Kara ttju tov cltto- 
(TToXov fiapTvplav ovk 'darai reXos. It is of 
no moment for our purpose whether with 
Zahn {Marcellus v. Ancyra p. 181) we 
refer oC to the Father, or (after the ana- 
logy of the 5t' Q\) in the Nicene Creed), as 

seems to me to be much more natural, to 
the Son, seeing that the Son is the princi- 
pal person in the sentence. Nor does it 
matter that Eusebius casts Luke i. 33 (to 
which notwithstanding tov awoffrdXov 
Marcellus must be referring, for the 
words do not occur elsewhere in the N.T.) 
in the teeth of Marcellus. The antagonism 
in the Ignatian Epistles is much more 
plain and direct. This creed of the Apo- 
stolic Constitutions seems to be closely 
allied to the Old Creed of Jerusalem, as 
appears from other clauses also, e.g. t6 
irvevfia rb ayiov, tovt' icTi tov [v. 1. to\ 
irapoLKX-qTov k.t.X. (Cyril. Catech. xvi, with 
Touttee's note p. 243), so that Harnack's 
argument (p. 251) from the use of Trapa- 
kXtjtos in both writers loses its force. (4) 
Lastly; the author of the Constitutions does 
not betray, or at least I have not noticed 
in him, any knowledge of the ecclesiastical 
writers of the 4th century. On the other 
hand the influence of Eusebius, not to 
mention later authors, is perceptible again 
and again in the Ignatian forger (see 
above, p. 260 sq). 

One argument on which Harnack lays 
much stress (p. 255) is based on the sup- 
posed fact that the Ignatian forger shows 
a knowledge not only of the Seventh 
Book of the Constitutions itself, which 
was enlarged from the Didache by inter- 
polation, but also of those parts of the 
Didache which are not incorporated in 
the Constitutiojis. But, even though this 
be so, I do not see how it proves that he 
was himself the interpolator of the latter. 
As the Ignatian interpolator was pro- 
bably a Syrian (see below, p. 274), there 
is every likelihood that he would be ac- 
quainted with the Didache which seems 
to have emanated from Syria. The ex- 
ample however, which Harnack quotes 
{Trail. 6 ov 'KpiaTiavol dXXd XP"''''^A'' 
TTopot) is not so decisive as he thinks. 
He refers to Didache xii. 3, where there is 


be some difficulty in fixing the precise position of the \vriter himself, 
but we can entertain no doubt about the doctrinal atmosphere in which 
he lived and moved. The Arian and Semiarian, the Marcellian and 
Apollinarian controversies of the middle and subsequent decades of the 
fourth century are his main interest. On the other hand these epistles 
contain nothing which suggests that the writer was acquainted with the 
Nestorian and Monophysite disputes of the succeeding ages. This 
silence is the more significant, when we remember the polemical spirit 
of our Ignatian writer. 

The Catholic doctrine of the Person of Christ is exposed to perver- 
sion, or is discredited by extravagant statement, in two opposite direc- 
tions. On the one side there are the aberrations of Arianism and 
Nestorianism ; on the other of Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, and 
Monophysitism. On the one side there is a 'dividing of the Substance' 
in the Godhead, on the other 'a confounding of the Persons,' with their 
attendant or allied errors in each case. The true Ignatius of the early 
years of the second century, though orthodox in his doctrinal intentions, 
yet used language which seemed to transgress the bounds of careful 
definition on the latter side. He spoke of 'the blood of God' {Ephes. 
i), and described 'our God Jesus Christ' as 'borne in the womb of 
Mary' {Ephes. 18). Hence he became a favourite authority with 
Monophysite writers. On the other hand the false Ignatius of the latter 
half of the fourth century, whether orthodox or not in his doctrinal 
position (which is a matter of dispute), leaned to the other side ; and he 
altered and interpolated the early father whose name he assumed in 
accordance with his own leanings. 'The blood of God' becomes 'the 
blood of Christ' in Ephes. i ; and ' our God Jesus Christ' becomes ' the 
Son of God who was begotten before the ages' in Ephes. 18. 

His exact doctrinal position has been the subject of much discus- 
sion. For the most part he has been regarded as an Arian. This 
is the view of Leclerc (Cotelier Fair. Aposf. 11. p. 506 sq, Amstel. 
1724), of Grabe {Spicil. 11. p. 225 sq), and of Newman (Essays Critical 
and Historical i. p. 239 sq); and it has been adopted still more 
recently by Zahn (/. v. A. p. 132 sq), who is disposed to identify the 
author with Acacius of Csesarea, the scholar and literary heir of 
Eusebius. Funk {Theol. Quartalschr. lxii. p. 355 sq) defends him 
against the charge of Arianism, but sets him down as an Apollinarian. 

a similar opposition of Xptcrrtaci? and I have pointed out a passage in S. Basil, 

Xpt-ffTifxiropos (see above, p. 261), and which is much closer to Trait. 6 than 

describes this as the sole example of the expression in the Didache. 
XpiffTiniropos ' in all ancient literature '. 


Ussher discovered some affinities with Arianism, others with ApoUi- 
narianism (p. Ixxxv sq, cviii sq). On the other hand Bunsen {Igna- 
tius V. Antiochien etc. p. 205) is doubtful whether either Arian or ApoUi- 
narian language can be traced in him. Cotelier was inclined to main- 
tain his orthodoxy {Patr. Apost. 11. p. 43). 

It is much easier to ascertain this writer's antipathies than his 
sympathies. His polemic is aimed directly against the teaching of 
Marcellus and of his pupil Photinus. There can be no reasonable 
doubt that this is the object of Magn. 6 (comp. Smyrn. 3), where 
he maintains the existence of the Logos before and after the present 
order of things (see iii. p. 169). So again in a later passage in the 
same epistle {Magn. 8), where the genuine Ignatius had used an expres- 
sion almost identical with the language in which Marcellus clothed his 
doctrine (see 11. p. 126 sq), our Ignatian writer so alters the text before 
him as to make it a direct refutation of Marcellus, and this refutation is 
couched in words closely resembling and apparently borrowed from 
those of Eusebius when dealing with this same heretic (see iii. p. 170 sq). 

So far we see clearly. It is only when we try to realise his own 
position that the difficulty begins. 

The main arguments in support of his Arianism are these, (i) He 
betrays his heretical leanings in the alterations which he introduces 
into the Christological passages of the genuine Ignatius. Two examples 
{Ephes. I, 18) have been mentioned already ; but inasmuch as in these 
cases the original text seems to savour of theopaschitism, the alterations 
might have been introduced in the interests of the strictest orthodoxy. 
Other examples however occur, where this defence will not hold ; e.g. 
Stnyrn. i 'iT^crow Xptcrrov tov ©cov tov ovtcos k.t.\., altered into rov ©eov 
Ktti Trarepa tov K.vpLOv TjfjLoiv 'Ir]crov Xpto"Tou tov 8l avTov ovtws k.t.X., and 
Eplies. inscr. tov Trarpos koX 'Irjcrov Xpicrrou tov ©eou rjfxwv, altered into 
©eou Trarpos koI Kvptov rjjxojv 'Irjcrov Ji-ptcrTov tou aiDTTJpo'; y/xwv (comp. 
Pom. inscr., 3). The force of this argument however is considerably 
weakened by the fact, which will be noticed hereafter (p. 271), that 
frequently elsewhere he deliberately assigns to Jesus Christ the name of 
God, which in these passages he seems to withhold. (2) He is careful 
to distinguish between the Father as dyeuv-qro? and the Son as yevvT/ro's 
(see above, p. 255). This however proves nothing. If indeed Zahn 
had been right in supposing that in the age when this Ignatian pre- 
tender wrote the terms yewrjTos and yei'T^ros, dyevvr]TO<; and dyevr]TO<;, 
were used indiscriminately, there would have been much force in this 
argument (/. v. A. p. 135 sq). But it has been shown elsewhere (11, p. 
90 sq) that the distinction between these words was fully recognized at 


this time ; that in accordance with orthodox theology the Son was 
y€vvr/T05, though HOt yevjjTos ; and that, though (for reasons which I 
have explained there) the orthodox fathers of the Nicene age avoided 
the term yewrjTos, they could not deny its correctness (e.g. Greg. Nyss. 
0/>. III. p. 35, ed. Morel, tov 8e Trarpos lSlov to a.yevv)]TO}<; civai o/xoXoyei- 
Tai). When therefore our interpolator altered the expression yewrjToq 
Koi dya'VTjTos which he found applied to our Lord in the text of the 
genuine Ignatius {Ephes. 7), he acted in the interests of orthodoxy so 
far as regards the removal of the term ayeVvT^ro?, which, as applied to 
the Son in His divine nature, involves a contradiction of terms. (3) He 
denies that the Son is d lirX TrdvTwv ©eo's, 6 twv oXwv ©ed?, confining 
these terms to the Father (see above, p. 255). This language however 
is a protest against Sabellianism, and is altogether consistent with the 
Nicene doctrine. Gregory Nyssen himself uses such language again and 
again (e.g. Oj>. 11. pp. 336, 340, 342, 343, etc, iii. pp. 22, 24, 31, etc). 
(4) He quotes with emphasis the passages in the Bible which speak of 
the unity of God (An^. 2, 3, 4, Philipp. 2); and on these and other 
occasions he speaks of the Father as the yndvos dXy]Bivo<i ©eds {Smyrn. 6, 
Philad. 2, Mag7i. 11, Ephes. 7, Ant. 4, Philipp. 2; comp. Rom. 6). 
But this language is not without parallels in the orthodox fathers ; 
the expression d yndvos dXr]6tv6<; ©eds is scriptural (John xvii. 3 ; see 
Smyrn. 6) ; and in the very passages (Ant. 2, 3) where he thus deals 
with the Scriptures he proceeds to point out that these Scriptures call 
the Second Person of the Trinity Ku'ptos and ©eds. (5) He uses such 
terms as dpxto-Tpdrrjyos {Smyrn. 8) and dpx'-^p^v'i {Magn. 4, 7, Smyrn. 9) 
of the Son ; and their employment is supposed to betoken a desire to 
withhold higher titles. But this is no necessary inference, and in the 
case of the latter word he is careful to say that Christ is ' the ojily high- 
priest (of the Father) by nature' (<^vo-et), Magn. 4, Smyrn. 9. (6) He 
never uses the term d^oowios, though he must have been familiar with 
it. But, if he had any respect for the verisimilitude of his forgery, he 
would naturally avoid a word of which the previous history had been 
carefully investigated, and which was known not to have been used 
except rarely, and then only in a non-Nicene and heretical sense, as a 
definition of the SabeUianism of Paul of Samosata. (7) He insists on 
the pre-eminence or superiority (uTrepoxvf) of the Father [Philipp. 12, 
Smyrn. 7). In the first passage more especially he represents our Lord 
as addressing Satan on the occasion of the temptation, ' I am cognisant 
of the One, I know the Only (otda tov Iva, eVtcrTa/xat t6v fxovov), from 
whom thou hast become an apostate. I do not set myself against God 
{ovK elfu avTt^eos), I confess the pre-eminence. I do not refuse to worship 


Him whom I know, who is the cause of my generation (t6v t^s ifj.r]<i y€v- 
nfo-cws amov)...for I h've by reason of the Father (8ia tov Traripay.' But 
in the first place, the vTrepox>] of the Father is maintained by the most 
orthodox writers (see Cotelier Patr. Apost. ii. p. 86), and indeed, when 
rightly understood, is a necessary element of the Catholic doctrine of 
the Trinity (see Bull Defens. Fid. Nicen. Sect, iv 'De subordinatione 
Filii'); and secondly, the worship here mentioned is directly connected 
with the temptation, and therefore with the humanity of Christ. Nor 
again is the expression in Trail. 5, tov tc Trvru/i-aros tt/v vij/rjXoTrjra kol tou 
Kvptov T7/V ^acrtXetav Koi iirl ■ to tov iravTOKpaTopos ®eov aTtapdOcTOv, 
incapable of an orthodox interpretation. 

On the other hand there are not wanting passages which seem to 
indicate the writer as an adherent of the Nicene doctrine, (i) If he 
avoids the word oftoouo-tos, he uses o/xoVi^os instead. In Philipp. 2, 
speaking of the baptismal formula (Matt, xxviii. 19), he says that 
baptism is enjoined 'not into One with three names nor into Three 
incarnates, but into Three equal in honour (d/Aortju.ovs). ' It is difficult to 
interpret this otherwise than as a virtual acknowledgment of the Nicene 
doctrine, especially when we compare it with such passages as Athan. 
Expos. Fid. I {Op. I. p. 79), where he calls the Son tt^V dXriOivriv 
exKova TOV Trarpos IcroTLfiov kol IctoSo^ov, or Greg. Naz. Orat. 31 § 12 
{Op. I. p. 563), where this father speaks of to kv toI's Tpio-tv ofxoTc/xov Trjs 
diM's KOL T'iys 0(.6-rjTo<i (see also other passages quoted by Funk, p. 372 sq). 
(2) He repeatedly speaks of the Son as begotten or existing irpo 
atwvcjv, etc. (e.g. Ephes. 7, 18, Magn. 6, 11, Tars. 6, Antioch. 14). 
This, so far as it goes, tends in the direction of the Nicene doctrine ; 
but, as the statement was accepted by most Arians, no stress can be 
laid on it". (3) He speaks of the Son as ' by nature unchangeable,' t?; 
(^uVei arpcTTTos. On the other hand Arius in his Thalia had designated 
Him Tj»7 ^vo-ei TpeTTTo's (Athan. c. Arian. i. 5, 9, Op. i. pp. 323, 326), and 
it is difficult to conceive an Arian directly negativing this language of 
Arius. (4) He not only repeatedly condemns those who regard Christ 
as a mere man i/^tXo? dvOpit)7ro<s (see above, p. 255), denouncing them 
as 'Christ-slayers' {Hero 2), and saying that such persons are con- 
demned by the prophet (Jer. xvii. 5, 6) as trusting not in God but in 
man (Ant. 5); but he also repudiates those who, on the pretext of 
maintaining the unity of the Godhead, deny that Jesus Christ is God 
(Ant. I TOV XptaTov dpvdadai irpo^ao-ei tov €v6s ©eov, il>. 5 Iva Kac fxovov 

1 This very passage has a parallel in '£70) yap, (prjai, fw 5ta tov TraWpa. 
Gregory Nyssen c. Eunom. i {Op. Ii. p. 2 jj jg gygjj urged by Newman {Essays 

417) tV Z*^" ^Mav TOV {Ivu sKeWiv ^x^"' I. p. 240) as a mark of Arianism, 


KarayyeWeL ©eov ctt' dvatpe'cret 7179 tov Xpia-Tov deoTrp-os). (5) He him- 
self repeatedly speaks of Christ as God, sometimes retaining this desig- 
nation where he found it in the text of the genuine Ignatius {Polyc. 8, 
Rotn. inscr., 6, Ephes. 7), sometimes even inserting it proprio moiu 
where it does not so occur {Tars, i, 6, Smym. 5, Ephes. 15 ; and with 
Xoyo? or /u,ovoyev?7s, Smym. i, Philad. 4, 6, Magn. 6 ; comp. Ant. 4, 5). 

With these facts before us, we should find it difficult to convict him 
of Arianism. At the most our verdict must be, Non liquet. It is obvious 
indeed that he had a great horror of anything Hke Sabellianism, and this 
dread led him to avoid the Nicene term oix.oov(tlo% \ to emphasize the 
antithesis of dy€vvr]To<; and ycwjjTo's, as designating the Father and the 
Son respectively, though commonly shunned by Nicene writers ; and 
generally to lay stress on the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity 
not without some risk of appearing to divide the Substance. In short 
his position is not unlike that of Eusebius of Csesarea. He leans to 
the side of Arianism, though without definitely crossing the border. 

But on one point he was certainly heretical. If it is highly 
questionable whether he disputed the perfect Godhead of our Lord, it is 
certain that he denied the perfect manhood. In Smym. 4 he instinctively 
omits the words tov TeXetou dvOpiSwov, though the passage loses greatly by 
the omission, its point being the perfect sympathy of Christ as flowing 
from His perfect humanity. In Philipp. 5 indeed he is made in the 
common text to speak of Christ as 'perfect man' (reAetos ar^pwTros), but 
it is plain from the authorities (see iii. p. 193) that this is a scribe's 
alteration to bring his language into harmony with orthodox doctrine. 
In two several passages he explains his own creed. In Philipp. 5 he 
states negatively that Christ 'had no human soul' (tov ovk dvOpoiTretav 
xl/vxv^ exovTtt). In Philad. 6 he declares on the positive side that ' God 
the Word dwelt in a human body,' and again that ' God dwelt in Him 
and not a human soul,' wherefore it was heretical to say that Jesus 
Christ was ' a man, consisting of soul and body.' In both passages 
(see III. pp. 193, 212 sq) copyists or translators have tampered with 
the text, altering it so as to remove this blemish of heterodoxy. 

Is thi(S ApoUinarianism? Not strictly so. ApoUinaris himself adopted 
the tripartite division of man's nature, vov<s (or -jrvevfia), xf/vxv, o-wfia ; 
and accordingly he held that the Divine Logos took the place of the 
human Nous. It is stated however that certain Apollinarians denied 
not only the human voOs but the human xj/vxrj also (Epiphan. IPaer. 
Ixxvii. 2, 24), apparently adopting a bipartite division. This indeed 
seems to have been the earlier position of the school, from which it was 
driven under pressure of scriptural arguments (see especially Socr. 


H. E. ii. 46). At all events it is the position maintained by our Igna- 
tian writer, whether Apollinarian or not. Against the view that he was 
an Apollinarian, it is urged that the Arians agreed with the Apollina- 
rians in mutilating the humanity of Christ by denying it a human soul. 
This Arianism indeed was a common taunt against the Apollinarians 
(e.g. Athan. c. ApoU. ii. 9, Op. i. p. 755). To this Funk answers (p. 
376) that, though in this respect Apollinarians and Arians were agreed, 
yet they approached the subject from different sides. While the Arians 
adopted this view to depreciate God the Logos as compared with God 
the Father, the Apollinarians on the other hand (Athan. c. Apoll. ii. 
6, Op. I. p. 753; Greg. Naz. Ep. loi, Op. 11. pp. 89, 90; Leont. 
Byzant. de Sectis iv, Patrol. Graec. Lxxxvi. p. 1220) adopted it that 
they might guard the sinlessness of Christ, and this latter is the 
view distinctly put forward by our Ignatian writer {Philipp. 5 rt irapa- 
vofJLOV KaXeis tov t^s So^ijs T^vpiov, tov ttj (f^vcret arpeTTTOv ; Tt vapd- 
vofjiov Xeycis rov vojxoBirrjv rov ovk dvOpiair^iav ^v)(r]v e^ovra ;). Again 
he calls attention to the fact that in Sviyrn. 5 the Ignatian forger 
adds ®eoV to aapKocfiopov, and this fact he connects with the statement 
of Gregory Nazianzen {Epist. 102, Op. 11. p. 96) that the favourite 
Apollinarian dogma was to Seiv irpocTKvvCiv p-rj dvOpoiTrov Oeocjiopov d\Xd 
0eov aapKo^opov. Yet, notwithstanding these resemblances, the Apolli- 
narian leanings of the writer seem to me more than questionable. 
The Apollinarians took the o/xoov'crtos of the Nicene creed as their 
starting-point. This is not the position of our spurious Ignatius. Their 
leading idea again was the maintenance of the ' one nature ' (/xta ^wis) 
of Christ ; and they therefore welcomed such expressions as ' God was 
born of Mary,' 'God suffered on the Cross.' On the contrary our 
author betrays no anxiety on this point, and even obliterates in the text 
of Ignatius the very language {Ephes. 1,18) which would most commend 
itself to an Apollinarian'. 

On the whole it seems impossible to decide with certainty the 
position of this Ignatian writer. Notwithstanding the passages which 
savour of Apollinarianism, the general bearing of his language leans 
to the Arian side. But if Arianism in any sense can be ascribed 

^ See Greg. Naz. Ep. 103 {Op. II. p. ference of the term cap/cwo-is to ivavBpdi- 

168) avrov TOV (xoyoyevrj Qebv dv-qrov irrjcns, Greg. Naz. Ep. loi, 102 (O/'. II. 

etvac KaracTKeva^ei [6 'ATroXXtcapios] Kai rrj pp. 90, 94). Hence also the orthodox, 

I6iq, ai/Toi OeoTTjTi Trddos d^^aadai, Athan. when denounced as avOpwirokarp-qs, retorts 

c. Apoll. ii. 5 {Op. I. p. 752) X^yere Oedv on the Apollinarian that he is aapKoKd- 

yeyevvTiffOai, e/c irapdivov, comp. 'ib. ii. 14 rp-qs, Greg. Naz. Ep. loi {Op. II. p. 89); 

(p. 758). Hence the Apollinarian 's pre- comp. Athan. c. Apoll. i. 6(1. p. 739). 


to him, it is Arianism of very diluted quality. Perhaps we may 
conceive of him as writing with a conciliatory aim, and with this 
object propounding in the name of a primitive father of the church, as 
an eirenicon, a statement of doctrine in which he conceived that 
reasonable men on all sides might find a meeting-point. 

On the other hand the rough date of this forgery seems fairly certain. 
All the indications, as we have seen, point to the latter half of the fourth 
century ; and accordingly in recent years there has been a general 
convergence of opinion towards this date. This is the view for instance 
of Diisterdeck {de Ignat. Epist. Authent. p. 32 sq, 1843), of Hilgenfeld 
{Zeitschr. fur Wiss. TheoL 1874, p.- 211 sq), of Newman {Essays 
I. p. 238 sq)\ and especially of Zahn (/. v. A. p. 173 sq, Jgn. 
Ep. p. vi sq), whose investigations have had no little influence on 
the result. This view was also confidently maintained two centuries 
and a half ago by Vedelius (1623) who wrote 'ausim asserere quarto seculo 
post Christum jam ad minimum quatuor [ex sex epistolis supposititiis] 
confictas fuisse ' {Igfiat. Epist. Apol. p. 5). It has been adopted like- 
wise by the most recent Ignatian editor, Funk {Theolog. Qiiartalschr. 
Lxii. p. 355 sq, 1880), though he has since in his subsequent work 
{Pair. Apost. ii. p. xii sq, 1881) found passages in these Ignatian letters 
which seem to him to attack the doctrine of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
and which therefore oblige him to push the date forward to the earlier 
decades of the fifth century. The passages in question however do not 
bear out this view. The references to Lhe 'one Lord' or 'one Mediator' 
{Tars. 4, Philipp. i, 2, 3, Philad. 4, Ant. 4), which he supposes to 
have been directed against the doctrine of two Sons of God imputed 
to Theodore, are mostly quotations of scriptural texts and seem to have 
no immediate polemical bearing. If any such immediate reference 
were required, it might be found in the fact that Apollinaris accused the 
orthodox of believing in 'two Sons,' and that the orthodox fathers repu- 
diate and anathematize this doctrine (Athan. c. ApoU. i. 12, 21, ii. 19, 
Op. I. pp. 743, 749, 762; Greg. Naz. Epist. loi, 102, Op. 11. pp. 85, 
94; Greg. Nyss. ad Theoph., Op. in. p. 262 sq ed. Morel, a treatise 
almost wholly taken up with this one point ; Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvii. 4, 
i3> PP- 999) 1007; Theodoret. Dial. 2, Op. iv. p. 113). There is no 
occasion therefore to look so late as Theodore for an explanation. 
Other passages again, which attack false teachers who hold Christ to 
be 'mere man' {\piX6v avOpui-n-ov), or who maintain the unreality of the 
Incarnation and the Passion, are much more applicable to earlier here- 
sies than to any tenets fastened upon Theodore by his enemies. 
' ' Probably,' writes Card. Newman, 'about the year 354' (p. 243). 
IGN. I. 18 


Hardly less decisive than these tokens of date are the indications of 
country. In a moment of forgetfulness our Ignatian writer betrays his 
secret. In Philipp. 8, referring to the return of Joseph and Mary with 
the child Jesus from Egypt, he speaks of it as a ' return thence to these 
parts ' (iKelOev eVt ra rySe cTraVoSos). This would naturally apply to 
Palestine, but might be extended to Syria. The interest which the 
writer elsewhere shows in Antioch and cities ecclesiastically dependent 
on it, such as Laodicea, Tarsus, and Anazarbus, points to the latter 
country rather than to the former. 

But though compiled in the latter half of the fourth century, this 
recension did not find currency till a much later period. The earliest 
quotations in the Greek fathers, as we have seen, date two centuries 
later. Nor did it ever displace the Middle Recension in the Greek 
Church. The two are quoted side by side in the same age and some- 
times even by the same writer (e.g. Theodore of Studium, p. 222 sq). 
The Vossian Letters still continued to be transcribed, as the existing 
Medicean ms shows. In the Lafin Church the Long Recension played 
a more important part. It was translated into Latin at least as early as 
the first half of the ninth century, and for some centuries it was without 
a rival in Western Christendom. Only in the thirteenth century was the 
Middle Form translated by Grosseteste or his fellow-labourers ; and even 
then its circulation was confined to England, perhaps to the Franciscan 
order to which Grosseteste bequeathed his books (see above, p. 76 sq). 
Yet, though for several centuries the Long Recension held exclusive 
possession of the field in the West, and though even afterwards its dis- 
placement was only local, we may suspect that its diffusion was never more 
than partial. It is at least a remarkable fact that nearly all the known 
MSS, though numerous, are of Burgundian origin (see above, p. 127). 
In the Syrian Church the interpolated letters of this recension seem 
to have remained unknown to the last. The Additional Epistles, as we 
have seen, were appended to the seven letters of the Middle Form, and 
the whole collection was translated into Syriac. Hence the Additional 
Letters only of the Long Recension are quoted by Syriac writers. The 
same is the case with Armenmn and Arabic speaking Christians. The 
Armenian Version, which was translated from the Syriac, speaks for 
itself. Arabic Christianity, which would likewise derive its knowledge 
from the Syriac, is represented by Severus of Ashmunin, and he quotes 
side by side a passage from the Epistle to the Smyrnjeans in the 
Middle Form and another from the Epistle to the Antiochenes (see 
above, p. 228). The case of the Egyptian speaking Christians again 


would be the same. The extant Coptic Version (see above, p. 108) 
is a mere fragment. Whether it was ever complete, we cannot say, 
but the extant rehque exhibits one of the Additional Epistles in con- 
nexion with one of the Seven in the Middle Form. The Ethiopic 
Church would be indebted either to the Coptic or to the Arabic, and 
would thus be in the same case with the rest. Thus the interpolated 
epistles were unknown to any but Greek and Latin Christians, while the 
Additional Epistles were probably accessible to all. 

Besides the epistles extant in various forms in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, 
and Latin, two quotations are given in Arabic and Ethiopic, which seem 
at first sight to belong to other letters not included in any of these collec- 
tions. These are printed in the Arabic (of which the Ethiopic is a 
translation) below, iii. p. 299 sq. The first is prefaced by the words 
'The holy Ignatius... says in his epistle.' The passage which follows is 
not found in any extant Ignatian epistle. The second is headed, 'And 
this holy Ignatius... says in his thirteenth epistle.' The sentence fol- 
lowing hereupon is from Philipp. 3 'AXr]6<2<; ovv-.-ivayy]^, though not 
verbatim, the word lvayrj<i being amplified. It will be remembered that 
the Epistle to the Philippians is the thirteenth in the Armenian (see the 
table above, p. 234), and therefore in the Syriac collection, from which 
these Arabic fragments would ultimately be derived. The quotation is 
followed by an attack on the Diphysites. Though this latter portion is 
treated as belonging to the quotation, it was evidently not so intended 
originally, but formed part of the remarks of the writer who quotes 
Ignatius. This fact suggests a probable explanation with regard to the 
first passage also. It would seem that in the course of transmission the 
Ignatian quotation has dropped out, and that in this case we have only 
the comment of the later writer who cites this father. Indeed we 
may infer what the passage quoted was from words which occur lower 
down, 'Therefore when thou hearest that God suffered for us... under- 
stand,' etc. Can the quotation have been any other than Roffi. 6 ' the 
suffering of my God,' which we know to have been frequently quoted 
in a Monophysite interest, and which this writer would rescue from 
a Monophysite interpretation .^ If this explanation be accepted, we 
can no longer with Cureton (C. /. p. 363) see in these passages an 
evidence of extensive forgeries in the name of Ignatius beyond the 
epistles commonly known. 

It has been assumed throughout this chapter that the Epistle to the Romans from 
the beginning formed part of the collection of thirteen letters contained in the Long 
Recension. In this case it will have undergone interpolation from the same hands 



which tampered with the rest of the Seven Epistles and forged the six Additional 
Epistles. The presumption is certainly strong in favour of this view. The Epistle to 
the Romans is found in all the extant Greek Mss of this recension. It appears also 
in the Latin Version, which certainly dates as far back as the earlier part of the ninth 
century and was translated from a Greek text which the corruptions show to have had 
even then a long history. Zahn however (/. v. A. pp. 115, 128, 161 sq, Ign. Ep. p. 
vii sq) gives his reasons for supposing that it was only added to the other twelve 
epistles of this collection at a later date, having been interpolated by some other hand. 
As this view, if admitted, involves some not altogether unimportant consequences, it is 
necessary to consider his arguments at length. 

(i) In the first place he sees an argument in favour of this view in the fact that in 
this collection the Epistle to the Romans stands last in the series (see the table, p. 234). 
But owing to its subject-matter this would be its most natural position. Though 
actually written before some others, yet as dwelling solely on the closing scene of the 
saint's life, it forms the proper sequel to the rest. Accordingly in the Armenian 
collection it is placed last of the Seven Epistles ; and in the Greek collection, repre- 
sented by the Medicean and Colbert MSS and by the Anglo-Latin Version, it is 
embedded in the Martyrology which closes the series of letters. 

(ii) Again he finds his view still further confirmed by the phenomena of the 
epistle itself as it now appears in the Long Recension, observing that it ' has not 
undergone the systematic interpolation which characterizes the pre-Eusebian letters in 
this collection.' To this the answer is twofold. 

First. The interpolations, though fewer than in other epistles where the contents 
suggested or encouraged interpolation, are yet decidedly more considerable than in the 
Epistle to Polycarp. Zahn indeed (/. v. A. p. 165) has endeavoured to dispose of 
this parallel by anticipation ; but his argument is too subtle to command assent. 
There is certainly more matter provocative of interpolation by way of doctrinal state- 
ment in the letter to Polycarp, than in this epistle. Yet the interpolator has 
escaped the temptation to interpolate largely in the one case, and there is no reason why 
he should not have escaped it in the other. As regards ecclesiastical organization 
again, of which the Epistle to Polycarp is full, there is absolutely nothing in our 
letter which would afford a convenient handle for a digression. Zahn may be right or 
not in supposing that the interpolator waived the opportunity in the Epistle to Poly- 
carp, because he had already discussed matters of ecclesiastical order in the Epistle to 
Hero, though in other cases he is far from showing such self-restraint (e.g. the eligi- 
bility of young men for the episcopate treated at length alike in Magn. 3 and in Mar. 
Ign. 2, 3, 4) ; but at all events the Epistle to the Romans is untouched by this con- 
sideration. The solution of the question respecting identity or difference of authorship 
must be sought in the character of the changes themselves. But what do we find ? 

Secondly. The interpolations and alterations are exactly the same in kind as in 
the other epistles. 

(a) There is the same insertion o{ scriptural texts: 2 Cor. iv. 18, John xv. 19, in 
§ 3 ; Matt. xvi. 26 (Mark viii. 36, Luke ix. 25) in § 6; Gal. ii. 19, Ps. cxvi. 12, in § 8; 
John X. II in §9. So also, where the language of Ignatius has been influenced 
by some scriptural passage (e.g. § 7 Ixprov rov Geou K.r.\. from John vi. 31 sq, or § 9 
iroifi^vi, from John x. 11), other words are inserted from the scriptural context, or the 
text itself is directly quoted, just as the Ignatian interpolator is in the habit of doing 
elsewhere (e.g. Polyc. i, Trail. 11, Ephes. 5, 10, Magn. 7, Philad. 2. 3. Smyrn. 3). 

(/3) The literary and dictional changes are of the same character. Thus in § 2 for 


Swai the interpolator substitutes dioKvOTJvai, being more or less influenced by sound in 
the choice of a word, as in Polyc. 2 6i\riij.a. is substituted for Oifia, in Polyc. 3 dvafMeifrj 
for vTTOfieivri, in Polyc. 5 ttXV for irXiov, in Trail, i avvrroKpLrov for aSiaKpirov, in 
Philad. 10 crvyx'^PV^VV'-i- for cruYxap^J'at, in Ephcs. 3 viToix.vr\ad-f\va.i for vTra\ei(j)6rivaL 
Again a strong argument for the identity of workmanship may be drawn from the 
interjiolator's vocabulary. Thus in inscr. he has introduced the words irvevfjLaTo^opos 
and TravTOKpaTwp. Neither word occurs in the true Ignatius. For the former however 
a partiality is shown elsewhere by the Ignatian forger {Ephes. 9, Hero inscr.) ; and the 
latter is a not uncommon insertion in similar cases (e.g. Magn. 8, Trail. 5, Philipp. 7, 
Hero inscr.). Again at the end of § i an explanatory clause vpocpdcei (piXias (xapKlvr)^ 
is added. With this compare Ant. 1 -rrpocpaa-fL tov evos Qeov. Similarly at the close 
of § 4 after fi-qdh iindvixeLv there is a gloss Koa/j-iKov ij /xdraiov appended. This inter- 
polation indeed with others is found in some texts of the Middle P'orm, but it was 
doubtless inserted there from the Long Recension (see 11. pp. 200, 203, 210, 218, 
226 sq). It exactly accords with the interpolator's manner elsewhere, of which the 
addition in Trail. 1 1 irapavTiKa diroOvqcTKei [ov tov wpocKaLpov Odvarov aXXa rov aiw- 
vLov^ will serve as an example ; and with this last passage again may be compared 
likewise the elaborate glosses on fwr/ and ddvaros in Po;;i. 6. As regards the par- 
ticular words, the interpolator's fondness for adjectives in -ikos has been already 
noticed (see above, p. 248), and he uses this very word KoapuKos elsewhere {Ephes. 19 
a'o(pla K0(T/xiK7j). Again in four several passages (inscr. tov deXriaavTos to. irdvra, § 6 
€Ketvov 6^\u, § 8 BeXriaare 'iva /cat UyCtets BeX'i)9riTe, ib. ijdeXilcraTe) the pecidiar Ignatian 
uses of OeXeiv (see li. pp. 115, 228) have offended the taste of our interpolator, and 
accordingly he erases or substitutes in all these cases, in accordance with the proce- 
dvire elsewhere {Magtt. 3 tou OeXriaavTos T]/J.ds). Again the treatment of § 4 (e/cetvoi 
dwbaToXoi, eyih Kard\-piTos) is eminently instructive. The expi-ession dirbaToXoi seems 
bald to him, and he adds 'Itjo-oO X/3icrro0. There is the same treatment in Tj-all. 3 
diroarSXwv [XpL<7Tov]. Moreover the word Kard/CjOiTos is objectionable, perhaps unin- 
telligible, to him, and he ejects it, just as it is ejected in Trail. 3 'iva wv KaTaKpiTos 
K.T.\. in a similar connexion, and again in Ephes. 12 e7w KaTdKpiTos. These are the 
only three occurrences of KaraKpLros in Ignatius. In its place however eXdxicros is 
here substituted. This word is never used by the genuine Ignatius of himself, nor 
indeed does it occur at all in his text. But the Ignatian forger in at least three other 
passages {Ephes. 12 twice, Hero 6) makes the saint so designate himself; and in one 
of these {Ephes. 12 e7w 6 Adxto-ros) it is a substitute for this same word Kard- 
KpLTos. This passage alone therefore would be almost decisive as to the identity of 
authorship in the interpolations of the Roman Epistle. Again the smaller alterations 
bear traces of the same hand. Such are the substitutions of 5td for els in § 6 aTro- 
daveh eis 'Irjaovv XpiCTov (comp. Ephes. 3 6ta t6 ovo/xa for iv t^ dvofxaTi, Philad. 7 di' 
5v d^ for iv (f d^de/xai) ; the omission of ttj /caro, ffdpKa in § 9 t^ 65y T-g Kara ffdpKa 
(comp. Ephes. i vfxQv 5i ev a-apKl eTna-Kdwq}, where in like manner ev aapKi is omitted) ; 
the arbitrary alteration of 'iva into ottws in § 3 'iva (xt] fx6vov X^yufiai on account of the 
preceding iva (comp. Smyrn. 11, and see the notes 11. pp. 204, 339). Again such 
erasures as § 8 to di/'enSes arbp.a (comp. e.g. Ephes. 3 to d5idt<piTov ijpQv ^rjv, Trail. 
II Ss kdTLv avT6s), and such alterations as § 2 Tpix^v for cpwvl} (comp. e.g. Polyc. 1 
(iravopdibcrris for KoXaKevrji, Ephes. 5 ofxodi^vXoLS for <7vvdi5a(7Ka\LTaLS, Alag?!. 3 KaTa<ppo- 
viiv for (Tvyxfida-dai, Magn. 14 Troifiavdrivai for Spotrio-^V^Oi arising from tlie inability 
of the forger to understand or to appreciate the figurative and epigrammatic diction of 
the true Ignatius, have numberless parallels in the interpolator's work elsewhere. So 



likewise the arbitrary changes, even where this reason did not exist (e.g. § 7 irpori- 
flare for eTndvfjieiTe), are altogether after his manner (e.g. 7'rall. 3 ovtw diaKe'ia6ai for 
oiJTws ^x^'")' Again the breaking up and recombining of sentences, such as we have 
in § 3 6 xp:(ma>'i(j/x6s drav fJLiaiJTaL inrb Kdcr/nov, (piXelrai Trapa Geo?, is a device in which 
the interpolator indulges elsewhere (e.g. Trail. 3, 4, ovx ^s dTrocrToXos diaTdffuo/xaL, 
dXX' ifj-avrbv fierpu, Ephes. 10 ekv tis -Kkiov ddiKrjdeU irXeiova vivofj-eivg, ovtos /xaKapios 


(7) The doctrmal changes are not less decisive than the literary. More especially 
in the Christological passages can we trace the identity of authorship. There is the 
same anxiety to maintain the supremacy of the Father and to represent the agency of the 
Son as dependent on the Father, which we find in the other epistles ; and this anxiety 
expresses itself in the same way. In inscr. alone four changes are made, all tending 
in this direction. In the sentence Trarpbs vtl/iarov Kal'lrjcxov 'KpicxTov rod /j.6vov viov avrov, 
he prefixes Qeov to irarpos and substitutes fiovoyevovs for /jl6vov (comp. /gn. Mar. inscr., 
Hero inscr. , Smjrn. inscr., Ephes. 20), the word fiovoyevris being a specially favourite term 
with the Ignatian interpolator (see above, p. 255). In 'Irjaov Xpia-rov tov Qeov rifidiv he 
adds /cat ff<iiTrjpos after 9eoi7 to break its force, this term ffuirqp again being introduced 
elsewhere in the interpolations (e.g. Ephes. inscr.. Trail, i). For ''li^crov Xpiarov 
viov irarpos he substitutes Qeov iravroKpdropos Kal 'Itjctov 'Kpiarov rov viov avrov, v»'here 
(as I have already remarked) iravroKparoip is a favourite term of the interpolator. 
And lastly, for ev 'Irjcrov 'Kpicrr<fi r^ QeQ t]ijlQv is substituted ev Qe(^ Kal war pi Kal Kupiy 
Tjfiwp'Irjcrov XpL(TT(^, while again in § 3 6 yap Qebs rip.uv'l'qaovs Xpiarbs K.r.X. is in like 
manner erased (comp. Ephes. inscr.). Again in § 6 a characteristic expression of the 
Ignatian interpolator is inserted, rbv vlbv rod a\r)di.vov Qeov Kal irarpbs '1i)<tovv rbv 
Xpiarbv ; for, though the coincidence would have been more close if evbs or fiovov had 
been inserted before dXriOivov Qeov (see Zahn /. t. A. p. 164), the meaning is the 
same, and the omission of this further defining word does not destroy the resemblance. 
Again in § 8 "It/o-oDs 5^ Xpiarbs becomes avrbs dk Qebs Kal warjjp Kal 6 KijpLos 
'l-qaovs 6 XpLaros (comp. Ephes. 15).. It should be observed also that in both these 
last alterations the expression is 'Jesus the Christ,' an order unusual in itself and 
not found in the genuine Ignatius, but especially affected by the interpolator elsewhere 
{Ephes. 4, 7, 9 twice, 15, 21, Pliilad. 8, Sjiiyrn. 9, 10; comp. Tars. 3 '1-qaovs 6 Ki;ptos, 
Smyrn. 8 6 Xpi<Trb%^\r\<jovi). Again in § 6 rov trddovs rov Qeov fiov, the word Xpicrrov 
is inserted (comp. Ephes. i), though here indeed its absence from the Latin Version 
throws very great doubt on its genuineness. Lastly ; in § 9 ■noip.evi ry Ge^ XPW'^'-^ 
ixovos avrrjv 'Itjctovs Xpiaros eirLffKoirTjcrei. is changed into Troi/uievL xpi/rat riji Kvpiu ry 
eiirovri 'Eyui ei/xl 6 woLp.'qv 6 /caXos, Kal pjovos avrriv eTriaK07n](rei, apparently to avoid the 
inferential identification of Geos with 'Irjcrovs XpLcrros. So too the introduction of the 
Spirit, where the other two Persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the 
genuine Ignatius (inscr., § 8), is characteristic of the Ignatian forger (e.g. Trail. 1, 
Philad. 9, ir, Smyrn. 13). In the former passage xP"'"^o'''OMoSi frarpibw/xos, Trvevfiaro- 
(popos, the word irvevp.aro(p6pos (like the allied word xp'-<^'''o<p6pos) is not only, as I have 
already remarked, a special favourite of the Ignatian forger, but has likewise been 
introduced by him in another passage under similar circumstances and from the same 
motive (Ephes. 9). Thus the doctrinal manipulations are equally significant with the 
literary ; and altogether it is inconceivable that an independent writer should have 
introduced into this separate letter so many and various changes all so closely resem- 
bling in character the interpolations with which the Ignatian forger has enriched 
the other six. 


(iii) It is further urged by Zalin, that the Ignatian interpolator, though in his 
forged letters he plagiarizes from the passage of the Epistle to the Romans quoted by 
Eusebius, yet betrays no knowledge of this epistle outside the historian's quotation 
(see I.v.A. pp. 128, 161); and naturally he lays great stress on this supposed fact {Ign. 
Ep. p. vii). But can this statement be sustained ? Is not the opening of the Tarsian 
Epistle kKK\y)(j[q. dfieTra/;'^ koI d^Lo/j.vTjfj.oi'eijTu} kuI d^iayaTrriTiji palpably suggested by 
the opening of the Roman Epistle, where, and where alone, there is a similar accumu- 
lation of words compounded of d^tos, and in which also occurs the solitary instance of 
the rare word a.^U-rran'os in the genuine Ignatius? Again, the opening of Ign. Alar, 
ry TfKe7}iJ.ivT] xo-pi-Ti- Qiov Trarpbs vipicTov koX TivfAov'l. X.....a,^iodk(j)...Mapig, TrXexara ev 
Qeui xo-^pei-" more closely resembles other parts of this same passage than anything else 
in the genuine Ignatius. Again in /gu. Alar. 2 the expression dvai/xTjv tCov deLvdv rdv 
i/iol 7]T0Lixaatiiv(j3v is adapted, as Zahn points out, from a passage in Rom. 5, which is 
quoted by Eusebius. But there is one strong reason for believing nevertheless that it 
was not taken from the historian. In Eusebius the reading is tuv ifioi iroLfiwv without 
any variation ; while in the independent texts of the Roman Epistle it is rCiiv i/jLoi 
TjToifjLaa/jL^vuv, as quoted in Ign. Afar. 2, likewise without any variation. Again Tars. 
10 wpoaevx^a'de IVa 'iTjaov itrLTux'^ has its closest resemblance in Rom. 8 air-qaacOe irepl 
ip.ov 'iva ewLTvxio (the phrase 'iva 'Irjaov Xpi-cTTov iTViTvx'^ occurring twice in § 5 of this 
same epistle), though parallels may likewise be found in Magit. 14, Smyrn. i r, and 

(iv) Lastly; Zahn {Ign. Ep. p. vii) sees a confirmation of his view in the 
phenomena of the MSS ; ' Soli epistulae ad Ephesios, quippe quae ultimo loco ab ipso 
interpolatore posita sit, d.p.y]v subscriptum est tamquam clausula totius coUectionis (p. 
288, 17).' This seems to be a mistake. The a.^i]v is not the concluding word but is 
part of the letter itself, a.\t^\v 17 x<^P's (see below, ill. p. 266), and was quoted as such by 
Anastasius of Antioch (see above, p. 204). It occurs moreover in exactly the same 
position in the Epistle to Polycarp (see III. p. 232) ; and there is even some ground 
for surmising that it may have stood originally in the genuine Ignatius in both these 
places (in. p. 266). But Zahn continues; 'Atque in codice Vaticano 859 [go] qui 
reliquis epistulis omnibus subscripsit toxj ayiov Upo/xdpTvpos 'lyparlov eTrto-ToX?; Trpos 
'Avrioxeis, irpbi "Hpwca, k.t.X., sive addito sive omisso epistulae numero, epistulae 
ad Romanes prorsus singularis subjuncta est epigraphe, tou ay. lepo/j.. "17^. TraTpidpxov 
QeoO TToXews dvTLOxeias iincrToXr] irpbs pwfxalovs t/3'.' This is true likewise of our other 
chief MSS (gi g^). But Zahn has omitted to observe that a corresponding elaborate 
title (inserting however in this case not irarpidpxov Geoi'-7r6Xews but dpxi-^'TicrK6irov 
Qeovw6\€ws) is also placed at the head of the Letter to Mary, the first in the collection 
of epistles ascribed to Ignatius, as the Letter to the Romans is the last, in these MSS 
gi g2 (comp. also g^). Thus the more elaborate superscription and subscription bind 
the whole collection together ; and the phenomena, so far from showing that the last 
letter was originally separate, establish its close connexion with the rest. The 
only inference that we can draw from these facts is, that the parent MS from which our 
existing MSS (at least gj g3g4) were derived was not written before the age of Justinian 
(a.d. 538), when Antioch acquired the name of Theopolis. 


THE genius of Ussher, followed closely by the discovery of Voss, 
had narrowed the field of controversy. There was no longer any 
serious question about the spuriousness of the Long Recension. The 
eccentric advocacy of this recension by Whiston provoked no strenuous 
opposition, simply because it won no strenuous adherents. Later 
efforts to maintain the same cause fell still-born from the press. The 
Vossian letters alone held the ground. From the middle of the seven- 
teenth century onwards the controversy raged about these. The attack 
of Daille (1666) and the defence of Pearson (1672) were the main 
incidents in this warfare. Of other combatants it is unnecessary here 
to speak. The whole question will be considered in a subsequent 
chapter. I need only add for the present, that most opponents of the 
genuineness of the Vossian Epistles were prepared to admit in them 
the existence of a genuine substratum, overlaid however with later 
additions and interpolations. 

But in the year 1845 a new era -in the Ignatian controversy 
commenced. The existence of a Syriac version of the Epistles of 
Ignatius had long been suspected. In the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu, a 
Syrian writer at the close of the thirteenth century, of which a Latin 
version had been published by Abraham Ecchellensis (a.d. 1653), 
mention is made of Ignatius as an author (Assem. Bihl. Orient, iii. i. 
p. 16). In another list of books also, belonging to a later Ignatius, 
Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, who resided in Rome at the time of the 
reform of the Calendar under Gregory xiii, a version of the Epistles 
of Ignatius in Syriac or Chaldee is included (see ib. p. 17 ; comp. 11. p. 
229). A copy of this latter catalogue was brought to England by H. 
Saville, the learned editor of S. Chrysostom ; and the notice naturally 
attracted the attention and excited the hopes of Ussher (p. xxvi), 


who prosecuted some enquiries but without success {Life Mid Works xvi. 
pp. 53, 64). Again in 1680, 1681, Fell, at that time Dean of Christ 
Church, made attempts through R. Huntington, then British Chaplain 
at Aleppo, but afterwards Bishop of Raphoe, to obtain a copy of this 
Syriac version. Extracts from the correspondence of Huntington with 
certain dignitaries of the Oriental Churches are given by Cureton 
(C /. p. xxiv sq) from D. Roberti Hioitingtoni Rapotensis Epistolae 
(Londini 1704). Huntington's endeavours however failed, though 
strangely enough among other places he visited the very convent of the 
Nitrian desert in which the mss of the Syriac epistles were afterwards 
discovered. At a later date (a.d. 17 16) Renaudot in his Lihirgiaruvi 
Orientalhini Collectio (11. pp. 225, 488, ed. Francof. 1847) inferred the 
existence of an ancient Syriac version of the letters of Ignatius from 
the fact that he found several extracts in a collection of canons. These 
extracts are designated S, above (p. 91 sq), and the ms used by 
Renaudot {Sangerm. 38) is the same which is there described. The ex- 
tracts themselves are printed at length below, iii. p. 93 sq. A few years 
later (a.d. 1725) J. S. Assemani {Bibl. Orient, iii. i. p. 16) printed in the 
original Syriac the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu already mentioned ; and in 
his notes and elsewhere {ib. i. p. 606) he speaks of a Syriac copy of the 
Acts of Ignatius in the Vatican Library, contained in a volume of mar- 
tyrologies which was brought by himself from the monastery of Scete in 
the Nitrian desert in 17 15 {Bibl. Orient, i. praef. § xi). This MS has 
been described above (p. 107). From that time forward nothing more 
is heard of a Syriac version for nearly a century and a quarter. 

This long period of silence was terminated by the appearance of 
Cureton's Antient Syriac Version of the Epistles of S. Ignatius to S. 
Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, London 1845. This version 
was discovered by the learned editor in two mss which had been pro- 
cured in recent years for the British Museum {Add. 12 175, and Add. 
14618; described above, p. 72). Its publication was the signal for the 
revival of the Ignatian question. The controversy, which had long 
been flickering in the embers, now burst out anew into a flame, and has 
burnt brightly ever since. The Syriac version, as published by Cureton, 
contained only the three epistles' above named, and these in a shorter 
form than either of the Greek and Latin texts. The editor contended 
that the genuine Ignatius had at length been discovered, and that the 
remaining four epistles of the Vossian collection, as well as the 

1 It slu)uld be mentioned however that Trallian Epistle (§§ 4, 5) of the Middle 
at the close of the Epistle to the Romans Form, 
is incoiporated a fragment from the 


additional portions of these three, were forgeries. He was at once 
attacked by a writer in the English Revietv (no. viii, July 1845), since 
known to be Dr Chr. Wordsworth, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, but at 
that time a fellow Canon with Cureton at Westminster. Wordsworth 
maintained (p. 348) that this Syriac version was 'a miserable epitome 
made by an Eutychian heretic,' and that ' so far from invalidating the 
claim of the Greek text to be received as the genuine language of 
Ignatius, it does in fact... greatly corroborate and confirm it.' The 
gauntlet thus thrown down was taken up at once by Cureton. In 
his Vindiciae Ignatia?iae (London 1846) he defended his position against 
his anonymous assailant, and more especially vindicated the Syriac 
epistles 'from the charge of heresy'; and, having meanwhile discovered 
a third ms, likewise in the British Museum, he published three years later 
his most complete work on the subject, the Corpus Ignattanum (London 
1849), in which he discusses the whole question at length and gives, 
in the words of the title-page, ' a complete collection of the Ignatian 
Epistles, genuine, interpolated, and spurious, together with numerous 
extracts from them, as quoted by ecclesiastical writers down to the 
tenth century in Syriac, Greek, and Latin ; an English translation of the 
Syriac text, copious notes, and introduction.' 

Meanwhile the subject had been taken up by other combatants on 
both sides, and the fray became general. Among the earliest and 
staunchest allies of Cureton, was the Chevalier (afterwards Baron) 
Bunsen, who defended his position in two several works published at 
the same time (Hamburg 1847),' Die drei dchten ii. die vier undchtc7i 
Briefe des Igtiatius von Afitiochien and Ignatius von Antiochien u. seine 
Zeit. The former work contains the text of the epistles in the 
several recensions and is dedicated to Lachmann ; the later discusses 
the main question in seven letters addressed to Neander. On the same 
side also were ranged A. Ritschl (Entstehimg der altkatholischen Kirche 
ed. I, 1850; ed. 2, 1857), Weiss (Renter's Repertoriuvi 1852, p. 169 
sq), R. A. Lipsius in two several tracts ( Ueber die Aechtheit der 
syrischen Recension der ignatianischen Briefe in the Zeitschrift f. die 
historische Theologie 1856, i. p. 3 sq; Ueber das Verhditniss des Textes 
der drei syrischen Briefe des Ignatios zu den ilbrigen Recensionen der 
ignatianischen Liter atur in Abhandlungen filr die Kunde des Morgen- 
landes 1859, 1. p. i sq), Pressense {Trois Premiers Siecles 11. p. 392 sq, 
1858), Ewald {Gesch. d. Volkes Israel vii. p. 281 sq, 1859), Milman 
{Hist, of Christianity 11. p. 102, ed. 2, 1863), Bohringer {Kirche7igesch. 
in Biographieen i. p. 16 sq, ed. 2, 1864) and (though less definitely) 
Bleek {Einl. in das Neue Test. 1862, p. 142), with others. The opposition 


to Cureton's view combined critics of two directly antagonistic schools. 
On the one hand its ranks included writers like Baur {^Die ignatianischen 
Briefe ii. ihr naiester K7'itiker, eine Streitschrifi gegen Herrn Bunsen, 

1848) and Hilgenfeld {Die apostolischen Vdter p. 274 sq, 1853), who 
denied the authenticity of any recension of the Ignatian letters, 
being forced by their theological position to take this side. If for 
instance Baur had accepted the Ignatian letters as genuine even in 
their shortest form, he would have put an engine into the hands of his 
opponents, which would have shattered at a single blow all the 
Tubingen theories respecting the growth of the Canon and the history 
of the early Church. But as he had already, in a treatise published 
before the discovery of the Curetonian letters {Ueber den Ursprung des 
Episcopats p. 149 sq), placed the Vossian letters as early as the age 
of the Antonines, he could not have admitted the priority of the 
Curetonian letters without dating them so far back as to place them 
vathin or near to the age of Ignatius himself Thus it was a matter of 
life and death to theologians of the Tiibingen school to take their side 
against the Curetonian letters. At the same time critical conservatism 
prompted writers of a wholly different type such as Denzinger ( Ueber 
die Aechtheit des bisherigen Textes der ignatianischen Briefe.^ Wiirzburg 

1849) and Uhlhorn {Zeitschrift f. die historische Theologie 185 1, pp. 3 sq, 
247 sq) to range themselves in the same ranks. This view was 
adopted also in their subsequent editions by tv/o principal editors of 
the Patres Apostoiici, Hefele (ed. 3, 1847) and Jacobson (ed. 4, prol. 
p. Ivii), while a third, Dressel, whose first edition (1857) appeared after 
Cureton's discovery, speaks in a very confused and unintelligible way 
(prol. p. xxix), accepting neither recension as free from spurious 
matter and declining to pronounce on the question of priority. The 
priority of the Vossian letters was also maintained by two Oriental 
scholars of name, Petermann and Merx. Of the edition of the Ignatian 
Epistles by the former, which appeared in the same year (1849) with 
Cureton's larger work the Corpus Jgnatianum, and has contributed 
greatly to the solution of the Ignatian question by the republication 
of the Armenian version, much has been said already (p. 86 sq), 
and I shall have to recur to the subject again'. The work of 
Merx also {Meletemata Ignatiana- 1861) has been mentioned more 
than once (pp. 105 sq, 192 sq, 200 sq). On the same side also were 
ranged not a few other writers of repute, more especially in England. 

^ It is characteristic of Ussher's critical ing an Armenian version which should 
foresight that two centuries earlier he had throw light on the Ignatian question (see 
contemplated the probability of discover- Life and Works XVI. p. 64). 


The general bearing of the controversy will have appeared from this 
sketch of its history. While the advocates of the priority of the Vossian 
letters took different sides on the question of their genuineness, the cham- 
pions of the Curetonian letters almost to a man maintained these to be 
the authentic work of Ignatius. There was however one exception. 
Volkmar {Evangelien p. 636 sq, 1870; comp. Urspriing uns. Evang. 
p. 51 sq, 1866) advocated the priority of the Curetonian letters, sup- 
posing that the Vossian collection was enlarged from them about 
A.D. 170; while at the same time he condemned the Curetonian letters 
themselves as spurious. This theory stands self-condemned, and natu- 
rally it has failed to find supporters'. 

It would not be easy to overrate the services which Cureton has 
rendered to the study of the Ignatian letters by the publication and 
elucidation of the Syriac texts. The questions also which he started 
or revived and the information respecting the past history of the con- 
troversy which he gathered together have not been without their 
value. It may confidently be expected that the ultimate issue will be 
the settlement of the Ignatian question on a more solid basis than 
would have been possible without his labours. But assuredly this 
settlement will not be that which he too boldly predicted. Neither 
his method nor his results will stand the test of a searching criticism. 

His method is vitiated by a threefold confusion. First, there is the 
confusion, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter (p. 291), 
between various forms or recensions of the epistles and various readings 
in particular passages. Secondly, there is a studied attempt to con- 
found together the evidence for the Vossian letters and for the epistles 
of the Long Recension, as if the external testimony in the two cases 
stood on the same level. This confusion I have already discussed at 

^ In the Cotttejttporary Reviezv, Feb. curtness in the style, but the epistles 
1875, p. 346, I placed the author of read more consecutively, without faults 
Supernatural Religion in the same cate- of construction or grammar, and passages 
gory with Volkmar, as ' assuming the which in the Greek text were confused 
priority of the Curetonian letters.' I did and almost unintelligible have become 
so on the strength of such passages as quite clear in the Syriac. The interpola- 
this (6". i?. I. p. 262sq); ' Those who still tions in the text in fact had been so 
maintain the superior authenticity of the clumsily made that they had obscured 
Greek Shorter version argue that the the meaning,' with much more to the 
Syriac is an epitome of the Greek. This same effect. I am still at a loss to under- 
does not however seem tenable when the stand what other sense could be assigned 
matter is carefully examined. Although to these words ; but the author {S. R. i. 
so much is absent from the Syriac ver- p. xlv, ed. 6) repudiates my interpreta- 
sion, not only is there no interruption of tion of his language. 
the sense and no obscurity or undue 


some length (p. 249 sq). Thirdly, he collects together with great assi- 
duity the passages in earlier critics (before the discovery of the Syriac 
letters) in which objections were raised against the genuineness of the 
Ignatian Epistles, as an argument in his favour, failing to see that, if 
valid, they would tell equally against the Curetonian letters as against 
the Vossian. If a larger number of these aflfect the Vossian letters 
than the Curetonian, the ratio is only proportionate to the greater 
length of the former; so that the previous history of the controversy 
does not really afford any presumption in favour of the Curetonian 
letters as against the Vossian. 

So much for his method. His results will be canvassed and (as I 
venture to believe) refuted in the following pages. In the earlier 
stages of the controversy indeed, it seemed as if they were in a fair 
way to obtain general acceptance. A large number of influential 
names, especially in Germany, was enhsted in their favour. This was 
not unnatural. The Ignatian letters had long lain under the suspicion 
of interpolation ; and here was a sudden discovery which appeared to 
confirm this opinion. Hence it was taken up with avidity, as offering 
the desired solution of the Ignatian question. The extreme partisan- 
ship of Cureton and Bunsen indeed would repel some minds ; but the 
more moderate advocacy of Lipsius, whose first treatise is the ablest 
work on this side, commended itself by its impartiality and did much 
to strengthen the cause. But the tide has altogether turned within 
the last few years. The phenomena of the Armenian version and of 
the Syriac fragments, which, though emphasized by Petermann (1849), 
Denzinger (1849), and Merx (1861), were slurred over by the advo- 
cates of the Curetonian letters in the first instance, have at length 
asserted their importance as a main factor in the settlement of the 
question. Zahn's work Ignatius von Antiochieri (1873) — quite the 
most important contribution to the solution of the Ignatian question 
which has appeared since Cureton's discovery — dealt a fatal blow at the 
claims of the Curetonian letters. Since the appearance of this work, 
no serious champion has come forward to do battle for them. Lipsius 
{Ueber den Urspning des Christennamens p. 7, 1873; Zeitschr. fiir 
wisscnsch. Theol. xvii. p. 209 sq, 1874; Jenaer LiteraUirzeitung 
13 Januar 1877, p. 22) has recanted his former opinion and finds 
himself no longer able to maintain the priority of the Curetonian 
letters'. He states that he had misgivings even while his second 

1 'W\Q zx.'Cnox o{ Supernatural Religion Feb. 1875, p. 340) from the language of 
(i. p. xxvi sq, ed. 6) takes me to task Lipsius that 'having at one time main- 
because I inferred [Contemporary Review, tained the priority and genuineness of tlie 



treatise was going through the press (1859), and that the work of 
Merx two years later convinced him of his error. Even Volkmar con- 
fessed that his opinion respecting the priority of the Curetonian letters 
was shaken by Zahn's arguments {Jenaer Liieraturzeitimg 1874, no. 20, 
p. 290, referred to by Zahn Ign. Ep. p. vi). So likewise Renan {Les 
Rvangiks p. xv sq, 1877) has declared himself very decidedly against 
the Curetonian theory. One by one, it is losing its old adherents, and 
no new champion has started up'. I venture to hope that the dis- 
cussion which follows will extinguish the last sparks of its waning 
life. The investigation of diction and style has never been seriously 
undertaken before, and the results will, I think, be considered 

The examination falls, as usual, under the two heads of external 
and internal evidence. 

I. External Evidence. 

To the term external evidence a wide interpretation will here be 
given. It will thus comprise three heads : (i) Quotations and refer- 
ences ; (ii) Documents and phenomena of the text ; (iii) Historical 
relations of the two recensions. 

(i) All the evidence of quotations, it is urged, prior to Eusebius 
points to the Short Recension as the original form. Every passage cited 
during the Ante-nicene period is found in the three Curetonian letters. 
These quotations occur, it is true, in the epistles of the Middle Form 
likewise; so that the fact, if fact it be, is not decisive. But still the 
circumstance that we are not required to travel beyond the limits of 
the Short Recension to satisfy the external evidence of the first two 

Curetonian letters ' he had afterwards 
' retracted his former opinion on both 
questions alike.' Nevertheless the infer- 
ence is unquestionably true. See for in- 
stance the statement of Lipsius in the 
yenaer Literaturzeitung p. 22, ' Ueber 
die Nichturspriinglichkeit der Cureton- 
schen Recension der drei syrischen Briefe 
langst kein Streit zwischen uns besteht.' 
His previous statements in the Zeitschr. 
fur Wissensch. Theol. xvil. p. 209 sq, 
though equally explicit, were misunder- 
stood by my critic, who fell into the error, 
to which I shall have occasion to refer 

below (p. 291 sq), of confounding various 
recensions and various readings. Lipsius 
in his later writings still maintains that the 
Curetonian letters preserve older read- 
ings (as undeniably they do) than the 
existing text of the Vossian, but he not 
less distinctly abandons their priority as a 

1 One very recent writer however 
(Chastel Histoire du Christianisme i. 
pp. 113, 213 sq, Paris 1881) follows 
Bunsen blindly, without showing any 
knowledge of the more recent criticism 
on the subject. 


centuries after the author's date is in itself a presumption — a very 
strong presumption, it is thought — in favour of this, as the original form 
of the Ignatian Letters. 

Even supposing that this allegation were true, what would be 
the value of the fact for the purpose for which it is alleged ? It would 
depend partly on the number of the quotations adduced, partly on the 
relation of the two recensions, the one to the other, as storehouses 
of apt and serviceable quotations. 

But the alleged quotations are only three in number, one in 
Iren^us (see above, p. 143) and two in Origen (see p. 144). The 
passage cited by Irenseus is the startling image in Rojn. 4 ' I am the 
wheat of God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may 
be found pure bread.' Of the two quotations in Origen, one is taken 
from the same letter Rom. 7 'But my passion is crucified'; the other 
from Ephes. 19 'And the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the 
prince of this world.' Thus the direct quotations are very few indeed, 
and they are all obvious and striking. Moreover on the hypothesis 
that the Short Recension is an abridgment of the other, we should 
naturally expect it to have preserved just those passages which would 
strike the reader as especially apt for quotation. The presumption 
therefore, even if the statement itself could be accepted as strictly 
accurate, is so slender, that it must give way before the slightest positive 
evidence on the other side. 

But the statement is open to criticisms, which seriously impair its 

In the first place it ignores several references to the Ignatian letters, 
which, though individually they may be thought indecisive, yet col- 
lectively are entitled to the highest consideration, as evidence in favour 
of the Middle Form. 

The passage in Lucian will be found quoted above, p. 137 sq. It 
will be seen at once that, if there be any allusion to the Ignatian letters 
in this pagan satirist, it is not satisfied by the epistles of the Short 
Recension. The statement (p. 141) that Peregrinus 'sent about letters 
to nearly all the famous cities' might indeed be met by the expression 
in Ro77i. 4 ' I write to all the churches,' though it finds a much more 
natural explanation in the existence of a body of letters like the Seven 
of the Middle Form, with which Lucian may be supposed to have been 
acquainted ; but the superadded words relating how he ' nominated 
(e^ctpoTovr/cre) certain of his companions ambassadors (Trpccr/JevTas), 
whom he called death-messengers (vcKpayyeXou?) and infernal-couriers 
(veprepoSpo/Aovs),' has no parallel in the Syriac letters, whereas on the 


other hand it is adequately explained as a parody of Ignatius' direc- 
tions in the Vossian Epistles to 'nominate' (xetporomi/, Philad. lo, 
Smyrn. ii, Polyc. 7) certain persons who should visit Syria as 'God- 
couriers' (6€o8p6ixo<; Polyc. 7) or 'God-ambassadors' (OeoTrpealSevrqv 
Smyrn. 11). The further coincidence in Lucian's description of the 
Christians as ' despising death ' {Karac^povovai tov Oavdrov) with an 
expression in Smyr?i. 3 {Oavdrov Karet^povT/o-ai') deserves also to be 
mentioned, though it does not go far. 

The reference to the letters of Ignatius in the Epistle of Polycarp 
to the Philippians § 13 (see above, p. 136) is discussed in the notes 
on the passage. Though the words ras ciricrToXas ras TrefxcftOeLa-a's 
riitlv VTT avrov might be satisfied by the single letter to Polycarp in 
the Short Recension, yet they are much more natural and appro- 
priate as referring to the two letters — the one to the Smyrnseans, the 
other to Polycarp himself^which are found in the Middle Form. 
Moreover in the context Polycarp speaks of sending with them ' other 
letters also as many as he had by him ' {koX aAAas oo-as €t;(o/xev Trap' 
iQlxlv). This expression would be amply satisfied by the five additional 
letters of the Middle Recension ; but he could hardly have spoken thus 
of the two additional letters (Ephesians, Romans) which alone are con- 
tained in the Short Recension. 

Again Polycarp refers to Ignatius as directing him to take care 'that, 
if any one should go to Syria, he should convey thither the letters 
from them (the Phihppians) also.' This is explained by the directions 
in the Ignatian letters of the Middle Recension {Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 7, 8), 
charging Polycarp to send a trusty messenger with letters to Antioch 
from the Smyrnaean Church ; but without this key to the interpretation 
it is altogether unintelligible. The Short Recension does not contain 
these directions. 

Besides these more decisive references, there are other coincidences 
which could not have been regarded as decisive, if they had stood 
alone, but are not without their value as cumulative evidence. Thus 
the reference to the fetters of the martyrs, Ignatius and others, as ' the 
diadems' of the truly elect (§ i), seems to be taken from the similar 
image in Ephes. 11. The description of the deacons, as 'deacons of 
God and Christ, not of men (§ 5),' has a close parallel in Smyrn. 10 
(comp. Magn. 6, Trail. 2). The injunction ' to be subject to the 
presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ (§ 5)' is an echo of several 
characteristic precepts scattered through the letters of Ignatius {Ephes. 
6, Magn. 3, 6, Trail. 2, 3, Smyrn. 8). The modified form of the 
quotation from Is. Hi. 5 (§ 10) seems to be a reminiscence of Trail. 8. 


The apology 'But I have not perceived or heard of any such thing in 
you' (§ 11) resembles similar apologies in Ignatius {Magfi. 11, Trail. 8). 
Other coincidences also with passages which are not contained in the 
Curetonian letters will be found above, p. 136. 

But this is not all. It is true that the two direct quotations from 
Ignatius in Origen are found in the Curetonian letters. But in one 
there is a variation which, though slight, is far from unimportant. 
Origen, quoting the opening of Ephes. 19, cites it koX eXaOev k.t.X., as it 
stands in the Middle Form. In the Curetonian letters the connecting 
particle 'and' is omitted. This is not a mere accident. In the 
Middle Form (the Vossian letters) the passage stands in direct con- 
nexion with the miraculous conception and birth of Christ (§ 18), and 
accordingly the" connecting particle is appropriate ; but in the Cure- 
tonian letters all this preceding passage is wanting, so that the words 
quoted follow immediately after topics altogether irrelevant (§18 vfjuv 
8e (TiMT-qpia koX ^wy atojuos). Thus there is an abrupt transition in this 
recension, and the connecting particle would be out of place. It must 
therefore have been deliberately added in the Vossian letters, if these 
are an expansion of the Curetonian, or deliberately omitted in the 
Curetonian, if these are an abridgment of the Vossian. Hence its 
presence in Origen's quotation is an indication of no light moment. 

Moreover there is another very strong reason for supposing that 
Origen had the Vossian letters before him. The Vossian letters were 
in the hands of Eusebius, who does not appear to have known any 
others. But in all matters relating to the literature of the early Church 
Eusebius made use, as naturally he would, of the valuable library 
which Pamphilus, the admirer of Origen, had gathered together at 
Csesarea and left as an heir-loom to the Church there (If. E. vi. 32). 
This library contained the books which had belonged to Origen. When 
therefore we find Origen and Eusebius within about half a century of 
each other citing the same writer (though not very frequently cited 
in the early centuries), this fact affords a strong presumption that they 
quoted, if not from the same ms, at all events from mss closely allied 
to each other and belonging to the same family. The presumption is 
certainly much stronger than any which can be advanced on the other 

But, if Origen be withdrawn, the solitary quotation of Irenreus alone 
remains. An induction from a single example is no induction at all. 
But even this testimony may be invalidated. The reader who compares 
the references given above (p. 143) will form his own opinion of the 
value of the coincidences with the Ignatian letters in the language of 
IGN. I. I^ 


Irenffius ; but the}' cannot count for nothing. To this point however I 
shall return hereafter. It is sufficient at present to observe that with one 
exception {Ep/ies. 19) they all refer to passages in the Vossian letters 
which have no place in the Curetonian. 

The force of coincidences in other writers prior to the age of 
Eusebius, which have been noted in the previous chapter (p. 137 sq), 
will be differently estimated by different minds. But the references of 
Eusebius himself (see p. 146 sq) to the Vossian Epistles are unques- 
tioned and unquestionable ; and the same is true of all subsequent 
writers during the next two centuries, who cite this father to any extent, 
e.g. Theodoret, Timotheus, and Severus. There is in fact a catena of 
authorities extending over seven or eight centuries from the age of 
Ignatius. On the other hand not a single quotation^ early or late, has 
been adduced, of which we ca7i say cotifidetitly that it was taken fj-om the 
Curetonian Letters, as distinguished from the Middle Recension. The 
value of this silence must not indeed be exaggerated. As the two recen- 
sions have large parts in common, the range of possible quotations bearing 
distinct testimony to the Curetonian Letters apart from the Vossian is 
not wide. But still it is a significant fact. 

(ii) The next subject which I propose to consider under the head 
of external evidence is the phenome?ia of extant manuscripts and autho- 
rities for the text. 

Not a little stress has been laid on the fact, that the mss of the 
Curetonian Recension are older by some centuries than the mss (whether 
Greek or Latin) of the Vossian Epistles. It will have appeared from 
the account given above (p. 72 sq), that the three mss of the Curetonian 
Syriac range from the first half of the sixth to the ninth century. On 
the other hand the Greek mss of the Vossian letters, the Medicean 
and Colbertine, cannot be dated before the tenth or eleventh century, 
while the ]\iss of the Latin Version are still later. If we had no other 
data for determining the question than the relative ages of the mss, this 
fact might have afforded a presumption — a very slender presumption — in 
favour of the Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. LIow slight this 
presumption would have been we may judge from analogous cases. 
The oldest extant ms of Herodotus is about four centuries younger than 
the oldest extant mss of Jerome and Augustine. Yet Herodotus 
flourished eight centuries before Jerome and Augustine. The oldest 
extant ms of Bede is two or three centuries older than the oldest extant 
MS of ^schylus. Yet an interval of twelve centuries separates Bede 
from ^schylus. Such examples might be multiplied indefinitely. 


But we have other highly important data. The Vossian letters were 
certainly in the hands of Eusebius and Theodoret. We may here 
waive all contested points, such as the allusions in Polycarp or the 
quotation in Origen, which, if allowed, would carry the evidence much 
farther back. The references in Eusebius no one has questioned or 
can question. But Eusebius wrote more than two centuries before the 
date of the earliest Syriac MS of the Curetonian Epistles. Thus we are 
certified of the existence of the Vossian Recension two hundred years 
before we hear of the Curetonian. And from that time forward the 
evidence for the former is varied and continuous, whereas the latler can 
produce no credentials outside these three Syriac mss themselves. 

No light stress again has been laid on another consideration, 
which will not bear the strain put upon it. It is argued that in those 
parts which they have in common the special readings of the Curetonian 
letters bear the stamp of greater antiquity than those of the Vossian, and 
hence it is inferred that the Curetonian Recension itself must be older 
than the Vossian. 

Here two wholly different things are confounded together. In the 
comparison of two recensions so wide apart as the Curetonian and the 
Vossian, two classes of variations must be considered. There are first 
the deliberate additions or omissions or alterations which are due to the 
author of that recension which is later in time and founded on the 
earlier. These variations are directly literary or doctrinal in their 
character. They are also for the most part intentional. There are 
secondly those divergences which are due to the separate and successive 
transmission of each recension, owing to the caprice or carelessness of 
the scribes. These are chiefly clerical or transcriptional. They are 
commonly accidental, but may be deliberate. Thus a and /? are two 
recensions of the same author ; j8 being a literary recension, whether by 
abridgment or expansion or otherwise, of a. The state of the text of 
a and ^ respectively in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth 
centuries after )S was produced from a, and the two recensions began to 
be transmitted separately, are represented by a^ a^ a^ a^ a, a^., ^^ y3„ ^.^ 
^4 f^h /^G' respectively. Suppose that of a we have only a^. extant, while 
of /8 we have /?,. It is quite plain that in the parts common to both 
the only readings of /3 which are known to us must show greater 
antiquity than the only readings of a which are known to us, though (as 
a recension) (3 is the offspring of a and not conversely. This is a 
rough representation of the relation of our actual authorities for the 
texts of the Vossian and Curetonian letters respectively. For the 
former our chief authority may be said to be represented by a^, for the 

19 — 2 


latter by (S^. When the case is thus stated, the fallacy of inferring the 
superior antiquity of the recension from the superior antiquity of the 
extant readings becomes apparent. Yet Ignatian critics, following 
Cureton's example, have repeatedly built upon this hollow foundation'. 

This is perhaps the proper place for considering a curious fact 
relating to the documentary evidence. The headings of the epistles in 
the Greek ms (the Aledicean)^ which however contains only six of the 
seven letters, present remarkable differences in form. Taking them in 
the order in which they occur, we get the following titles : 


npoc noAYKApnoN irN&Tioc. 
npoc e(j)6cioYC irNATioc. 


MAfNHCieYCiN (j)iA(NAeAc|)eYCiN irNATioc. 


The word fxayvrjcruvcnv in the fifth title has evidently crept in from 
the subscription to the Epistle to the Magnesians which immediately 
precedes. The seventh letter, the Epistle to the Romans, is found 
only in a separate ms, the Colbertine, where it is without any title'. 

The epistles thus fall into two separate classes according to their 
titles; (i) 2ju.rpvaiot9, MayvT^o-ieSortv, ^tXaScAt^eC'crtv, TpaAAtcij/ois ; (2) Trpds 
HoXvKapTTov, Trpos 'E(^ecrtous. It will be seen at once that these two 
classes comprise respectively those which are not, and those which are, 
represented in the Curetonian set of letters. The value of this fact is 
increased by two considerations ; yfrx/, that the epistles belonging to 
the two classes are not kept separate in the ms, but are mixed up 
together ; and secondly, that, though there are minor variations in the 
titles (e.g. the omission or insertion of 'lymrtos), these have not pre- 
vailed so as to obliterate the main distinction of the two classes. 

In the versions we should be prepared to find the difference 
obliterated ; for there are not many languages in which it would occur 
to an ordinary translator to render Trpos 'E^ecrtov? and E^ecrtots by 

' The inference has been drawn from thing to Zahn's refutation of this in- 

the subscription to the MS So, ' Here end ference (/. v. ^. p. 18S sq). 

(the) three epistles of Ignatius ' (see above " The facts with regard to this MS are 

p. 72, in. p. 92), that the translator or incorrectly stated by some editors of 

transcriber knew of no other epistles of Ignatius, who assign to it the title Trpos 

Ignatius (Bunsen Die drei aechten etc. "Paifxaiovs : see above, p. 75, and comp. 

pp. xvi, xvii, Lipsius Ucber die Aechtheit yonrnal of Philology, II. p. 157 (1S69). 
etc. p. 159). It is unnecessary to add any- 


different expressions. It is not therefore a very important fact that this 
distinction does not appear in either the Latin or the Armenian 
Version. In the Long Recension again no traces of it are visible, as 
the headings of all the epistles have the same form Trpos '^/xypvaiovs, Trpo? 
'E^ecrtous, etc. 

When I first observed this curious fact, which I had not seen noticed 
in any writers on the Ignatian question', it impressed me strongly, and 
I called attention to it in an article in the Joicnial of Philology i. ii. 
p. 47 sq, 1868 (comp. II. p. 157, 1869). It seemed to me 'to show 
that the collector or redactor ' of the Middle Recension ' must have 
derived these seven epistles directly or indirectly from two different 
sources^ So I inferred that ' the three epistles were circulated by them- 
selves at an early date.' And, though not regarding the argument as 
conclusive against the genuineness of the other four, I considered it to 
weigh powerfully on that side. 

But I have since seen reasons for altering my estimate of the 
importance of these facts. It seems evident to me now that the titles, 
as we have them, cannot have belonged to the several epistles in the 
first instance and must be regarded as comparatively late additions. 
This is certainly the case with Ma-yi/T/o-teCcrtv, for no such form is found 
till many centuries after the latest possible date of the Epistle to the 
Magnesians. The only plausible heading for it is Trpos tov^ iv Mayvrja-ia, 
as I have shown (11. p. 105 sq). Thus it would correspond to the 
heading of the Tarsian letter tt/dos tovs iv Tapo-w". So again the varia- 
tions in the heading of the Epistle to the Trallians (see 11. p. 150 sq) 
show that the form in the ris, TpaXXiavots 'lyvartos, is destitute of early 
authority. Whatever therefore may be the explanation of these facts 
relating to the titles^ they have no direct bearing on the question 
before us. 

(iii) The third question for consideration under the head of ex- 
ternal testimony has reference to the historical relations betiveen the 
two recensions, so far as these can be traced. 

It has been shown above (p. 91 sq), that there existed in the early 
centuries a Syriac version of the seven Vossian letters, to which were 
appended the six additional spurious Ignatian letters. From this Syriac 

1 I hnve since seen that attention is - The Tarsian letter stands next to the 
called to this fact in B. II. Cooper's Free Magnesian in the Long Recension (see 
Church of Ancient Christendom. The a'oove, p. 234) ; and its heading was pro- 
book is without a dale, but I am informed bably suggested lay that of its immediate 
that it appeared in 1852. predecessor. 


version the extant Armenian translation was made at a comparatively 
early date. It has been proved also (p. 91 sq) that this Syriac version 
was intimately connected with the Curetonian letters ; that where they 
cover the same ground, the two are identical ; that this identity is such 
as to preclude the supposition of accidental coincidence ; and that 
therefore the only conclusion is the alternative, either that the Cure- 
tonian letters are abridged from the Syriac version of the Vossian 
letters, or that the Syriac version of the Vossian letters was an 
expansion from the Curetonian letters made by filling in the missing 
parts with the aid of the Greek. Which is the more probable suppo- 
sition ? 

The abridgment theory is a very simple postulate. The abbreviator 
had only to run his pen through the passages which he wished to omit, 
to substitute here and there an epitome for a longer passage, to supply 
here and there a link of connexion, and to transcribe the whole. He 
need not even have taken so much trouble as this. He might have 
performed the work of abridging as he went on, currente calamo. A 
very few hours would serve to complete his task. 

On the other hand the expansion theory is full of difficulties. We 
must suppose that some Syrian had before him the Curetonian letters 
in Syriac, and the Vossian letters in Greek ; that he carefully noted all 
the passages which were wanting or transposed or different in the 
former ; that he produced conformity by translating from the latter, 
supplying omissions, inverting transpositions, and altering divergences ; 
and that he did this in such a way as to produce a harmonious Syriac 
whole corresponding to the Greek whole which he had before him. If 
any one will take the trouble to compare the Vossian letters with the 
Curetonian, he will see what enormous labour and care such a work 
would involve. The relation is not one of simple curtailment or simple 
expansion. It is one either of careless, rough, and capricious manipu- 
lation, if the Curetonian letters be an abridgment of the Vossian, or of 
elaborate and consummate literary artifice, if the Vossian letters be an 
expansion of the Curetonian. This being the relation between the two 
forms, it will be seen at once how great must have been the labour of 
the Syrian who set himself to fulfil the task here supposed. Any one 
for instance, who will compare in the two recensions the 19th chapter 
of the Ephcsians or the opening salutation of the Roniatis will be able 
to judge for himself. Or we may take the close of the Epistle to the 
Romans in the Curetonian Form, which incorporates two chapters from 
the Vossian Epistle to the Trallians, and try to imagine the amount of 
care and attention which would be required for such a task. Indeed it 


would have cost much less time and trouble to have translated the 
whole three letters direct from the Vossian Greek, than to have under- 
taken this elaborate piecing of the Curetonian Syriac. Moreover there 
is, I believe, no appreciable difference in style (so far as it can be 
inferred from the remaining fragments and from the Armenian transla- 
tion) between the portions taken on this hypothesis from the preexisting 
Curetonian Syriac and the portions — whether isolated passages or whole 
letters — supposed to have been supplied by this second translator 
some centuries after. Yet it is not the uniformity of literalness ; for 
this version has a rough freedom characteristic of itself It would 
perhaps be too much to say that no Syrian could have been found in 
those ages capable of such a work. But who would have been likely 
to undertake it? And what sufficient motive would he have had to 
stimulate and sustain him ? 

2. Internal Evidence. 

This branch of the subject also may be conveniently considered 
under three heads : (i) The diction and style ; (ii) The connexion of 
thought; (iii) The topics, whether theological, ecclesiastical, or per- 

I. The value of diction as a criterion of authorship will vary 
materially in different cases. In the Ignatian letters, which (whatever 
other faults they may have) are not deficient in character, its value will 
be high. As the subject has never been thoroughly investigated before, 
I offer no apology for the length and minuteness of the treatment, 
trusting that the result will be considered its best vindication. In the 
following table the first column contains words and expressions which 
occur in the Curetonian letters ; while in the second parallels are given 
from those portions which are absent from the Curetonian Recension 
and appear only in the Vossian. 

Ar^TTAN of outward demonstrations of affection (see 11. p. 341); 

Polyc. 2 TO. dfCTfj-a /xov a ijyaTrrjaras Smyrtt. Q anovra fxe koi Trapovra tjyani]- 


Af^TTH joined with Tn'o-rt? (see the note 11. p. 29) ; 

Eplies. I Kara iriariv koi dynnrjv Kplu'S. 1 4 Tr]v tt'icttiv koi tt]v nyanrju. 

For Other instances see Ephcs. 20, 
Magn. I, 13, Pliilad. ii,S/nyrn. inscr. 
6, 13 


personified and used in a peculiar way ; 

Koin. 9 acnva^iTai, v\ dyanr] rau 7">'(ll/. I^ aarra^fTat vfias t] dyuTrr] ' 
i<KKr]<Ti,aiv K.T.X. vaiav, Philad. 1 1 do-Trd^erat v/ids 17 

ayanr] tcov dSeX^coi/ 

identified with the blood of Christ ; 

Rom. 7 "TO aiixa avrov o eariv dyaTri] Trail. 8 iv dyaTrj] o ((jtlv alfia 'irjaov 
acjidapros XpiaTov 

AfNeid, in connexion with [xevetv ev ; 

Polyc. 5 f i' Tty ^vvarai iv dyveiq. fiiveiv Eplies. 10 iv ndcrr] dyveia Koi cracfipo- 

crvvrj fjLfvfTe 

ArNizecGAi in a strange construction with a genitive (see 11. p. 51); 

Ephes. 8 TTepiyj/rifxa vp.a>v Kai dyvi^ofjiai Trull. 1^ dyvl^fTai vp.u>v to fp.6v irvevp.a 

^AeiN in the expression 'to sing to the Father'; 

Rom. 2 Xva ev aydnj} )(opoi yepofievoi Ephcs. 4 yppoi yivecrdf, Iva crvp.cpoii'Oi 
airrjTe rc5 nuTpl iv 'S.piCTTa Irjaov k.t.\. uvres iv o^ovola. . .abr)Te iv cf)(t)V7] p.i.q dia 

Irjaov 'K.pKTTQxJ Tco narpL k.t.\. 

aTma in the expression Iv at/Aart OeoC (Xpto-rou) used mystically ; 

Ephcs. I dva^utiTvpricravTes iv alfxaTi Philad, inscr. i]V dcnrd^OfjLai iv alp.arL 
Qfoii 'irjcrov Xpia-Tov, Smj'r/l. I i]8pa(Tp.ivovs 

...ivT(Da2p.aTL Xpiaroii '. comp. Trail. 

inscr. (v. 1.), S;;iyrn. 12 

<\i(i)N in the phrase 'the prince of this world' (see 11. p. 73) ; 

Ephcs. 19 fXadev Tov ap^ovra tov 6 dp)(^av rov alaivoi tovtov occurs 
alavos TOVTOV, Trail. 4 KaToXveTai 6 Ephes. 1 7, Magn. I, Rom. 7, Philad. 
ap^uiv TOV aicovos tovtov 6 

AicoNcc in a manner personified as the recipients of a revelation 
or a report ; 

Ephes. 8 iKKkr]a-ias ttjs Bia^oi^Tov roif Ephcs. 19 ttws ovv i(f)avepcod7] to7s 
alaa-iv alcocriv ; Sniyrn. I Iva dprj ava(rrjp.ov 

els Tovs aiuvas 

AKiNHTOc in reference to the faith of the persons addressed ; 

Polyc. I o-ou Tr]v iv Geo) yvap.r]v i^8paa- Smyrn. I ipxis KaTrjpTKrixivovs iv qki- 
fiivTjV cos im TViTpav aKivqTov vijtco TTicrrfi : COmp. Philad. I eTTt- 

yvovs...Tu UKLinjTov avrov 

&M60A\oc in the connexion iv d.[xo)fjuo x^-P?- ^i^^ similar phrases ; 

Ephcs. inscr. iv dfj.(Sp.(o xapd ;;^aipeti': Magn. 7 iv Tji -xapa rfj dp.a)p.a, com p. 
comp. Ro7?i. inscr. djuw/icof x^'P^'" Ephcs. 4 iv d/ico/^cp evuTijn, ^))iyr)i. 

inscr. iv dp.ap.w ■nvivp.aTi, See also 

Trail. I 



ANATeAAu) used nietaphoricaily \ 


iva etf avrov avaTfi\a> 

jMagn. 9 r) ^cor) ruinv avtreiXfi' 81 

AN HP in the phrase ol Kar av8pa ; 

Polyc. I rois Kar' av8pa Kara ofiorjdeiau 
Qeov XaXet 

Kphes. 4 ot kut' av8pa Sc x.opos yiveadf, 
Ephes. 10 01 Kar (w8pa Koivrj nairrts, 
Trail. 13 oi (car ai/Spa dXXjJXous dya- 
TrSre, Siiiyi'H. 5 to! i^ptrepa rav Kar 
avbpa TTadijpara, Siiiym. 12 roiiy Kar' 
avhpa Kai KOLvjj Tvavres 

ANTi4^YX0N implying devotion to another; 

Polyc. 2 KOTO, ■navra aov dpTiyj/vxov eyai Ephes. 1 1 avrb^vxav vpuiv iyu> /cat cov 

(cai TO 8f(Tpd pov, Polyc. 6 di'ri>|/'i;;^oi' fTrfpyfruTf k.t.\., Sinyrii. 10 dvTi^vxov 

e'yco Twi' vnoTaaaopevaiu k.t.X. (comp. v/xcoi" to TTveiipA pov Koi ra 8eapd pov 
TTepiyj/rjpa vpcjv Ephes. 8) 


Pom. inscr. €KKKT](ria...^Tis KaiTrpoicadr]- Magn. 2 rov d^ioQiov vpQ>v l-niuKo- 

Tai...d^i6deoi, Rom. I vpQ>v to. d^Lodea ttov, Trail, inscr. (KK\T]cria...d^io6€U), 

wpuaana Sniyrn. 11 tov d^iodeov iiridKonov 


Ephes. inscr. rfj eKKXrja-la rfj d^iopaKU- EpllCS. 12 HavXov... tov n^iopaKapla-rov, 

plo-T(o, Rom. inscr. eKKKT]a-ia...rJTis /coi RoJ/i. lO Si' 'E^eo-ioj/ twu d^iopaKa- 

TrpoKddriTai...d^i.oTrpeni]Sfd^iopaKdpi(TTos piaTav 

Rom. inscr. (1. c.) 

Alloc in other compounds ; 

a^iayvos \ 

d^uTraivos [■ Rom. inscr. 

d^uniTfvKTOs ) 

Alagn. 13 TOV d^ioTj-peneaTaTov enia-Ko- 
nov vpoiv 

d^iaydnrrjTo, j pj^-^^^^^^ ^ 
u^iodavpaaTos } 
d^iovopaoTos, Ephes. 4 
d^ioTTKTTos, Philad. 2, Polyc. 3 
tj^toTrXoKos, Magn. 13 

a5ioc with €i/xt, more especially in denouncing his own unworthiness 
(see II. p. zi)\ 

Trail. 4 ovK oiSa ei a^ios elpi 

Ephes. I 6 xapiadpevos vplv allots 

Magn. 12 fdvTrep d^ios <S, ib. 1 4 o^ei* 
oOk a^il)^ flpL KaXeladai (comp. Trail. 
13), Rom. 9 oL'Se yop d^ius dpi, Siiiyni. 

I I OHK COI/ a^lOS (K(lO(V flVCU 

Sniyrn. 9 a^wi yap eaTe, Polyc. 8 ypd- 
^^€is. ..mi a^to< COI' 


and used absolutely of things ; 

Polyc. 6 Iva TO. aKKdVTa vfiav a^ia ko/jli- Smym. 1 1 i(^avq /loi ovv n^iov Trpayfia 

aIioyn, used especially of himself (see 11. p. no); 

Roin. I ToO d^Kodfjvai fxe els reXos eivai Ephes. 9 i]^icodrjv...7rpocro^iXfj(Tai vyilv, 

lb. 21 r\^ui)driv fls TifJ-rju Qcov evpfdfjvai., 
Mag7l. 2 eVet ovv i^^uodrjv tSelv vfias 

AopATGc in the phrase 'visible and invisible'; 

Ti'all. 5 opara re Kai dopara, Roili. 5 Siiiyvn. 6 01 apx^ovres oparol re Koi 
Tmv oparaiv koi dopdrcov (comp. Polyc. doparoi 
-> rCs 

iTTd^OHc opposed to TraOrjTos and said of Christ; 

Polyc. 3 TOP dnaOrj, tov St' ry/xar Tradrj- Epiics. J Trpcorov TradrjTos kol t6t€ dna- 
t6v QrjS 

An&pTizeiN (comp. also avaTrapno-Tos, ii, p. 259); 

Ephes. I TO (TvyyeviKov epyov reXetcoy Ephcs. 3 ovt:(x> aTvi^pTLa-pai, Philad. 5 
dnrjpTicraTf, Ep/ics. 19 to napa Qea tJ irpoafvx^ vp.av...p.€ dnapTidei 

AnoAexeceAi said of saluting or welcoming persons ; 

Ephes. I diTohe^dpevos \ypa)v\ iv Gew Trail. I OTToSe^H/xei/os ovv Trjv Kara Qeov 
TO noXvaydirrjTov bvop,a, Polyc. I aTro- evvotav k.t.X. 
8exop-fv6s crou Trjv iv Qeat yvcofXTjv 

AnoAAMBANCiN said of welcoming persons; 

Ephes. iTTfv iro'\viTkTjdeiavvp.a>v...dTTeL- Ephes. 1 ov f^epn\dpi.ov riji d<j> vp-wv 
TiTjcfia iv 'OvrjcripLO) dydwrji dniXajSov 

and otherwise ; 

Rom. I TOV KKfjpov pov dvipTro8i(TT<iis Siliyrn. 1 1 dTriXa^ov to tdiov peyedos 

ApecKeiN of pleasing God or Christ; 

Polyc. 6 dpiaKSTe a crTpaTevtaBe Rom. 2 ©em apecrai, acriTep koi apeaKSTe 

ApTOC, speaking of the ' bread of God'; 

Rom. 7 apTov Oeov de\a> Ephes. 5 ucrrepetrat tov ciprov tov Qeoii 

Polyc. 2 TO Blpa n<})6apaLa kul (ou) iMagii. 6 8i8axrjv dfpdapa-Uif, Philad. 9 
atiovios TO 8e evayyeXLOv a-rrapTi(<jTiv a(f)dap- 

(Tias, comp. Ephcs. 17 

Rom. 7 dydnr] d<j)dapTos Trail. II o Kapnos avTav a^dapTos 


BACKAmeiN, B<,\CKt\Ni;,, 

Rom. 3 ov^iiTOTf^ l^adKavaTi ovSevi Rovi. "J ^aaKavla (v vfilv (jlt) KaToiKeiTo) 

TNcoMH in the phrase ' mind of God'; 

Ephcs. 3 oTTcos (TvvTpk)(Ti]Tf. Tj] yvutfiTj The phrase yvcifxr] Qeov occurs Ro/Ji. 8, 
Toil Qeov Polyc. 8 (comp. yvafXTj 'irjo-oO XptcrroO, 

Ephes. 3, Philad. inscr.) 

in the phrase 'mind of the bishop'; 

Polyc. 5 \iiTa yvmfirfs roii emcrKOTrov Ephes. 4 awTpixiw rrj tov iniuKuitov 
(comp. § 4) yv^t^T) 

and in other expressions ; 

Polyc. I (TOV TT/v iv GfW yvcafirjv k.t.X. Roill. 7 Tr\v ety Qiov fiov yva^rjv 

rpAcJju) in a particular connexion ; 

Rom. 4 eya ypa^xo ndaais rals (KkXtj- Polyc. 8 Trao-ais ruis (KKXijaiais ovk 
aims i]8vurj6r]v ypd'^ai 

AeAeMAi, AeAeMeNoc, in particular connexions, especially of a 'pri- 
soner in Christ'; 

Rom. \ 8f8efj.evos...(vXpi(TT<o 'lr](rov Trail. I SeSe/xeVcp eV 'irjcrov Xpiara 

(comp. Philad. 5, 7) 
Trail. 5 ov KaQoTi Uhm-ai fl yap Kai hihinai, Ephes. 3, Magn. 12 

AecAAA, see above under dvTiij/vxov ; 

AecMoc used metaphorically (with Xvav) of the powers of evil ; 

Ephes. 19 fXvero iraaa payeia Kal Tray Philad. 8 us Xocret d(p' vpcjv navra 
beaixos df(Tp.6u 

Ai<i TOYTO followed by Iva or ottojs ; 

Polyc. 2 bia TOVTO aapKiKos ei kui irvev- Ephes. 1 7 Sta tovto pvpov eka^(v...lpa 
pLartKos Iva K.r.\., Ephes. 3 8id tovto Trvti] k.t.\., Magn. 9 Sta tovto inrope- 
npolKajiov nnpaKoXelv vpds, onu^s aw- vopev Iva evpedcopev k.t.X. 

Tp€)(7]Te K.T.X. 

Polyc. 6 ovaiprjpvpavdianavTos, Ephes. Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. i, 6, Smyrn. 12, 
inscr. eiVat Sia iravTus els 86^av napd- Polyc. 8 


AT (I)N, in a particular connexion, where it is equivalent to 81 eVet- 
vwv a ; 

Ephes. 1 5 iw 81' (OV XaXel npd(T(rTj koI Ephes. 4 fViyircoo-Kr; St' <uj/ (v irpd(T- 
bC (OV (Tiya yiv(0(TKr]Tai aeTe k.t.X., ib. 14 hi mv TTpdacrovaiv 

<](f)6r]a-0VTUi, id. 9 81 (OV ypd(})(0, TTpoa- 
opiXrjaai vplv (comp. ib. 1 5 i^ (ov) 


AiATAccecGAi in connexion with the Apostles; 

Rom. 4 ovx cos Ilerpos' Kai IlavXos hia- Trail. 3 Iva uv KaruKpiTos cos mroaTo- 
TacraoiJLai. vixlv (Kelvoi dnoaToXoi, iya> Xoy vfilv SiaTacrcrco^ai, EpiLCS. 3 ov S'ct- 
KoraKpnos Taacrofiai as av ri 

AoIa in the phrase ets So^av (®eov) ; 

Polyc. 4 619 So|uf efoi) Ttkiov 8ov\eve- Magll. 1 5 napovres fls bo^av Qfov, 
Tuxrav, Ephcs. inscr. fts ho^av irapd- Rom. 10 rav npoeXdovToiv iJ.e...ds 86^av 
fiovov Bfov (comp. also EpJics. inscr.), Polyc. 

7 8o^d(rT] vp.u)V TTjv aoKvov dydwTjv ets 

do^av Qeov 

AoIazco (vnepAolAzco) used absolutely, and in a particular connexion ; 

Polyc. I dTTohiyJ}p.(iv6s (Tov ttjv iv ©fw Tl'all. I d7robe^dp.evos ovu ttjv Kara 
yvcop,T]v...inrfpdo^d^u> KUTa^tcodeis k.t.X. Qeov evvoiav 8l avTov eBo^aaa k.t.X. 
(where the addition of Qeov in the 
Syriac text is an obvious gloss) 

AyNAMic in the phrase iv 8wu/>tet; 

Ephcs. 14 ev hwdp-ei TTiareas Ephcs. 1 1 ev hvvdpei ^Itjctov Xpi(TTOv, 

S/uyrn. 13 ev dwdjiei rrarpos 

AyckoAoc in the neuter Svo-koXov ; 

Rom. I epuoi he hvanokdv eariv tov Qeoii Smym. 4 ottep 8ij(tkoXov 

eAN in the phrase ovk iav; 

Ephcs. 3 '} dyanr] ovk ea pie (Tiaivdv Ephcs. 9 ovk eldaare cnreipai els u/itly 

eApAzeiN, in the perfect ■t]8pdcr6nL, T^'Spacr/xeVos, especially with iv; 

Polyc. I Tr]v iv Qea yvcifiip ^8pacriJ.evT)v Phllad. inscr. ■qhpacrp.evr] ev up.ovoia 

Qeoii, Smym. I i]8paaixevovs ev dydnTj, 
So too Ephcs. 10 eSpahi rfi Triarei S)Jiyr}l. 13 eSpaadai nla-Tei Kai dydnr] 

eAeeTN, the perfect participle ■)]Xer]iJievo<; and the construction with eV; 

Ro//l. inscr. r]\eT]p.evT) ev pieyaXeioTrjTi Philad. inscr. TJ\er]p.evT] ...ev ofiovolq 
narpos Qeoi), Smyrii. inscr. T]\er]p,evrj ev navrl 


eAnic used of Christ, especially with Kotvo's (see 11. p. 263) ; 

Ephcs. I vnep Toil Koivoii 6v6p.aTos Koi Ephcs. 21 ev 'irja-QV XpiaTa Tjj Kotvrj 
eXnidos eXiriSt i^iiwv. So too Phllad 1 1 

(comp. Phllad. 5). So 'I^o-oO Xpia-Tov 
Trjs eXTTihos ]]p.Mv, Magn. 11, Trail. 
inscr., 2 

eNoycBAi, especially the perfect participle TyVco/xeVo? ; 

Ephcs. inscr. ^vcojxevrjv koX «'/cXeXey- Rom. inscr. rjva>p.evois irdaij evroXfi 
piivrjv avTov: comp. Magn. 6, 7,14, Smym. 2 


eNujcic ' union' ; 

Polyc. I T^s ej/oJtreo)? (f)p6pTi.^€ Magii. I evcoaiv £v;^o/iai, Philad. 7 

Tr\v evaxTLU ciyannTe : comp. Mag7l. 1 3, 

Trail. II, /'/i//^i^i'. 8, Polyc. 5 
eloycfA in the phrase l^ovcriav ^x^iv tivos ; 

Polyc. 7 xP"J'"'''f"'os' eauroC e^ova-iau ovk Sniym. 4 rourou Se f';^? i e^ovcriav Irj- 
e)(ei. (Tovi XpiaToi 

enArre^i^^- enArre^^ecBAi, of the profession of Christianity ; 

Ephcs. 14 ov yap vvv enayyeXuii to Ephcs. 14 tt'kttiv e7rayyfW('>p.fvos ... 
f'pyov €Trayye\Xop.evoi Xpicrrov elvai 

enieiKeiA, . 
Ephes. 10 rr\ enuiiceia The word occurs twice in Philad. i 

eniKeTce&i of impending death (or life) ; 

Rovi. 6 d Se TOKiTOi \ioi eTTiKeiTai Magtl. 5 eniKeiTai to. 8vo 6p.uv, o re 

dauarns kul /;' ^cor/' (but see II. p. II 7 on 
the reading) 

eniCKoneTN of the superintendence of God (or Christ); 

Polyc. inscr. eVio-KoTrT^^fca) vno Qeoii Rom. 9 avTi]v 'l/^croDy Xpiaros eiricrKo- 

ni]a£L. So God is called the universal 
fVio-KOTTos, Mag)i. 3. Compare GeoC 
(TTLo-Koni] Polyc. 8 

eniTpeneiN in the imperative l-mrpi^aTi. ] 

Ephcs. 10 eTriTpixj/uTe ovv avrnls kw Roill. 6 eTnTpeyp-are fxoi iJLLp.TjTi)v eluai 
eK Twu (pyoiv vfi'iv p.a6rjTev6qvai x.r.X. 

eniTYrx*NeiN with an infinitive following; 

Ephcs. I iniTvx^'i-v iv 'rdp-Tj 6-qpi.op.a- Ep/lCS. I e7r(ru;^eu' ?)vvr]6oi fiadrjTTjs 
Xfjcrai, Rom. I eneTuxov idf2v k,t.\. dvai 

in the phrase iTTLruxelv ©eou ; 

Rom. I, 2, 4, Polyc. 2; comp. 'irj^ov The phrase occurs Ephcs. 12, A/ag/i. 
XpiffTov (TTirvxf'iv Rom. 5 (twice) 14, Trail. 12, 13, Rom. 9, S/iiyru. 11, 

Polyc. 7 
So Tvxft" Geou Ephes. 10 So ruxeif ©eoC Magn. i 

enoYpANiA, especially in reference to angelology ; 

Trail. 5 ft"? ci5 Suva/xfu T(i (TTovpavia Smyrn. 6 xat ra eirovpdvia kcI t; So^a 
ypay\rai, 2b. h\ voeiv ra iirovpi'ivia rdiv ayy4\u)v : compare EpJlCS. 1 3. 

7";??//. 9 

ep&N (not found in the N. T. or in Clement or Polycarp) ; 

Ro7n. 2 (pa(T6r]T€ t^j (rapKos p.ov, Polyc. Rom. 7 (pwv toL imn6uve7v 
4 epaTuxrav airb tqv koivov e'Xevdepov- 
rrOai. So loo e/jwy Ro//!. 7 


eroiMAzeiN, the perfect participle passive; 

Kphcs. 9 ^Toifiacrfifvoi ety olKO^Ofirjv Rom. 5 tQ^v drjplaiv twv ffiol i^Toiixaafxe- 
Qeoi) vcov 

eyAoreTN, the perfect participle passive with iv; 

EpJies. inscr. t^ fvXoyrj^evtj eV ^uyedfl Magn. inscr. t^ ev\oyT)fiei>r) eu )(dpiTl 

K.T.X. ' K.T.X. (comp. Eplics. 2) 

eypicKeiN in the aorist passive evp^Oijvai, a characteristic Ignatian 
expression ; 

Roj;i. 2, 3, z|, 5, PoJyc. 4, 6 Ephes. 10, 11, 12, 14, 21, Magn. 9, 

Trail. 2, 12, 13, Smyrn. 3, Polyc. 7 

efxeceAi used with especial frequency, and in sentences of similar 
form; e.g. 

Ephcs. I oj* evxofiai Kara ^lr]croiii> Slliyril. II j/i" ei'xofiaL TfXelav pot 80- 
Xpi(rrov vpas aymrav drjvai, ib. 1 3 r\v iv\npai khpacrBai 

exeiN with an infinitive; 

Rom. 2 e'x^''^ fTnypaCJifjvai Philad. 6 e^ei Tts- Kcivx^o-nadai 

with e^oWav (see s. v.), and with Kaipov (see s. v.). 

ZHN with Kara ; 

Ephes. 8 apa Kara 0? ov ^^re Philad. 3 Kara 'l/joroCi/ Xpiarov ^oivTfi : 

comp. Ephes. 6, 8, Magn. 8, 9, 10, 
Trail. 2, Rom. 8 

HcyxiA of God or of Christ. The two passages quoted are the only 
cases of its occurrence in these letters ; 

Ephes. 15 dvvarai koi rrjs ^jo-uxf'ny av- Ephcs. 19 arwa iv rjavx'ia Qeoii enpax- 


GeAHMA, used absolutely of the Divine will (ii. p. 85); 

R07n. I edvTTfp dtXrjpa f] Ephes. 20 e'dv pe KaTa^iuxrrj 'Itjctovs... 

Koi dfXrjpa ^, Smyr7l. 1 1 KaTo. 6i\r]pa 
8e KaTrj^Lcodrjv, Polyc. 8 a)S rh 6i\r]pa 
npoa-TCKTaei (comp. Smyrn. l) 
eHpioMAxeTN of himself; 

Ephes. I cirirvxelv iv 'Papij Orjpcopa- Trail. lO tI 8e koi fvxopai Brjpiopa- 
X^*''"* XW^h Pom. 5 'Atto 2vpias pexP'' Pf^p^js 


eyciACTHpioN used metaphorically; 

Rom. 2 cSs en Bvcnaa-Trjpiov eToip,dv Ephes. 5 ihv p-q tis fj fvros rov dvaiaa- 
f''^''"' TTjpiov (comp. Trail. 7), Magn. 7 ws 

eVt fv 6vmaaTi]pmv (comp. Philad. 4) 


Kd>eAipeTc0Ai of the powers of evil ; 

Ephes. 13 Kadaipovvrai al Bwaiieis tov Ephes. 19 KadrjpelTo TraKaia ^aaiXfia 

KAipoc, especially in the phrase Kaipov ^x^lv followed by an infinitive; 

Ron. 2 nv yap iya> ttot( e^w Kaipov Smyril. 9 <^^ [^'"0 ^aipov (\npep els 
ToiovTOV Qeov iniTvx^i-v Qeov fieravoelv 

KAKorexNiA in the same connexion ; 

Polyc. 5 rny KaKorexvlns (pevye PJlllad. 6 (}>eiiyfT( ovv rai KaKorexfias 

katA with the accusative (e.g. Polyc. i Ephes. i); a favourite form of 
expression in various connexions (see 11. p. 107). Thus we have /cara 

0€oV, Kara Ki'piop-, etc. ; 

Polyc. 5 o yapo^ 7/ Kara Kuptoj/, Ep/ics. See Ephcs. 2, Mag-ji. I, S, 13, Trail. 
I Kara 'h](Tovv Xpidrov nyamiu., id. 8 I, Philad. 3^ 4 
apa Kara Qeov ^rJTe 

again in the expression Kara, iravra ; 

Polyc. 2 Kara Trfiirn crov dvTi^vxov See Ephcs. 2 (twice), Mngn. 8, 12, 
eyw /f.T.X. 7>7i'//. 12, Smyrn. 9, 12, etc. 

so too in the phrase tjqv Kara rwa (or n); see above, p. 302. 
KATAMANe^NeiN iu the imperative; 

Polyc. 3 Tovs Kaipovs Karapavdave Smym. 6 KaTapaQere 8e rovs erepoSo- 


KAT&IioYN, a favourite Ignatian word (see 11. p. 85); said of himself; 

Pom. 1 o Qeoi KaTi]^Lcoa-(v fvpeOrjvai, So uscd in Ep/ics. 20, Afag/i. 1 , T7-all. 
Polyc. I KnTa^tadtls tov Trpoa-coTrov crov 12, Sinyrn. II 

and of persons to be despatched to Syria ; 

Polyc. 8 TOV piXkovTa Kara^iova-dai So uscd Polyc. 7, Philad. 10 

KATAnAHCcem 'to overawe'; 

Polyc. 3 o\...kTfpohiha(TKakovvTis pr\ ere Philad. I ov KaTanf'nXrjypai rfjv emei- 
KnTaTrXrjacriTaiauv Keiav 

KAfipoc of his own circumstances, especially of his martyrdom ; 

Rom. I f IS TO TOV Kkr\p')V pnv dvepTjo- Ephcs. 1 1 iva ev /cXrypoj E(f)f(Ticov 
Si'oTws (iirn'\nf:i(lv (vpedco, Trail. 12 tov KXrjpov nvnep 

eyKeipai (?) eVirv;^? (i^, Philad. 5 '"" f*' 
CO kXtjpm ijXfijdrjv iniTvx<^ 


KoiNoc in the phrase to koivov ; 

Polyc. 4 \xr] epuToyaav nno rov koivov Philcld. I Tr]v diuKoviav rfjv eh to 
e\fv6epov(rdai koivov avriKOvaav 

and connected with eXTrt's (see above, p. 300). 
Kp<\YrH, KpAYrAzejN, of preaching ; 

Ephes. 19 rp'ia fjLvcrryjpia Kpavyrjs Pllilad. 7 iKpavyaaa nera^ii av 


Ephes. I o KeKTt]ade (jivaa StKai'a Ephcs. I a^/otf oZai roiovrov (ir'nTKo- 

TTov KeKTrjadai, ib. 1 4 ayanriv KeKTrj- 
pevos, lb. 1 5 <' Xo-yoi/ ^\j](iqv KfKTTjpevoi, 
Philad. I KeKTTJa6ai rfjv dioKoviav, 
Polyc. 8 Geoi) yvcciprjv KeKTrjpevos 

more especially in a particular connexion; 

Polyc. I aKolpTjTov Trvfvp.a KeKTqpevos Mag7l. 1 5 KeKTijpevoi d8iaicpi,T0P irvevpa 

A&AgTn frequent in Ignatius j and especially of mere profession, as 
opposed to right action ; 

Ephes. 15 \akovvTa prj elvai k.t.X. Scc Magu. ID, Rom. 7, Philad. i 

AereiN in this same contrast; 

Ro7)l. 3 twt /ii) povQV Xtyco Ephes. 15 eof o \iya)v Troirj 

and the passive X^yerrdai 'to be reckoned,' speaking of himself; 

Rot}l. 3 XtydopaL ^piaTiavos ...Koi Xt- Trail. 1 3 ovk «^ios et/it \iyecr6ai, 
yeadai 8vvapat Rom. 9 e^ auTtoz/ X/yecr^at 

Aeinec9<M with a genitive, 'to lack'; 

Polyc. 2 ti'a prjbfvos XeiTT/; Trail. 5 fa OeoG /i>/ Xenratpeda 

AiMHN, as a metaphor or simile ; 

Polyc. 2 ojs )(€ipa^6pevos Xipeva Stnym. 1 1 \tpevos r]8r] (Tvy^avov 

AyeiN of the defeat of the powers of evil; 

Ephes. 19 fXvfTO TTCKTii payila kcu mis Ephes. 1 3 XvfTot o oKedpos avTov 
tea-pos (comp. Philad. 8) 

MAeHTeyeiN especially in the passive; 

Ephes. 10 fK Twi/ i'pyMv vplv pndrjTtv- Ephes. 3 apx^v e'xco rov padrjreieadai, 
dfjvat, Rom. 5 e'l' S* ''"O'S ddiKfjpaaiv Rom. 3 a paSijTfuovTfs eWAXfcr^f 
avrwi' /iSXXoz' pafirjTtvopni 


MAeHTHC of discipleship to Christ (sometimes used absolutely), more 
especially of his own imperfect discipleship ; 

Ephes. I lva..,.hvvr]6Q> \ia6i]Tr\<: dvni, Roni. 5 vvv ap)(OfiaL fia6i]Tr]i eivai 

Trail. 5 ov...-napa. tovto Tjdrf koI fiadrj- Alagn. 9 Iva evpfd^fitu nadrjToi 'iTjaov 

Ti^s et/xt, J?om. 4 ToTi ((TOfiai fxadrjTrjs Xpiarov : comp. Mag?l. lo 
oKrjOas Tov XpuTTOv 

MereQoc in unusual connexions ; 

Ephes. inscr. fvKiryripivri eu (Xfyedei, Smyru. 1 1 a-HiKa^ov to i8iov peyedos 
Ro)n. 3 fifyedovs ioTiv 6 xpiCTiavKTfios 

MiMHTHC of imitating God or Christ ; 

Ephes. I fiifirjTai ovTfs Of oil Trail, i fiiprjras ovras Qtoii : comp. 

Ephes. 10, Ro7n. 6, Phi lad. 7 

MONON used elliptically (see the note, 11. p. 61); 

Rom. 5 \iovov Iva 'irjcroii Xpiarov iiri- Ephes. 1 1 povov (u Xpia-ra Irjcrov tvpe- 
Tvxo 6f)vai K.r.X., Smyrn. 4 povov tv rw 6v6- 

pari 'It](tov Xpiarov k.t.X. 

MycTHpioN of the revealed truths of the Gospel; 
Ephes. 19 rpin pva-TTjpia Kpavyfjs Magn. 9, Trail. 2 

NOMOc of the law of Christ ; 

Rom. inscr. -^^pifrrovopos Magn. 2 as vopw 'irjaov Xpitrrov 

oiKONdMoc, oiKONOMiA, of God's stcwards and stewardship; 

Polyc. 6 cor Geoi) olKovopoi Ephes. 6 ov nepTrti 6 olKodea-irorrjs fls 

TTjv Ibiav oiKovopiav 

oMOHeeiA of conformity to God; 
Polyc. I KOTO. 6poi]6fiav Qtov Magn, 6 opoijdtiav Qeov Xa^ovret 

oMoicoc K^] used in simple enumeration ; 

Ephes. 19 7 TTapdfvia Mapiai Koi 6 Ephes. 16 o toiovtos ...opoloa /cat 6 
TOKfTos avrrjs, ('ipoiws koi 6 davaros roii aKovoyv avrov, Trail. 1 3 o/xoiw? koi rw 
Kvpiov (comp. Polyc. 5 where opolas TrptajSyrepla 
KoX also occurs, but in a more usual 

ONAiMHN in more than one connexion ; 

Polyc. 6 ovaiprjv vpuv 8ia navroi Ephes. 2 ovaiprjv vpav 8ia iravrls 

(comp. Magn. 12) 
Polyc. I ou ovmprp) eV GfM Magn. 2 ov eyto uvaiprjv 

IGN. I. 20 


oNOMA in the phrase i$ oi/o/iaros ; 

PolyC. 4 e^ ovo\i.aTO% navras C'JTei RpJlCS. 20 -navrfs iv x<^f>>-Ti e^ ovo/xaro? 

(TVPcpxfcrSe, Polyc. 8 ao-Trafo/xat TrafTos 
e'^ ovonaros 

and of actions done in or for * the name ' of Jesus Christ or of God ; 

Po?/!. 9 TtSi' Se^ajLieVtoi' /xe ds uvofin Sntyrn. \ \).ovov h tw oro/xnTi 'l)j;roii 

'It;o-oG XpiOToC, Polyc. 5 Trapn-yyeXXf XpiOToO, z'^. 12 a(rT:a^o\ uvo^iari 

iv ovojjLaTi '\r](Tov Xpiarov, EpJies. I eV 'ir/o-ot; Xptorov, i?c;//. inscr. ; comp. 

ovojaart 0foG dneiXrjcpa Philad. lo I'jrfp oj'o/:iaroy GeoJ) 

also used absolutely, without further definition (see ii. p. 37), of the 
Divine Name ; 

Ephes. 3 8e8efiai iv rw ovopMTi : comp. EpJies. 7 to ovopa TVfpKpepnv, Philad- 
lb. I vTTfp roC Atoii'ou o!';!/xaros lo ho^acraL to ovop.a 

also used of individual men and nearly equivalent to ' person ' ; 

Ephes. I 'ATToSf^d/xej/or [u/iwt'] eV Gem Polyc 8 "AXKiyi- ro TrodrjTnu poL ovopa 
TO TToXvayanrjTov ovopa (comp. Smyrn. 1 3), Rom. 10 KpoKos 

ro TToQriTov poi ovopa 

dpATo'c see on do/jaros above; 

n<\0HTdc see on aVa^T^s above ; 

nASoc in the phrase 'in the passion,' 'by the passion,' etc; 

Ephes. inscr. eKXeXeypfv-qv iv Tccidd Trail, inscr. elp-qvfvovm] . . .t^ [v. 1. eV] 
d\T}divco nnBfi 'li](rov XpicTTuv. For iv [tw] 

jtadei see Magn. 1 1, Tr-nll. 1 1, Philad. 
inscr., and for the prominence of 'the 
passion' the note on il. p. 25 

n&pAKAAto in the expression ' I charge you,' and more especially with 
an imperative following (see 11. p. 166); 

Rom. 4 ■KapaKcikO) vpas p^ evvoia uicac- Trail. 6 -rvapaKciKu) oZv vpas...xpfjo'0f, 
pos yevTjcrde poi, Polyc. I Trapn/caXto erf Philad. 8 napaKaXa de vpas, prj^ev 
iv x^piTi K.T.X. KUT ipidflav TTpacrcTfTe. For TrapaKoko! 

(napfKaXea-a) vpas COmp. also Ephes. 

3, Magn. 14, Rom. 7, Polyc. 8 

nd^pAMONoc of eternal things ; 

Ephes. inscr. eivai Sta navros (Is 86^av Philad. inscr. X'^P^ aldvios kch irapa- 
nnpdpovov p.ovos 

nACxeiN in particular phrases relating to his own mart3'rdom ; 

Trail. 4 dymra pev yap to naQelv Polyc. 7 idvtvep 8ia Toii nadelv Qeov 

Rom. 4 nXX' iav TTi'tOcij, aTTeXevdepos Rom. 8 iav mtdu, i^deXrjcraTf 



nepicceyeiN of spiritual gifts; 

Polyc. 2 Ka\ navTos )^apl(TnnTOs irepifr- Smyrn. 9 Tvavra vtvv vfiiv iv X'^P''"' T^f- 
(Tfvrjs ptaa-fverco 

nAeoN in a somewhat strained sense, meaning 'beyond'; 

Polyc. 5 iov yvaxrdij nXeop tov enicrKo- Magn. lO oy yap aXXo) ovop-ari KaXeTrat 
TTOu, €(f)6apTai TiKeoi/ tovtov 

see also under the word <f>oft€ta6aL. 

nAHpoyceM in the perfect participle; 
Rom. inscr. nen'KTipmfxevois {nen^^rjpco- Smyrn. inscr. Trfn\i]pa)fi€VT] iv Triarfi 

llfVJj ?) 

nAHpoj/wak 'the plenitude' of the Divine Nature; 

Ephes. inscr. (vXoyrjiievrj ev p.eye6(t Trail, inscr. r]v Ka\ darTra^ofiai. tv tu> 
Gf oO nuTpos TvKrjputp.aTi, Tr\T]p(op.aTi 

TTNeyMA in the expression ' my spirit ' ; 

Ephes. 18 irfpL\l^r]p.a to tfibv TrreC/xa Smyrn. 10 nvTiyjrvxfv vp,au to Trufviiii 
TOV (TTavpoii, Rom. 9 acTTraffrat vp-in p-ov, Trail. 1 3 ayvi^iTai vp.03V to epov 
TO ip.ov TTvevpa nvev/xa 

and in the combination 'flesh and spirit'; 

Polyc. 5 vols (Tvp^iois apKua-dai arapid Magii. I, 13, Trail. 12, Ro?/i. inscr., 
Kcii TTvcupari Smyrn. I, 3 

and see also under KCKTijaOaL. 

nNGYMATiKoc joined with o-ap/ciKos; 
Ephes. 8, Polyc. i, 2 Ephes. 7, Magn. 13, Smyrn. 12 

noAy- in elaborate compounds ; 

Ephes. I TO iroXvaydTrrjTov ovopa, ib. Magn. I vpQiv to TroXvevTaKTou r^c 
TTjv TToXvnX^dfiav vpuiv Kara Qenv ayarrrji 

np&OTHC (npAYTHc) ; 

Trail. 4 XPlK^ "'" rrpnoTrjTOi, Comp. Trail. 3 r; ^e irpaoTr]: avTov St'i'n/Jtr. 
Polyc. 2, 6. So Trpnvv, Ephes. 10 So npavnadfia, Trail. 8 

npACceiN in particular phrases, as e.g. with Kara a-dpKa; 

Ephes. 8 a 8* K<n KnTn (rdpKn TTparro-frf Eplies. 16 ot KaTit uapKa TOVTa irpdcr- 

and conversely Kuru Q(oi> in Pliilad. 4 

20 — 2 


and with aveu or x^pt? ; 

Polyc. 4 /J-^^ev ai>fv yvcifirji; anv [tov Magil. \ \u>p\^ Se avrov \tov (iriaKo- 
fTVKTKOTvovl yiv€a6a), iJ.r]8e av civtv Qeov irov] Travra Trpaaaovcriv, T7'all. 2 aviv 
ri npaacre tov inicrK/'yirov firjbev npaaaeiv vfias, 

Trail. 7 o ;^a)pt? iiTi(yKoiTov...Ti npaa- 
(Toiv, Sinyrn. 8 pT^Seir x'^P'^ '''"^ ^'''"'' 
(TACOTToi; ri TrpaacreT(i) 

npenei frequent in Ignatius ; 

Polyc. 5 TrpeVft Se roTy yap.ovcTi k.t.X. Eplies. 4, Magil. 3, Trail. 12, Sinyrn. 

II, Polyc. 7; and similarly irpeTrov 
ea-TLv, Eplics. 2, Magn. 3, 4, 7?fw. 10, 
Phi lad. 10, Smyrn. 7 

rrpoKAeHAAAi of ecclesiastical precedence; 

Rom. inscr. TrpoKadrjTai iv T6n(p...7rpo- Jfagn. 6 TrpoKadrjpLivov tov eVitrKo- 
KadrjfjLevr] ttjs ayarrrjs Trov,,.TCo fTTiiTKOTra) Koi to'ls npoKadrjpie- 


npoceYxecGAi in the expression Trpoo-cu'xeo-^e ^Trcp ; 

Ephcs. 10 Ephes. 21, Smyrn. 4, and with rrepi 

Trail. 12 

npoceyxH in the expression 'in' or 'through your prayer' or 'prayers'; 

Ephes. I iK-n'il^ovTa ttj -rrpocre^ixn vfxwv Ephes. II, 20, Rom. 9, Trail. 13, 
eniTvxe'iv K.T.X. Philad. 8, Smyrn. 11, comp. Magn. 

14, Philad. 5, 10, Polyc. 7 

npocexeiN ' to give heed to ' ; 

Polyc. 6 rw eTTLCTKOTrco TrpocrexfTf J Trail. Philad. 7 tco emcrKOTvco 7rpocrex«Tf, 
4 /i^ Trpoaexnv rots (j>v(Tiov(riv pe Smyrn. 7 irpocrex^i-^ Se rfus- Trpo(pr]- 


npocAAAeTN (not elsewhere in the Apostolical Fathers and only twice 
in the N. T.) ; 

Polyc. 5 ToTy aSeX^al? pov TrpofrXoXei Ephes. 3 Trpoo-XaXco vpTi' cJ? (rui'St- 

8a(TKa\iTais pov, Magn. I Trpoo-XaX^trnt 

npdcconoN with cfiatvea-Oai ; 

Polyc. 2 Tti (paLvopfva (TOV tls Trpoa-conov Ephes, 15 (f)avi]<TfTni npo Trpoautirov 


of persons whom he visited or who visited him ; 

Polyc. I KnTa^tto^eJy tov Trpocrdirov crov Rom. I ejTfTvxov Idflv vpav tci d^ioOect 

Tvpoacovn : comp. Alagn. 6 


nyKNtoc, nyKNoxepoN, in connexion with congregational gatherings ; 

Polyc. 4 TTVKvoTipov (Tvvaycoyai yivea- Rphes. 1 3 cnxovba^iTe ovv wvKvoTfpov 
dwarau crvvep-xtcrdai,. . .orav yap ttvkvws ini to 

avTo yLvarde k.t.\. 

nyp, fire as an instrument of martyrdom ; 

Rom. 5 irvp Kai (TTuvpus, drjpiaiv re Sinyril. 4 Trpoy TrCp, irpos pax^aipav, 
(TvaTCUTeis ' npbs dr]pLa 

as a metaphor or simile ; 

Rom. 7 TTup [0tXdvXoi'] Trail. 2 (fivXaaaecrdac to. eyKXijixara 

cos niip 

pcoNNYce&i, in the final salutation eppwa-Oe with iv; 

Ro7)i. 10 fppcoade els TeXos fv vnoyLovfj For eppaxrde iv see Ephes. 21, Magn. 
'Itj(tov Xpiarov 1 5, Trail, i^,, Philad. 11, Smyrn. 13, 

Polyc. 8 

cApKiKoc, see on Trvevju-aTtKo's above; 

CAp5 in Kara crapKO. \ 

Ephcs. 8 a fie KCLi Kara (riipKa TTpcurcreTf, Ephes. 1 6 Kara adpKa ravra irpacr- 
Roin. g Tjj 65c5 rrj Kara ardpKa aovres, ib. 20, MagJi. 6, 1 3, Rom. 8, 

Philad. 7, Smyrn. i (with i'v'^w. 9 
COmp. Ephes. I v/xcu:' fie eV o-apKt 


joined with Trvcv/Aa ; 

Polyc. 5 o-ap/ct /cat TTvevfjiaTt • Rom. inscr., Magn. 1,13, Trail, inscr., 

12, Smyrn. i, 3 (comp. Philad. 11) 

with Kvptoi; or Xpia-rov, especially in a mystical sense ; 

Ro)n. 7 apTov Qeov de\(o o c(ttiv (rap^ Trail. 8 eV Tn'oret o etrrii' 0"op^ toG 
Xpio-T-oO, Polyc. 5 fis Tt/i)7i' riys aapKos Kvp'iov ; see also Philad. 4, 5, Smyrn. 
roil Kvpiov 6, 12 

CI TAN, speaking of the merit of silence ; 

Ephcs. 15 tJ'a...5i wy crtya yivdaK-qrai Ephcs. 6 ucrov ^Xtnft. ris aiydiTa ini- 

(TKonov, Philad. I oy (Ttycof nXelova 
diivarai, Ephcs. 15 k"! u o-t-ycoi/ 8i m- 
noiTjKfv a^ia tuv narpos (crriv 

cnoY^&zeiN followed by an infinitive, and in all cases in imperative 
sentences ; 

Ephcs. 10 prj (Tnov8d(ovTes dvTipipr)- Ephcs. 5, 1 3, Magn. 6, 13, Philad. 4 
(Taudai avTovs...pip.']Ta\ Se roii Kvpiov 
crTTov8ii(<i)p,(i' fivai 


CT&Ypoc, stress laid on the Cross, generally in some strong image ; 

Ephes. 9 ava(f)epnnfvoi (h ra v^l/rj 8ia Trail. II kXoSoi rov CTTavpov k.t.X.. 

r^s /ii^X'T''?^ 'It](tov Xpiarov lis eo-riv Philad. 8 ra aBiKxa apx^la 6 (Travpcx; 

aravpos, id. l8 ntpi'^rjiia TO enoPTTi^evfia avrov, Smyril. I KadrfKcoptvovs fv ro) 

Tov aravpov (navpa rov Kvpiov /c.r.X. 

CYMcJ^epeiN in the expression avix(f>epav iivi; 

Rom. 5 Ti /not (Tvp.<^epet k.t.\. Slliym. 7 crwlf^fptv he avrols k.t.X. 

Rom. 5 KoXaKeucrco crvvTopcos pe Kara- Mdgn. \\ crvvTopas TrapfKoXfcra vpas 

cyNTpexeiN signifying 'to concur'; 

Ephcs. 3 oTTcoy (TvvTptxrjTe rij yvMprj Ephes. 4 avvTpe^fiv rrj rov tnia-Konov 
TOV GeoC "y^M?? 

cwTHp, in connexion with the same words; 

Ephes. I (V XpioTTci ^h]aov tS (Tu)Tfjpi Magll, inscr. eV Xptorm 'I/^ctou rw 
rjp.wp fTbiTrjpL \ripS)v\ 

Ephes. I TO o-vyyei'iKoi' cpyof Ti\t'ia>s Ephes. 14 enj' TcXet'o)? ... e'x^T-e t^j/ 
iinrjpTiaaTe ir'nmv, Slliym. 5 reXeicoy auroj/ a7r»;'/j- 


TiMH, in the phrase th 71/^771-, more especially when the honour of 
God is concerned ; 

Polyc. 5 TvavTa fls Tipfjv Qfov ytvcadot The phrase els rip^v Qeov or els Qeov 

Tiprjv occurs Ephes. 2 1 (twice), Si/iyrn. 
1 1 ; COmp. Magn. 3 els Tipr\v eKeivov 
Toil de^i]cravTos k.t.X., Tral/. 12 els 
Tipfjv rrarpos K.r.X. 

Polyc. 5 els Tipr]v r^r aapKos tov Ephes. 2 els riprjv vpmv koi tov eiri- 


Tonoc used of ecclesiastical office ; 

Polyc. I inbiKei (TOV TOV tottov Sinyril. 6 ron-oy pTjBeva (fyvtnouTco 

Tpdnoc in the phrase Kara Travra Tporrov ; 

Polyc. 3 TOV KaTO. irdvra Tpoirov 81 i^pas Trail. 2 Kara iravra Tponov mia-iv 
vTTope'ivavTa apetrKfiv. The phrase occurs also 

Ephes. 2, Stiiyrn. 10 

YnepHct)ANeTN, 'to disdain,' with an accusative; 

Polyc. 4 hoxikovs Ka\ Soi'Xny pr^ vnepr)- EpJies. 5 oiiTos i]8i] vnepT](f)avel, Siltym. 
(fjavei ID ra deapa pov, a ovx vnepTj(f)ai>t]aare 


ynoMeNGiN in the phrase 'endure all things'; 

Polyc. 3 eveKfv Qtov Tjavra vTTO/xevfiv Slliyrn. 4 ivavra vnoixevo) avrnv fie e'f- 
rjfxas Set /c.r.X., tlf. tov [TTavTo] Kara hvvaixoijVTOs k.t.X., id. 9 St' ov navra 
navra Tponov 81 rj^as vnofxilvaina vnofxevovTes avrov r^v^eade 

ynoMONH, especially in the phrase 'in endurance'; 

Rom. 10 eV vTTofiovfj Irjuov XpiOToii Trail. I o.8ia.Kpirov eu viroixovrj 

Polyc. 6 rj viTOfiovri 6)9 TravonXia Smyrn. 12 VTropupfj 8ia ttuvtos, Ephes. 

3 vnaX€i(l)6rivai...v7rofiovfj 

YnoT<\ccec0Ai of obedience to bishop and clergy ; 

Polyc. 6 ai/r'f^vxf^v fyu) tq)v viroTaacro- The phrase uTTOTno-rreo-^at tw fTTttrKOTTM, 
jiivcov ro) eVio-KoTTo), Trpealivrepois, 8ia- etc, occurs EpJics. 2, Magn. 2, 13, 
Kovois: and the bishop himself is Trail. 2, I'^icovci'p. Ephcs. s) 
enjoined § 2 tovs Xoifjiorepovs iv irpao- 
TTjTi vTToracrae 

(j>&iNece(M in great frequency. The word does not occur at all in 
Clement or Polycarp, and only three times in S. Paul ; 

Trail. 4 TO yap ^fyXo? ttoWoIs peu ov Ephcs. 1 5 oTup Kai eariv Koi (f)avi](TtTai, 
(f>aiverat,, Rom. 3 utiw Koapoy prj (paivo)- Roui. 3 'It/ctous Xpiaros iv narpl av 
pal, lb. ovhkv (paivopfvov KaXou paXXov (paivfTai, Polyc. 2 to. (^aii/o/xej/a 

aov els npoaaTTov. See also Magii. 3, 
4, 6, 7, Trail. 2, 11, Smyrn. 8, 11. 
Thus altogether it occurs 14 times. 

c|)ANepoYN also occurs with untisual frequency ; 

Ephes. 19 dvOpunivcoi (pavepovpevov, Magn. 8 eiy Geds' eariv 6 (jiave pwa-as 
Polyc. 2 TO. 8e dopara aiTfi Iva aoi (pav- eavrov 8ia 'lT](rov Xpia-roii tov vlov 
fpadfj avToii: comp. Ephcs. 19, Rom. 8 

(Jjey'reiN in the imperative cjavye, (Pevyere, 'avoid.' It does not occur 
in any other part of the verb ; 

Polyc. 5 Tcis KaKorexvias (pevye Trail. II, Philad. 2, 6, 7, Smyrn. 7 

cJjoBeTceAi in the expression 'to fear more'; 

Trail. 4 vvv yap pe 8el nXeov 0o- Ephcs. 6 nXeiuvws avTuv (pol^fiada), 
(jeladai Philad. 5 «'" "i^ 8f8epeuos (Po^ovpai 


(t)pdNiMoc in the phrase (f)p6vtixo<; ytVeo-^at ; 

Polyc. 2 (ppovipoi y'lvov cos o0ts iv Ephcs. 17 8ia t'i 8( ov TTuvra; (ppovipoi 
anaa-iv yivopeda ; The word occurs also 

Alagn. 3 



(t)YcioYN ' to elate, puff up ' ; 

Trail. 4 \i.r\ npoatxeiv rois ^vaiovcrlv Alagn. Xloiha on ov (})vcnov(T6f, Trail. 
/if, Polyc. 4 \i.r)tk avToX (j)v<Ti.ova6a)a-av 7 I'ovro 8e fo-rai v^iiv /jlt) (^vaiovfiivois, 

Sniyrn. 6 tottos \i.i]hiva (pvaiovTco 

(t)Ycic of natural as opposed to acquired qualities ; 

Rphcs. I o KfKTfjcrde cfivaei k.t.\. Trail. I eyuav vfias i'x^ovTas ov kuto. 

\pTJ(riv dXXa Kara (fivaiv 

\d.pi, see above under a/j-w/tos. 
X(\pic in the phrase iv [ttJ] x^ptTi; 

Polyc. I TrapoKoXco ae «V xa/Jtrt K.r.X. Ephcs. 20, Magn. inscr., Philad. ii, 

S»iyr7t. 9, 13 

X^picMA in connexion with the idea of lack or abundance ; 

Polyc. 2 navTos x'^P^'^f'-^'^'^^ nepKKTivrjs Sviyrn. inscr. ai/uorepT/TO) ouo-r; Trairoy 


xfipAi, speaking of care for the widows ; 
Polyc. 4 XW'" M^ dfifXfia-daxrav Sjnyrit. 6 ou /te'Xei avroty...7rfpl x^P^^ 

xopoc in the phrase ' forming a choir ' ; 

Ro»l. 2 fV dyaTTTj ^opos yevofievoi Ephes, 4 01 )<ar' avbpa de \opos yiveade, 

ib, 19 xop°^ eytPf TO Tw dare pi 
Trail. 4 XPTJC**^ "^^ T^paoTTjTos Trail. 12 rijs a^' u/xwi/ aya7r7r XP.V" 


/?£?;«. 3 fifyedovs ia-rlv 6 xpi^cTiavicrfios The word occurs Magii. 10 (three 

times), Philad. 6 

XpicTiANoc somewhat frequently; 

/?(?;«. 3 /ii) \iovov Xeyafiai xP'-'^'^'i^'^vos, The word occurs Ephcs. 11, Magn. 

Polyc. 7 xP'''^'''''^^os iavTov (^ovcTiap ovk 4, Trail, 6 


XcopeTN in the sense 'contain' (with an apparent reference to Matt, 
xix. 120 Swa/xevos xoipelv ^wpeiTw) ; 
Trail. 5 01; 8vpr}d(VTfs x^p^fo* Smyrn. 6 6 ;^a)pc5i' x'^^P^'^'*' 

Besides these, we meet with other resemblances which it would not 
be easy to tabulate. Thus an injunction is followed by an apologetic 
disclaimer, implying that it is superfluous; e.g. Polyc. i wo-Trcp Kai Troteis, 
ib. 4 oTTcp Qvh\ TrpdcruiL'i (comp. § 2 TTfpt T^s Kal (TV TreVeto-at). Such dis- 
claimers, expressed in very similar language, are frequent in the parts 


not represented in the Curetonian letters ; e.g. EpJies. 4 oTrep koX TroteiTc, 
ib. 8 wo-TTcp ovh\ i^aTraTdcrOe (comp. /^om. 2, Trail. 2, Smyrn. 4). Again 
a certain course is enjoined either as an act of reciprocation to God for 
the like {Polyc. i Travra? l3a(TTa^e ws Kat ere 6 Kvptos, Id. 6 fjiaKpodvfjiT](TaTe 
ovv /u,£t' aAX77\a)v...<iJs Kai o ©eos /te^' u/awv) or as a means of obtaining a 
like return from God i^Polyc. 3 Travra wo/AtVeiv Sei, iVa /cat aurds rj/x'^5 
VTro/jieLvrj, ib. 6 tw eTricTKOTra) Trpocrixere Iva koI 6 0£os v/xtv). Such expres- 
sions as these again are frequent outside the Curetonian letters ; e.g. 
Ephes. 2, 21, Smyrn. 9, 10, Philad. 10, ir. Closely connected with 
these are such turns of language as Polyc. inscr. eTrto-KOTrw kKK\r]uia% 
%{xvpvaL<i)v, fj-aWov iTrLaKOTrrjfxevo) vtto @€0v k.t.X., Trail. 5 TroXXa yap 
T^fjuv XeiTTd Lva ®€ov fiT] \€LTrwfji€6a. With these compare jRom. 8 OeXijcraTe 
Lva Kol u/xets BeXrjOrJTe (not in the Curetonian letter), Smyrn. 5 ov rtves 
ayvoovvT€<i apvovvrai, fxaWov 8e ■qpvrjOrjo'av vtt avTOv, with the note on the 
latter passage. Again there is the anacoluthic commencement of a 
letter, as in Ephes. i, Rom. i. With these compare Magn. 2, Philad. i, 
and see the notes 11. pp. 29, 31, no, 194, 251, 288, whence the close 
but subtle resemblances in the irregularity of the style will be apparent. 
Again there is the frequent use of os (o) 1(jtiv, and the like, as expletives, 
sometimes with an unusual attraction as regards the gender ; Ephes. 9 
T17S fi7])^avr]'i 'I. X. OS icTTLV CTTavpo^, lb. 18 tov (rravpov, o iariv (TKavSaXov 
K.T.X., Pom. 5 SeKtt XeowapSots o ecrrtv crTpaTiwTiKov ray/xa, lb. 7 aprov 
&eov 6eX<x> o icTTtv crdp^ rov Xpio"To9...Td alfia avrov o eCTtv dyaTrr] d(fi9ap- 
Tos. With these compare Ephes. 17, 20, Magn. 7, 10, 15, Trail 6, 8 
(twice), II, Philad. inscr., Smyrn. 5, and see the notes, 11. pp. 73, 122. 
Again we meet with an imperative introduced into the antithetical clause 
of a sentence, so as to break the symmetry ; Polyc. 2 lva ra ^atvo/xeva 
crou eis TTpdcrwTrov KoXaKeuj^s, to. Se aopara atrct k.t.X.) Comp. Magn, 
II, Trail. 2, Smyrn. 4, and see the note on 11. p. 339. Again our 
author has a mode of speaking with respect to the representatives of a 
church. He regards himself as seeing or welcoming the whole body in 
these representatives. With Ephes. i rrjv TroXvTrXrjdeLav vfxwy...dnuX7]iPa 
iv 'Ovrjaiixio compare more especially Magn. 6 Iv toI<; Trpoyeypa/A/xevots 
TrpocrcoTTOts to irdv TrXrj6o<; iOiwp-qaa and Trail. I wcrre fJH to irdv ■nXrjOo'i 
vfjiwv iv avT<2 Oewprjaai, and see the note, 11. p. 32. 

The results of this investigation must, I believe, be regarded as 
decisive. The resemblances are not only numerous and close, but they 
are frequently of the most subtle kind. It must be remembered also 
that the whole body of the Curetonian letters, when translated into 
English, only occupies some six not very closely printed octavo pages 
(see III. p. 86 sq), and that the Seven Epistles are only some four or 


five times as extensive. If this fact is borne in mind, the amount of 
coincidence is surprising ; and one who maintains that the Seven 
Epistles of the Middle Form were produced by interpolation from the 
Curetonian letters, postulates in his pseudo-Ignatius a prodigy of minute 
observation, of subtle insight, of imitative skill, of laborious care, which 
is probably without a parallel in the history of literary forgeries and 
which assuredly was an utter impossibility among the Christians in the 
second and third centuries. 

It will have been observed also that the coincidences extend over 
all the letters. Thus our examination supplies a refutation alike of 
Ussher who accepted six out of the seven and rejected the Epistle to 
Polycarp alone, and of Renan who rejects six out of the seven and 
accepts the Epistle to the Romans alone. If indeed we had taken the 
Epistle to Polycarp or the Epistle to the Romans as our starting point 
and set ourselves to show by the evidence of diction that the epistle in 
question was the work of the same author as the other six, a very much 
larger body of proof might have been gathered together bearing on the 
question at issue. But though our main object has been somewhat 
different, sufficient evidence has been forthcoming incidentally to estab- 
lish these points also. The Seven Epistles as they stand in the Middle 
Recension are evidently the work of one hand. 

2. Another highly important consideration is the connexion of 
thought. Where whole clauses, sentences, and paragraphs are absent 
from the one recension and present in the other, the greater or less 
coherence in the consecutive parts may be expected to furnish a criterion 
of the highest value. The recension in which thoughts succeed each 
other naturally and easily claims the palm of priority over the recension 
in which abruptness and inconsequence prevail. The transitions indeed 
are often rapid in either form, and this must therefore be regarded as a 
characteristic of the author (whichever may be the original form of the 
letters) ; but we have a right to expect that there shall be no incon- 

On this point it is well that the advocates of the three Short Epistles 
should be allowed to state the case themselves, and I therefore give 
Cureton's own words ( C. I. p. xlii) ; 

' In the Epistle to the Ephesians at least two-thirds of the matter has 
been omitted. Now had these passages so omitted belonged to the original 
epistle, it seems hardly possible that they could have been taken away in 
the manner in which they have been, sometimes entire chapters, at others 
considerable parts, sometimes whole sentences, and at others half sentences 
or single words, without interrupting the general tenor of the epistle or 


causing any hiatus and producing obscurity. But what is now the state of 
the case.'' Not only is no obscurity caused, nor the tenor of the epistle 
broken; but on the contrary several places which before were unintelligible 
become now clear; the whole epistle runs on uninterruptedly; each sen- 
tence adheres closely to that which precedes it; and what is still more 
remarkable, all this almost without the necessity of making any grammatical 
change in the order or construction of the sentences; and further, one 
passage omitted in the Greek [§ i 'videre festinastis' in the Latin], which 
Bishop Pearson had previously pointed out as necessary to complete the 
context, is restored and supplied by the Syriac' 

This statement is not supported by any examples or any analysis of 
passages ; and to me it seems to be directly opposed to the facts. The 
last clause ' one passage etc' does indeed state a truth ; but this truth 
has no bearing on the question at issue. It furnishes an instance of the 
confusion, on which I have adverted above (p. 291), and which has 
been already dealt with. For the rest, it would be true to the facts to 
say that in no single instance does the Curelonian Recension produce a 
better sense or a more intelligible sequence of thought than the Vossian; 
that in very many cases the sequence in the Curetonian letter would 
pass muster, though in the majority of these it is smoother and more 
regular in the Vossian ; and that in some few instances the phenomena 
are quite incongruous and improbable in the Curetonian letter, where 
no such fault can be found with the Vossian. 

Who for instance can bring himself to believe that Ignatius ended 
the letter as it ends in the Curetonian form: 'And that which was 
perfected in the counsels of God had a beginning ; whence all things 
were put into commotion because the destruction of death was pur- 
posed ' ? Is it at all intelligible that a letter which commences with an 
elaborate greeting and goes on to speak at some length of personal 
relations should thus end abruptly in the midst of the discussion of a 
theological topic, without a word of farewell or any personal reference 
of any kind ? Is this possible in itself.? Does it become at all more 
probable, when we compare the other Ignatian letters, which even in 
the Curetonian Recension end with a salutation and a farewell ? 

Or again take this passage ; 

' It is better to keep silence and to be, than to talk and not to be; [it is 
good to teach, if the speaker be a doer also. There is then one Teacher, 
who spake, and it was so; yea and even the works that He hath done in 
silence are worthy of the Father. He that possesseth the Word of Jesus can 
also listen to His Silence, that he may be perfect ;] that through the things 
which he speaks he may do, and through the things wherein he is silent, he 
may be known.' 


Here the words in brackets are omitted in the Curetonian letter. 
The thoughts which they contain do not indeed He on the surface ; and 
this very obscurity would be a sufficient motive for their expulsion. But 
the words are full of meaning, when examined; and their ejection 
produces a dislocation by which the logical connexion is altogether 
shattered. The words ' It is better to be silent etc' are no logical 
introduction to the last clause 'that through the things which he speaks 
etc' On the other hand this clause is fitly introduced by the sentence 
which commends the appropriation alike of the utterances and the 
silence of Jesus, as combining to make the perfect man. 

Again in §§ 8, 9, the sentence in the Curetonian letter runs ' For ye 
do all things in Jesus Christ, having been prepared unto the building of 
God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights by the engine of Jesus 
Christ which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit ' etc. Here is 
an elaborate metaphor introduced, and yet the key-word to it is wanting. 
The ' preparation for the building ' might perhaps stand without expla- 
nation, because by frequent use the metaphor of building or ' edifica- 
tion ' had become so common as almost to cease to be a metaphor. 
But the ' hoisting up ' supposes some previous explanation. This 
explanation appears in the Vossian letter, which inserts several sentences 
after the first clause, and in which the words, ' as being stones of the 
Father's temple,' occur immediately before the clauses 'having been 
prepared etc,' so that all runs smoothly. 

Another example is in § 10. In the Vossian letter the passage is 
read thus ; 

' Towards their fierceness be ye not zealous to imitate them by requital 
(avTifxtntjaaadai.). Let US be found their brothers by our gentleness, but let us 
be zealous to be imitators of the Lord, (vying with each other) who shall 
suffer greater wrong, who shall be robbed, who shall be set at nought.' 

In the Curetonian Recension the passage 'Let us be found... of the 
Lord ' runs ' But let us be imitators of the Lord in our gentleness 
and (by vying with each other) who etc' Here indeed there is no 
dislocation in the sequence of thought as is the case elsewhere, but 
the subtle expressiveness of the Vossian letter is entirely lost. In 
the latter the connexion of thought is as follows: 'Do not show 
yourselves like them by copying them and thus requiting wrong 
for wrong. If you desire to claim kindred with them, claim it in 
another way ; prove your brotherhood by treating them as brothers. If 
you would have somewhat to copy, take God as your pattern. Imitate 
His gentleness and forbearance.' 

The other passages which offer themselves for comparison in this 


epistle do not call for any comment. The sequence of thought in the 
Curetonian letter is preserved sufificiently to disarm criticism, though 
the connexion is closer in the Vossian form. 

The Epistle to Polycarp contains very little which invites considera- 
tion from this point of view. The variations between the two recen- 
sions are immaterial throughout the first six chapters. At this point 
however the divergence begins. Of the two concluding chapters (the 
seventh and eighth) in the Vossian form, which are occupied with 
personal matters — directions to Polycarp with the concluding saluta- 
tions etc. — the Curetonian letter retains only two sentences, the latter 
in an altered form ; ' The Christian has not authority over himself, but 
devotes himself to God. I salute him who shall be counted worthy to 
go to Antioch in my stead, according as I commanded thee.' The 
former sentence is unexplained by anything in the context of the Cure- 
tonian letter, whereas in the Vossian it stands in close and immediate 
connexion with the directions which precede and follow it. In the 
latter the incident assumes a different character, but the change does 
not affect the connexion with the context. 

In the Epistle to the Romans, as it appears in the Curetonian 
recension, the opening salutation is much abridged, but the relations of 
the two forms in this part are not such as to call for examination. In 
the first five chapters the two recensions agree very closely. Only 
here and there a sentence is wanting in the shorter form; but the 
continuity of the sense is not generally affected by the omission. One 
point alone calls for a remark. In § 6 a passage runs; 'Have sympathy 
with me. What is expedient for me, [I know. Now am I beginning to 
be a disciple]. Let nought of things visible and invisible grudge me 
that I may attain unto Jesus Christ.' The words in brackets appear in 
the Vossian letter, but are omitted in the Curetonian. It will be seen 
at once that they are needed for the sense. No great stress however 
can be laid on the omission, as it might be pleaded that they had been 
left out by the inadvertence of a transcriber, and that therefore the 
omission does not affect the main question at issue. Of the five remain- 
ing chapters as they stand in the Vossian letter, only a few sentences 
appear in the Curetonian ; but as a compensation two chapters from 
the Trallian Epistle are introduced at the close. These few sentences 
are isolated, and their purport is such that no continuity need be looked 
for. Here again however one passage deserves consideration ; § 9 ' My 
spirit saluteth you, and so doth the love of the churches which wel- 
comed me in the name of Jesus Christ, [not as a traveller on his way 
(ovx ws -n-apoScvovTa)] for even those (churches) which did not lie near to 


my way according to the flesh (at fxrj Trpoa-rjKova-ai fioc rrj 68w rrj Kara 
a-oLjiKa) escorted me onward from city to city.' Here the words in 
square brackets are omitted in the Curetonian letter. Their bearing is 
not obvious at first sight, and this would account for the omission. 
But reflexion shows that they are demanded by the context. The atten- 
tion paid to him was not merely the humane consideration which 
would be extended to any wayfarer. It was a token of brotherhood in 
Christ. This was shown from the fact that churches not on his route 
bore their part in it. 

The great question however affecting the Epistle to the Romans 
is concerned with the appearance, at the close of the Curetonian form, 
of the two chapters which in the Vossian recension belong to the 
Trallian Epistle (§§ 4, 5). Which was their original place? 

Let us look first at their position in the Trallian Epistle. 

Ignatius exhorts the lYallians to obey their bishop, priests, and 
deacons. Lie bears personal testimony to the excellence of their bishop, 
whom even godless men must respect. He might write more sternly 
to them, but he forbears. He remembers that he is only a condemned 
criminal, and he therefore will not assume the authority of an Apo- 


Though much knowledge is vouchsafed to him in God, yet he puts 
limits to himself {ifiavTov fxerpw). He will not boast, lest he perish by 
boasting. He fears the praises of others, lest they should elate him. 
He desires to sufter, and yet doubts his worthiness. Above all things 
he prays for humility (§ 4). 

True, he could write to them about heavenly things, but he forbears. 
It would be too strong meat for babes, and they would be choked 
thereby. He may know the mysteries of the celestial hierarchy; but 
this will not make him a disciple. He and they still lack much, that 
God may not be lacking to them (§ 5). 

Therefoie he exhorts them — nay not he, but the love of Christ — to 
seek only the wholesome food of true Christianity and to avoid the rank 
and noxious weeds of heresy, etc. (§ 6). 

The connexion here is intelligible. The motive is obvious. What 
more natural than this alternation between the humility of self-condem- 
nation and the thanksgiving for spiritual privilege? He exalts himself 
only to depress himself; and he abases himself only to exalt himself 
He shrinks from commanding, and yet he desires his words to have the 
effect of a command. I am therefore altogether unable to acquiesce in 
Cureton's opinion (C. I. p. xlvii) ; 'It is difficult to understand for 
what especial purpose these chapters should have been introduced into 


the Epistle to the TraUians. We know of no reason why he should 
make any allusion to his knowledge of heavenly things when writing to 
the TraUians ; nor even is there any apparent purpose to be gathered 
from that epistle for his doing so, as it now stands.' There is no more 
difficulty in understanding the purpose of Ignatius, than there is in 
understanding the purpose of S. Paul in the loth, nth, and 12th chap- 
ters of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he too is dealing 
with false teachers, where he too lays stress on his spiritual illumi- 
nation, where he too fluctuates between the dread of boasting and the 
necessity of boasting. Indeed we can hardly resist the conclusion 
that, when Ignatius wrote this passage, the spirit, if not the very 
language, of the Apostle thus writing to the Corinthians was present to 
his mind. 

On the other hand these two chapters {Trail. 4, 5) have no special 
propriety at the close of the Episde to the Romans. Cureton indeed 
(p. xlvi) invents a motive for their insertion ; ' The Romans seem to 
have spoken of his great spiritual knowledge, and to have pressed it as 
an argument why he should desire to have his life spared for the benefit 
of the Church ' : and treating this fiction as a fact, he proceeds to argue 
thereupon for the propriety of the position which these chapters occupy 
in the Curetonian recension. But the very necessity of such an 
assumption betrays the weakness of the case. Beyond the fact that 
the Epistle to the Romans is concerned almost entirely with his ap- 
proaching martyrdom, and that in the course of these chapters reference 
is made to it, there is no link of connexion. On the other hand, when 
he speaks to his readers as children who could not digest strong meat, 
this language is far more appropriate as addressed to the TraUians of 
whose spiritual danger he had personal knowledge and to whom in 
other parts of the letter he utters words of warning, than to the Romans 
with whom he was unacquainted and whom he addresses as ' teachers 
of others ' (§ 3) and describes as ' filtered clean from any strange colour- 
ing' of heresy (inscr.)^ 

^ In the Pcirall. Keg. w. xiii (see that part of TraUians subjoined to the 

above, p. 113) the passage from Trail. 4 Epistle of (sic) Romans in the shorter 

XPVt^ TrpaoTTiTos e'c f, KaraXijerai. 6 dpx<Jiv version. Hence our MS may be regarded 

ToO alwvos Tc&rov Std/SoXos is quoted as as correct in its reference, and we have 

from ' Ignatius to the Romans '. On this thus our first testimony to t/ie existence 

slender basis Prof. Rendel Harris {/g- of the shorter version in Greek.'' The 

natiana p. 95 sq ; see above, p. 220) italics are his own. Though Sta^oXos is 

builds an amazing superstructure. 'What found only in the text of the Long Re- 

wehave to notice', he writes, 'is that the cension, I waive this point, for it may, as 

passage is indeed from TraUians, but from he contends, be ' only a question of read- 



3. Under the third and last head we have to consider the topics 
which the two recensions respectively comprise. Here the Curetonian 
letters differ from the Vossian almost wholly in the direction of omission. 
The topics may be roughly classed under three heads, theological, eccle- 
siastical, and personal. 

(i) As regards the theological topics, it would be difficult to show 
that any difference exists between the two recensions. No adequate 
doctrinal motive can be alleged either for the omission of the missing 
portions in the Curetonian letters or for the insertion of the additional 
portions in the Vossian. 

A characteristic feature of the Ignatian theology is the accentua- 
tion of the twofold nature of Christ — His deity and His humanity. A 
crucial passage appears in the Curetonian letters Polyc. 3, where our 
Lord is described as ' He that is without time, He that is invisible. He 
that was seen for our sakes, He that is impalpable, He that is impassible, 
He that suffered for our sakes.' Flowing from this twofold nature we 
have on the one side the human birth from a virgin, Ephes. 19 'the 
virginity of Mary was unperceived by the prince of this world ' ; on the 
other, the theopaschite language describing His passion, Ephes. i 'the 
blood of God.' Moreover it is not only the positive theology of 
Ignatius that remains unaffected, whichever recension we adopt. His 
polemics are also the same. The characteristic feature in the polemical 
theology of the Vossian letters is the constant antagonism to Docetism. 
This appears in the Curetonian letters also — in a single passage only it 
is true, but one passage is as convincing as many, so far as regards the 
question at issue. Addressing the Ephesians he describes the Church 
of Ephesus as * united and elect in a real passion ' {Ephes. inscr. T^vt^ixevr} 
Koi iKXeXeyixivT] ev iradii dXr]$Lvw) ; for it cannot be doubted (see 11. p. 
25 sq) that this is the true reading in the Curetonian letters, as well as 
in the Vossian. In these respects therefore no gain is effected, for no 

ing' (see above, p. 221); but I hope I 
have proved irrefragably (and the evi- 
dence might be largely increased, if ne- 
cessary) that this solution of the Ignatian 
question at all events is untenable and 
that the Curetonian form is merely a 
Syriac abridgment of a Syriac version. 
It is indeed strange that Prof. Harris 
should attach so much weight to this 
ascription, when on the same page, in 
which he gives this passage, he records 
not less than three other false ascriptions 

in these Parall. Damasc, (l) A pas- 
sage from S. James quoted as '17^0x^01; 
irp6% TpaXXe??, (2) An unkno\\'n passage 
or passages as ^lyvaTiov irpos TloKi/Kapirov , 
(3) A passage from Ignatius to Poly carp 
as 'BaaiKelov tt/ws IIoXi/KapTroi'. Whether 
the ascription arose from the close prox- 
imity of Romans and Trallians in the MSS, 
assisted perhaps by the transposition of 
some leaves (see below, p. 325), or from 
some other cause, it can only be treated 
as an error. 


difficulty is overcome, by setting aside the Vossian letters in favour of 
the Curetonian. Nay, there is an actual loss ; for the Vossian letters 
show that the Docetism against which the writer aims his shafts is Judaic 
in its character, and therefore exhibits a very early type of this error. 

Again ; the eucharistic teaching of the Ignatian epistles has been a 
stumblingblock to some ; but the strongest eucharistic passage {Rom. 
7) appears in the Curetonian letters, as well as in the Vossian. 

Again ; the angelology of Ignatius has been held unworthy of a 
primitive father of the Church ; but the most emphatic angelological 
passage {Trail. 5) has a place in the Curetonian letters also, though 
transferred in these from the Trallian to the Roman Epistle. 

(ii) Nor again is the position altered when we turn to ecclesiastical 
questions. The advocacy of the episcopal office, which is associated 
with the name of Ignatius, appears very definitely in the Curetonian 
letters. The writer warns those who resolve to remain in virgin purity 
to reveal their resolution to no one but the bishop ; and he enjoins 
those who purpose marrying to obtain the consent of the bishop to 
their union, ' that their marriage may be after God and not after concu- 
piscence.' ' Give heed,' he continues, ' to the bishop, that God also 
may give heed to you : my life for the life {a.vr'o\ivyr>v eyw) of those who 
are obedient to the bishop, to the presbyters, to the deacons : may it 
be mine to have my portion with them in the presence of God' {Polyc. 
5, 6). He addresses Polycarp as bishop of the Church of the Smyr- 
nseans and charges him to 'vindicate his office' {Polyc. i). His people 
must do nothing without his approval, as he himself must do nothing 
without the approval of God {Polyc. 4). In hke manner he designates 
Onesimus bishop of the Ephesian?, and he charges them to love and to 
imitate him {Ephes. i). So also, speaking of himself, he regards it as a 
signal manifestation of God's purpose, for which the Romans are bidden 
to offer praise and thanksgiving, that He has deigned to summon to 
the far west 'the bishop from Syria' {Rofn. 2). Thus, though the lan- 
guage may lose something in strength and the directions may lack the 
same precision, the authority of the episcopal office stands out not less 
clearly in these Curetonian letters, than in the Vossian, as the key- 
stone of the ecclesiastical system. 

By accepting the Curetonian Recension as the original form of the 
Ignatian letters, we do indeed dispose of certain other difficulties which 
critics have raised relating to ecclesiastical organization and nomencla- 
ture (e.g. Smyrn. 8 rf KaOoXiK-q iKKXrjcria^ ib. 13 tus irapOevovi ras Xcyo- 
/ixei'a? x^pas), but it will be shown hereafter that these difficulties have 
arisen from a misunderstanding of the expressions used. On the other 

IGN. I. 21 


hand we lose more than one expression indicative of a very early date, 
which the Vossian Epistles contain (e.g. Smyrn. 8 ovtc fiairTt^iLv ovre 
ayaTDjv ttoiciv). 

(iii) Lastly ; so far as regards the personal matter, it may be fairly 
said that the loss from the adoption of the Curetonian Recension would 
be greater than the gain. Hardly a single difficulty is appreciably 
diminished — not one is removed — by its substitution for the Vossian 
letters. The long journey to Rome, which has been the main stumbling- 
block with some critics, remains untouched. The ardent craving for 
martyrdom, which not a few have judged unworthy of an apostolic 
father, still confronts us in its noble extravagance. The self-depreciation, 
at which others have taken offence, is indeed diminished with the 
diminution of area, but it is not obliterated {Ephes. i, Ro7n. 4, 5). The 
free communication with the churches by letter, which has been judged 
inconsistent with the status of a condemned and strictly-guarded 
prisoner, is still fully recognized {Rom. 4 cycj ypac^w Tracrats 701% iKKkrj- 
o-t'ats). The intercourse with individual friends is not interfered with ; 
the embassies from distant communities and the journeys of his friends 
from city to city are still recorded as before {Rom. 9; comp. Ro/yc. i, 
Ephes. I, Rom. i). But, while the gain is thus inappreciable, the loss 
is very serious. It will be seen, when thq subject is discussed at length 
in the next chapter, that the movements of the mart}T himself and his 
relations with the deputies of the several churches, as they appear in the 
Vossian Epistles, reveal various and subtle coincidences which cannot 
without all violation of probability be set down to a forger's pen. All 
these have vanished from the Curetonian letters. 

To sum up; 

If we are prepared still to maintain the priority of the Curetonian 
Epistles, we must make two great postulates. 

We must first postulate a writer in the second or third century who 
makes a careful study of the three short Ignatian Epistles before him ; 
who has the patience and the insight to note all the most subtle features 
of vocabulary and grammar; who has the genius and the skill to repro- 
duce all these characteristics; who, equipped with these capacities and 
acquirements, sets himself to interpolate, enlarge, and supplement these 
three letters so as to form a body of seven letters; who so performs this 
task that the sequence of thought is better observed in the enlarged 
epistles than in the original ; who in the interpolated and forged por- 
tions so constructs his personal and historical framework as to reveal to 
a careful scrutiny subtle and inobtrusive harmonies and coincidences; 


and who exercises such self-restraint as to avoid all theological and eccle- 
siastical questions which have an interest for his own time, because they 
would be anachronisms. In short he is prepared to sacrifice every 
conceivable purpose of a forgery to ensure the success of his forgery. 
Who is bold enough to affirm that such a person could be found 
among the ranks of the Christians in these early ages? 

But secondly, we are obliged to postulate in (say) the fourth or 
fifth century a Syriac translator who, having before him a pre-existing 
Syriac version of the three short Epistles and also a Greek copy of the 
Seven Epistles (enlarged from the original three in the manner supposed), 
undertakes to bring the Syriac version into conformity with this enlarged 
body of letters. Accordingly he not only translates the four additional 
epistles, removing however the two chapters which he finds ready to hand 
at the close of the Roman Epistle in the existing Syriac version and 
placing them in their new position in the Trallian Epistle; but in the 
three epistles already rendered into Syriac he supplies the insertions, 
effaces the omissions, transposes the transpositions, follows every arbitrary 
change, and thus produces a Syriac work exactly corresponding to the 
Greek. This task indeed does not suppose the same combination of 
qualities as the former, but it does demand marvellous patience. What 
parallel can be found to such a work in the Christian literature of those 

This last demand alone would be a severe strain, and an opinion so 
weighted would need very strong independent support to sustain it ; 
but the two together are enough to break the back of any theory. I 
need not advert to the other difficulties with which those who maintain 
the priority of the Curetonian Form are confronted. 

The preceding investigation has, if I mistake not, established the 
result that the Curetonian Letters are an abridgment or mutilation of 
the epistles of the Middle Form. But the further question arises ; In 
what interests or with what 7notive was the abridgement made? 

The earliest opponent of the Curetonian letters, the English Re- 
viewer, who has been mentioned already (p. 282), had his own answer to 
this question. He considered them to be 'a miserable epitome made by 
an Eutychian heretic' (p. 348), and he even went so far as to express his 
own opinion ' that the collection of Syriac mss recently deposited in the 
British Museum would turn out to be a nest of Eutychianism' (p. 336). 
To this accusation Cureton in his Vindiciae Ig?iattanae (p. 67) returned 
an effective reply. 

For Eutychianism we may substitute the word Monophysitism; for 

21 — 2 


the theory is placed in a more advantageous position by such a re- 
statement, and this is in effect what the Reviewer meant. Thus re- 
stated, the theory has this prima facie ground, that a considerable 
number of the mss in this Nitrian collection contain Monophysite 
works or are derived from Monophysite sources. It is even possible 
that one or other of the mss containing this abridgment may have been 
transcribed by Monophysite hands. But the theory itself is sufficiently 
refuted by these three considerations, (i) The contents of the three 
MSS in which the Curetonian Epistles are preserved do not betray 
any special Monophysite leanings. They comprise various patristic 
treatises, some doctrinal, some practical, some historical, mostly 
by well-known writers, Basil, the two Gregorys, Cyril, etc. (see 
Cureton C. I. p. xviii sq). (2) The great Monophysite leaders, Timo- 
theus of Alexandria (see above, p. 173 sq) and Severus of Antioch 
(p. 178 sq), not to mention other anonymous advocates of Monophysite 
doctrine (p. 194 sq), persistently use the Middle Form of the Ignatian 
Epistles ; and there is no trace whatever in them of acquaintance with 
the Curetonian Abridgment. They quote freely from all the seven 
epistles; and even in the three epistles, wherever the two recensions 
differ, their quotations are taken from the Middle, not the Short Form. 
(3) So far from betraying Monophysite purposes, this abridgment is 
much less serviceable to Monophysite interests than the Vossian letters. 
By omitting altogether four out of seven epistles, it omits many passages 
which were held to favour Monophysitism (e.g. Sfuyrn. i. 2, 5, 6, Magn. 
6, 8); but even in these three, which it preserves, it strikes out some of the 
texts which were most important from a Monophysite point of view; e.g. 
Polyc. 8 kv ©CO) Ty'/xojF ^\y](Jov ^pLdr^, Ep/ies. 3 'Ir/crovs Xpto-Tos...To{! Trarpos 
•q yviSfxirj, Eplies. 7 kv dvOpwTriD 0€os, Eplies. 18 o yap ©eo? ■>]fj.iov 'lr](TOv<; 6 
XpicTTOs kKvo(f>opy]6rj k.t.X., Ephes. 1 9 ©eoi; av^pwTrtvws (j>avipovix€vov 
(altered into toD vlov <jiavepovixii/ov), Rojn. mscr. ev Ir^o-oO XptcrTw tw ©60) 
1^'p.ojv, Ro)n. 3 d yap ©€os TjfjLMV 'iTyo-oDs Xpitrros k.t.X., Rom. 6 k-Kirpi\\iaTi 
fjiOL fjLtixrjTrjv elvai tov iraOovi tov ©eoS jxov (the most favourite of all Mono- 
physite texts). In short, it would have been a more tenable hypothesis 
to maintain that the epistles were abridged in an Anti-monophysite 

Thus the suggested doctrinal motive entirely failed to account for the 
phenomena. It was justly rejected by Jacobson ('minus felix in eo quod 
Syrum pravitatis haereticae simulaverit ') and has found no favour else- 
where. With a nearer approach to the truth Hefele suggested (proleg. 
p. Iviii, ed. 3) a moral aim. He regarded the Curetonian letters as 'an 
epitome made by some Syrian monk for his own pious purposes (a 


monacho quodam Syriaco in proprios usus pios confectam).' This seems 
to be only so far wrong in that it supposes some definite aim pursued 
on some definite plan ; and this erroneous conception of the character of 
the abbreviator's work is still more prominent in a subsequent note 
(p. 156), where he states that this monk 'appears to have omitted every- 
thing which he thought less consonant or less necessary for himself and 
his ascetic purpose,' adding that he gathered together all the hortatory 
passages which tended to good discipline of life. Cureton, when re- 
plying to Hefele (C. I. pref p. x), might have contented himself with 
asking what pious uses a monk would find in the directions respecting 
matrimony which are allowed to stand in the Epistle to Polycarp (§ 5). 
This question renders the rest of his refutation superfluous. 

As a matter of experience, abbreviators are apt to do their work far 
more capriciously and carelessly than either of these theories supposes. 
A scribe, having copied out the task which he had set himself, finds 
that he has a few leaves of parchment or paper still unfilled. It would 
be a sinful waste to leave his manuscript so. How shall he cover the 
vacant space ? A volume of Ignatius happens to be at hand. He will 
copy out just so much as there is room for. Of course the historical 
parts must be omitted. Of the rest there are some passages which he 
does not understand, others which are blurred in the copy before him. 
As he turns over the leaves of the portions which he is omitting, a 
terse maxim here and there strikes him. These must have a place. 
He is desirous perhaps of finishing his volume before a certain time. 
The Ignatian matter is only a stop-gap after all, and he does not care 
for completeness. So he breaks off the Epistle to the Ephesians ab- 
ruptly in the middle of a subject. Perhaps the manuscript before him 
is mutilated and has lost a quire here. Elsewhere the leaves are trans- 
posed. A fragment of the Trallian letter is inserted in the Epistle 
to the Romans ; and accordingly as a part of this latter epistle it 
appears in his copy. This mode of procedure is not without parallels. 
The history of literature, Greek, Latin, and Syrian, abounds in exam- 
ples of abridgment and mutilation, ranging from the carefully executed 
epitome, or the well selected collection of extracts illustrative of some 
particular subject, to the loose and perfunctory curtailment, such as 
we have here, which is neither epitome nor extract, but something 
between the two'. 

1 The Ignatian literature itself (in ad- and modified form of the Epistle to the 

dition to the Curetonian letters) exhibits Romans in Symeon the Metaphrast (see 

the following examples illustrating the phe- ii. p. 5); {2) the mutilation of the end of 

nomena of curtailment : (i) a shortened the Epistle to Polycarp in the Latin 


The date of this Syriac abridgment is a matter of inferior 
moment; nor is it ascertainable except within somewhat wide Hmits 
of time. 

The earhest ms (SJ belongs to the year a.d. 534 or thereabouts 
(see above, p. 72). This ms indeed only contains the Epistle to 
Polycarp, but the abridgments of the two remaining epistles, which 
are found in the later mss (S^Sg), were evidently made by the same 
hand. This earliest MS however is evidently not the archetype. It 
already contains a few false readings, where the text is correctly given in 
the later mss (§ 5 yap for 8e, together with other slight errors). Yet 
these phenomena are such that 2, might well have been copied 
directly from the original ms. Thus, so far as the evidence goes, 
the Syriac abridgment might have been made as late as the early 
decades of the sixth century. 

The tenninum ad qiiein being thus fixed, we have next to search 
for the termi?iiis a quo. But here the data are still less satisfactory. 
The first requisite is to assign a date to the unabridged Syriac Version 
(see above, p. 91 sq). This however is not an easy matter. If this 
version originally comprised the six Additional Letters, it cannot have 
been made till after the middle of the fourth century when these letters 
were forged (see above, p. 257 sq, p. 273), and some little time would 
probably elapse before they were attached to the genuine letters. 
Without a more thorough examination of the fragments of this Syriac 
Version and of the Armenian, Version which was derived from it, 
it would be premature to assert with absolute confidence that the 
version of the six Additional Letters proceeded from the same hand 
as the version of the genuine Seven Epistles, though I have not yet 
seen sufficient reason to suspect the contrary. Supposing this unity 
of workmanship to be granted, the Syriac Version cannot well date 
much earlier than a.d. 400. Nor can we place it much later, if at 
least Armenian scholars are right, or nearly right, in their conclusion 
that the Armenian Version itself belongs to the fifth century (see above, 
p. 86 sq). Yet this date for the Syriac Version is not without its difficul- 
ties. A passage in Ephraem Syrus (t a.d. 373) seems to be a reminis- 

Version (see above, p. 133) ; (3) the open- p. 76); (5) the loose and modified quota- 
ing of the Epistle to the Romans in a tions in the Arabic (in. p. 301 sq, see 
Monte Cassino MS (see p. 131), where no above, p. 275). I have not reckoned in 
reason can be assigned why so much and this enumeration mere collections of ex- 
no more should be given; (4) an extract tracts, whether Greek or Syriac (e.g. those 
from the Epistle to the Ephesians with of S, described above, p. 91 sq), which 
modifications in PnHs. Grace. 950 (see present no extraordinary features. 



cence of Ephes. 18 in the Syriac Version (see 11. p. 74); but the 
connexion is far from certain. The resemblance between the two 
passages is not decisive as to any obligation on either side ; and even 
if it were otherwise, the translator might have adopted his rendering 
from a well-remembered passage of this famous Syrian father rather than 
conversely. Again, John the Monk, whose date I have placed ap- 
proximately at A.D. 380 — 390 (see above, p. 151 sq), seems to have 
used this Syriac Version. But the identity of the person bearing the 
name John is not made out beyond dispute ; and even if my identifica- 
tion be correct, the time of his literary activity might be placed a 
few years later. Provisionally therefore we may perhaps place the 
date of the Syriac Version about a.d. 400, or possibly as much as 
two decades earlier. A century before this time (c. a.d. 300) we find 
members of the hterary society, which gathered about Pamphilus, 
busied in translating from Greek into Syriac (Euseb. Mart. Palest. 
p. 4, ed. Cureton). Again, several works of Eusebius were translated 
into this language soon after they were written, and probably during 
his own life-time (see Smith's Diet, of Christ. Biogr. s.v. ' Eusebius 
of Caesarea' 11. pp. 320, 326, 332). The Festal Letters of Athanasius 
also would necessarily have been translated into Syriac, as soon as 
they were issued, for the use of the Syrian monks. From that time 
onward Syriac translations of Greek patristic writings become common, 
and not unfrequently they were made shortly after the publication 
of the original works, and sometimes during the life-time of the authors. 
This we know to have been the case, for instance, with Cyril of Alex- 
andria, with Timotheus ^Elurus (see above, p. 176), and with Severus 
of Antioch (see pp. 25, 182, 189). There is therefore no difficulty 
in supposing that the version of Ignatius was made at the time sug- 
gested. But no satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at, until the 
text and the diction of this version have been more narrowly scrutinized. 
No long time need have elapsed after this date before the abridgment 
was made, but in the absence of prior testimony to its existence we are 
tempted to place it more than a century later. 



THE investigations of the preceding chapters have cleared the 
ground. All rival claimants have been set aside ; so that the 
Seven Epistles, as known to Eusebius and as preserved to us not 
only in the original Greek but also in Latin and other translations, 
alone remain in possession of the field. If there be any genuine 
remains of Ignatius, these are they. The other recensions, now 
shown to be abridgments or expansions, cease to trouble us. They 
take their place as testimonies to the fame and popularity of the 
letters on which they are founded. The variations of text again 
between the Greek original and the various translations of the Seven 
Letters are immaterial to the question. To allege these as casting 
suspicion on the genuineness of the letters themselves is to throw dust 
in the eyes of the enquirer. They are only such in kind, as we might 
expect to encounter under the circumstances. They are the price paid 
for ultimate security as regards the author's text. This security, in 
the case of an ancient writer, will depend mainly on the multiplicity of 
authorities; and multiplicity of authorities involves multiplicity of 
readings. The text of the Seven Epistles is assured to us on testi- 
mony considerably greater than that of any ancient classical author 
with one or two exceptions. 

With Ussher's discovery the Ignatian controversy enters upon a new 
phase. The main part of the previous literature on the subject had 
been rendered obsolete thereby. The really formidable objections 
which had been urged against the genuineness of the letters applied 
only to the Long Recension and were no longer vahd. Doubtless 
many minor difficulties, which critics had discovered, or imagined that 



they had discovered, in the Ignatian Epistles, still remained. This was 
inevitable. Where there are good grounds for suspecting a man's 
character, even his most innocent actions are scanned with misgiving 
and interpreted to his disadvantage. So it was with these Ignatian 
writings. Suspicion had been justly excited against the only Ignatian 
letters hitherto known ; and, when excited, it unjustly sought a handle 
in any matter that came to hand. Thus the uninterpolated passages 
suffered from their companionship with the interpolations. Not more 
righteous than Jupiter of old, outraged criticism 

'incesto addidit integrum.' 

Even when Ussher's discovery had severed the companionship be- 
tween the false and true, the taint of the old suspicion remained. 
The smirch of the mud previously thrown still clung to the innocent 
victim, and it has never been altogether effaced. 

Yet on the whole Ussher's discovery was felt to have furnished the 
true key to the solution of the Ignatian question. He had acted the 
part of the Good Samaritan, wrote Bishop Hall, and had bound up 
the wounds of the poor traveller who had fallen into the hands of 
thieves and been shamefully handled by them'. Adversaries indeed 
have paraded the names of those who, notwithstanding the fresh light 
thrown on the subject by this discovery, continued to condemn or to 
suspect these letters wholly or in part. It is not difficult, where the 
search ranges over a sufficient period, to draw up a considerable list 
of second and third-rate names, with here and there an author of higher 
repute, who took the adverse side. Meanwhile the very far larger 
number of critics and theologians, who have accepted the Seven 
Epistles as genuine, is altogether forgotten. Nor, if we regard the 
weight, rather than the numbers, of the names ranged on either side 
in the immediately succeeding generations, can we hesitate to say 
where the preponderance lies. No such list of names can be produced 
on the other side, as Ussher and Voss and Grotius and Pearson and Bull 

^ Ussher's Works y.w. p. 92 ' Inciderat 
nempe bonus iste viator Hierosolymitanus 
in latrones quosdam Hierochuntinos, qui 
ilium non spoliarant modo sed misere 
etiam peneque ad mortem vulnerarant ; 
praeterierant saucium ac fere moribundum 
nescio quot Parkeri, Coci, Salmasii, aliique 
nuperae sectae coryiDhaei...vestra unius 
pietatis [pietas ?], optimi instar Samaritae, 
vinum oleumque infudit tarn patentibus 

vulneribus, abstersit saniem, foedeque 
hiulca plagarum ora manu tenera fascia vit; 
fereque exanimem vestro typorum jumento 
imposuit ; ac communi denique ecclesiae 
hospitio, non sine maximis impensis, com- 
mendavit.' Later on in the same letter 
(p. 93) Hall writes, ' Bis martyrium passus 
Ignatius noster; tuademum opera, praesul 
honoratissime, reviviscit.' 



and Bentley' and Waterland', not to mention others only second to 
these in the field of theological criticism. 

To one school of contemporary theologians however the discovery 
of Ussher and Voss was a grave disappointment. The French Protestant 
divines had attacked the integrity of the Ignatian letters mainly on 
account of their testimony to the early spread of episcopacy ; but they 
had for the most part expressed themselves in favour of a genuine 
though indeterminate nucleus, overlaid with spurious matter. To these 
critics the Vossian letters gave no relief Though the sacerdotal lan- 
guage had disappeared, the testimony to the existence and authority 
of the episcopate was as strong and as precise here as in the letters of 
the Long Recension. It was too much to expect that under these cir- 
cumstances the Vossian letters should receive an impartial hearing. 
An interval of twenty years elapsed, before French Protestantism put 
forth its supreme effort in the elaborate work of Daille. But mean- 
while other antagonists of no mean repute stepped forward. In 1645 
Saumaise, who had already on the eve of Ussher's discovery mingled 
in the fray (see above, p. 239), again declared himself against the 
Ignatian letters {Adparatus ad Libros de Primatu Papae, Lugd. Bat. 
' Bentley's Works 11. p. 29 ' The most to say. We may conjecture however that 

excellent Bishop Pearson had designed a 
new edition of Ignatius's Epistles with an 
ample commentary. A specimen of which 
posthumous work has been published by 
the learned Dr Smith, and the whole is 
earnestly expected from him. For though 
it has not passed the last hand of the 
author, yet it is every way worthy of him, 
and the very dust of his writings is gold. 
In that published specimen there is this 
annotation upon the words of Ignatius 
TON YAAAC CO<t)lCANTA [Siityrn. i]' etc. 
In Monk's Life of Bentley il. p. 44 
(ed. 2, 1833) it is stated on the authority 
of a contemporary letter, that a rumour 
reached Oxford in the summer of 17 18 to 
the effect that ' Cambridge was in a great 
ferment on account of Dr Bentley having 
on occasion of a Divinity Act made a 
speech condemning the Epistles of S. 
Ignatius and afterwards refusing to hear 
the Respondent, who attempted to reply.' 
All this we are told ' is given on hearsay,' 
What foundation in fact there may have 
been for the stoiy it would be impossible 

the Respondent had quoted from the 
spurious or interpolated epistles, and was 
called to account for this by Bentley. 
Not many years had then passed since 
Whiston's attempt to resuscitate this re- 
cension. Moreover a Respondent in an 
Act would not be unlikely to get his in- 
formation at second hand from such a 
book as Suicer's Thesaurus (ed. i, 1682 ; 
ed. 2, 1728); and in Suicer the Long 
Recension is commonly, if not universally, 
cited. We have an example of a similar 
ignorance and misapprehension as regards 
Ussher; ' I could not but smile,' writes 
Hammond to Ussher, ' when I was of 
late required by the London ministers to 
answer the objections you had made to 
the Epistles of Ignatius,' Ussher's IVorks 
XVI. p. 148. But whatever may be the 
account of the mistake, Bentley's views 
are clearly indicated in the passage just 
quoted from the Dissertation on the 
Epistles of Phalaris. 

' Waterland's Works in. pp. 239 sq, 
262 sq (ed. Van Mildert). 


1645, quoted by Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 42). He was followed im- 
mediately (a. D. 1646) by Blondel {Apologia pro Sente7itia Hieronyvii 
de Episcopis ct Presbytcris praef. p. 39 sq). These writers now saw no 
course open to them but to reject the Ignatian Epistles altogether. 
Apparently it did not occur to them to ask whether Ussher's discovery 
did not require them to reconsider their fundamental position as re- 
gards episcopacy. 

With the French Protestants were ranged the English Puritans. 
The treatise of Blondel had been answered by Hammond Dissertatioties 
Quatuor, quibiis Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scrip fur is ct Frimaeva Anti- 
qidtate adstruiintiir etc. (Lond. 165 1). Hammond's work provoked a 
reply from the London Ministers entitled Jus Divinuin Ministerii 
Evangelici 'published by the Provincial Assembly of London' 1654. 
An individual minister also, Dr J. Owen, in a preface to The Saints^ 
Persa'erance (1654) replied to Hammond. This elicited a rejoinder 
from Hammond, An Ansiuer to the Animadversions on the Dissertations 
touching Ignatius^ s Epistles etc., London, 1654. The weapons of these 
English Puritans were taken from the French armoury, and their 
wTitings do not need any further notice. 

A few years later appeared the famous work of Daille De Scriptis 
quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiocheni uominibus circum- 
feruntur libri duo (Genevae, 1666). As this work created much stir at 
the time, and has been highly extolled by some later writers on the 
Ignatian question, it may be worth our while to endeavour to appraise 
its true value. As regards the spuriousness of the writings attributed 
to Dionysius the Areopagite, the verdict of Daille had already been 
anticipated by sound critics, and has been endorsed since by almost 
all reasonable men. But his treatment of the Ignatian writings does 
not deserve the same praise. It is marked indeed by very considerable 
learning and great vivacity of style ; but something more than know- 
ledge and vigour is required to constitute genuine criticism. The 
critical spirit is essentially judicial. Its main function is, as the word 
itself implies, to discri?nifiate. The spirit of Daille''s work is the reverse 
of this. It is characterized throughout by deliberate confusion. Though 
at the outset he states the facts with regard to the different recensions 
of the Ignatian letters, as brought to light by Ussher's discovery, yet he 
proceeds at once to treat the whole body of Ignatian literature as if it 
were the product of one author'. In this way the Vossian letters are 

^ Thus for instance he writes (c. xxiii); man to whom they are fictitiously ascribed, 
'There are also some things in these letters as for instance his charging wives not to 
foreign to the gravity and wisdom of the salute their husbands by their own names ; 



made to bear all the odium of the charges justly brought against the 
Epistles of the Long Recension. Like the Athenian demagogue, he 
takes a lesson from knowing eel-catchers, 

avo) re kol Karoi rov /36p(3opov kvkwctlv. 
Of the sixty-six heads of objection which he urges against the Ig- 
natian Epistles, about one half apply solely to the Long Recension ; 
several others are chiefly, though not entirely, occupied with it ; and 
two or three deal only with the medieval Latin correspondence. 
Thus for the most part he expends his strength in slaying the slain; 
for Ussher had already dealt the death-blow to these spurious and 
interpolated letters. For the rest, his arguments and positions are such 
as few sane critics, even among the most determined opponents of 
the Ignatian Epistles, would venture to adopt in the present day. Who 
for instance would be bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian 
writings were unknown to all Christians up to a. d. 300, about which 
time they were forged (p. 460 sq) ? or that the passages of Origen 
containing the Ignatian quotations were not written by Origen, but 

Lei 7vivcs, says he, honour their husbands 
as their oiun flesh and not dare to call them 
by their own name. . . .This writer whoever 
he was (iste vero quisquis fuit scriptor) 
little understood how great a man he had 

undertaken to simulate Again is it not 

excellent and worthy of the modesty and 
holiness of Ignatius, that the same writes 
elsewhere to John (idem alibi ad Joannem 
scribal) that thei-e are many of their wojnen 
who desire to seeMary the mother of Jesus... . 
But again this betrays a fickle and incon- 
stant judgment that he (iste) having pro- 
fessed himself unwilling to publish or to 
employ the names of the heretics... But 
their names, being unbelievers, I have not 
thought ft to set dozvn in writing; nay 

far be it from nie even to remember them 

Yet the same person elsewhere, forgetting 
the law he himself has laid down (idem 
alibi suae ipse legis oblitus), names Simon, 
Menander, Basilides,' etc. 

Here three different writers are treated 
as one. With a .show of frankness indeed 
(ne quid dissimulem) he confesses that in 
one point the fault is 'interpolatoris...non 
primi epistolarum auctoris,' but his lan- 

guage and his argument alike treat them 
as one person. 

Besides all this discreditable confusion 
there is great unfairness in Daille's treat- 
ment here. He first quotes from the 
Vossian text of Sinyrn. 5 ra. de ovo/xara 
avTwv, ivTa aTriara, ovk l5o^i fioi 
K.T.\., and then confronts the writer (the 
same writer, as he styles him) with his 
own inconsistency by referring to Trail. 
1 1, Philad. 6, as given in the text of the 
Long Recension, where certain heretics 
are named. But the author of the Long 
Recension knew what he was about. 
When he reached the Epistle to the 
Smyrnseans, he remembered that he had 
already mentioned names of several 
heretics in his interpolations of the 
Epistles to the Trallians and Philadel- 
phians, and in order to save his consistency 
he inserted one little word, vvv ovk Ido^i 
fj.01 iyypatpai, ' I have not thought fit at 
the present motnent to set down in writing.' 
The insertion is valuable, as indicating 
that the epistles of the Long Recension 
left their author's hands in the same order 
in which we have them. 


probably by some Latin author (pp. 283, 438, 443, 474 sq)? or that 
a reference to evangeHcal narratives or incidents not contained in the 
Canonical Gospels {Sjfiyrn. 3) is an argument against the early date 
of the writings which contain them (p. 338 sq)? or that an author 
who persistently distinguishes the first and second order of the Christian 
ministry, as bishops and presbyters respectively, could not have written 
during the second century (p. 386 sq) ? And again what shall we say 
of the hairsplitting in which he indulges? Thus he argues that the 
statement in St/iyrn. 3 that Christ ' after His resurrection ate and drank 
with ' the Apostles cannot have been written by an Apostolic father, 
because the Gospels only record that Christ ate (Luke xxiv. 42, 43), 
never that He drank, after the resurrection, and though they mention 
the Apostles eating and drinking with Him (Acts x. 41), they nowhere 
speak of His eating and drinking with them (p. 365). 

This being the general character of the book, it is difficult to 
account for the extravagant eulogies which have been pronounced 
upon it in some quarters. More especially do the praises of critics 
like Bunsen (/. 7>. A. p. 239), who accept the Curetonian letters as 
genuine, appear out of place ; for with very few exceptions Daille's 
arguments, if valid at all, are equally valid against the Curetonian 
letters as against the Vossian. The literary ability of this work is 
undeniable; but it has contributed nothing, or next to nothing, of 
permanent value to the solution of the Ignatian question. Its true 
claim to our gratitude is of a wholly different kind. If Daille had 
not attacked the Ignatian letters, Pearson would not have stepped 
forward as their champion. 

Pearson's great work, Vindiciae Epistolanim S. Tgnatii. was pub- 
lished in 1672. It was incomparably the most valuable contribution 
to the subject which had hitherto appeared, with the single exception 
of Ussher's work. Pearson's learning, critical ability, clearness of 
statement, and moderation of tone, nowhere appear to greater ad- 
vantage than in this work. If here and there an argument is over- 
strained, this was the almost inevitable consequence of the writer's 
position, as the chamj)ion of a cause which had been recklessly and 
violently assailed on all sides. The least satisfactory, though the most 
elaborate and ingenious, portion of the work is the defence of the 
passage describing Jesus Christ as God's 'Eternal Logos not having 
proceeded from Silence' {Magi;. 8). The true solution was reserved 
for our own age, when the correct text has been restored by the 
aid of newly discovered authorities. But on the whole, compared 
with Daille's attack, Pearson's reply was as light to darkness. In 


England at all events his work seemed to be accepted as closing the 
controversy '. 

On the Continent one serious attempt at a reply was made. A 
work was published anonymously at Rouen in 1674 under the title 
Observationes in Ignatianas Pearsonii Vindicias, but the author is 
known to be Matthieu de Larroque. The main point of his attack 
is Pearson's defence of Magn. 8, as read in the existing text; and 
here he is not altogether unsuccessful. The rest of the work is quite 
unimportant. In later ages Continental writers here and there casu- 
ally pronounced opinions more or less unfavourable to the Ignatian 
letters, and sometimes they supported their views by isolated objec- 
tions. A catena of passages from such writers will be found in the 
Appendix to Cureton's Vindiciae Ig?iatianae. This was the state of 
the controversy fifty years ago. About that time the interest in the 
Ignatian question revived ; and soon after the Curetonian discovery 
(a. D. 1845) added fresh fuel to the flame. Of its more recent history 
something has been said already (p. 281 sq). 

The cross lights thrown upon the main question of the genuine- 
ness by the history of the past controversies are highly confusing. A 
calm and impartial verdict would have been much assisted by an 
entire obliteration of this history, if it had been possible. Many 
side issues would have been avoided thereby, and many misleading 
prejudices removed. 

The consideration of the genuineness of the Seven Epistles falls, 
as usual, under the two heads of External and Internal Evidence. 

^ The name of one great English scholar editor of Pearson ( Vind. Ign. p. xii, ed. 
has been alleged, as an opponent of the Churton, 1852), who traced the story to 
genuineness. Cureton (C. I. p. xiv sq) its fountain-head and learnt from Bishops 
reports that he heard from an English Blomfield and Kaye, that Person had once 
bishop then living that ' Person, after said in conversation with a friend that 
having perused the Vindiciae, had ex- ' Pearson in his Vindiciae had not alto- 
pressed to him his opinion that it was a gether satisfied him,' and that there the 
"very unsatisfactory work", 'and Bunsen matter dropped without any words of 
(/. V. A. p. 239) gives the same report in explanation from Porson. There is no 
a still more exaggerated form. The reason therefore for assuming that he re- 
obiter dictum even of a Porson would be ferred to the main question. The ex- 
of little value, unless it could be shown pression would be quite satisfied by the 
that he had made a study not only of elaborate disquisition on the Valentinian 
early Christian literature, but of this Sige, which occupies nearly 80 pages in 
special subject ; and of this we have Churton's edition, and which many others 
no evidence. Cureton's report however consider unsatisfactory, though holding 
has l^een investigated by the recent the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. 



External Evidence. 

Under the head of external evidence the Epistle of Polycarp 
holds the first place. It purports to have been written after Ignatius 
had left Philippi on his way to Italy (§ 9), but before the news of 
his martyrdom had reached that city (§ 13), though it is assumed 
that he is already dead. If this claim is allowed, it dates within a 
few months, possibly within a few weeks, of the time when the 
Ignatian letters profess to have been written. Thus it is contemporary 
evidence in the strictest sense — being immediate and direct. The 
only questions which we have to ask are, first, Whether the Epistle 
of Polycarp is genuine, and secondly, Whether it refers to the same 
Ignatian letters which we possess ? 

The first question will be answered at greater length, when I come 
to discuss the Epistle of Polycarp itself. For the present I need only 
say that, being vouched for by Irenseus the scholar of Polycarp, it has 
the highest authentication ; that no anachronisms or incongruities have 
been proved against it ; that the one great argument against its 
genuineness is the reference to the Ignatian letters ; and that pro- 
bably it would not have been seriously qyestioned if it had not con- 
tained this reference. Though the plea of the objectors may be 
garnished with other arguments, this is the real gravamen, as any one 
conversant with the Ignatian controversy will see. It should be added 
also, that no satisfactory explanation has been offered of the Epistle 
of Polycarp on the supposition that it is not genuine. The only plaus- 
ible theory is that it was a forgery by the same hand which wrote 
the Ignatian letters. But an examination of the two writings is a 
complete refutation of this hypothesis. No two documents of early 
Christianity differ more widely in all the main characteristics by which 
identity or difterence of authorship is tested. 

Others however, who are not prepared to condemn the Epistle 
of Polycarp as a whole, have recourse to a theory of interpolation. 
The portion containing the notices of the Ignatian Epistles is sup- 
posed to be a later insertion. When the time comes, this theory will 
be fully discussed. At present it is suflicient to say that no part of the 
Epistle of Polycarp is so well authenticated as this conclusion, and 
that the references to Ignatius, compared with the Ignatian letters them- 
selves, are such as to preclude this hypothesis. 


The answer to the second question cannot admit of doubt. So 
long as it was a matter for argument whether the Vossian or the 
Curetonian letters represented the original form of the Ignatian Epi- 
stles, we might have hesitated to which of the two sets of letters the 
notices in Polycarp's Epistle referred. But after the investigation 
in the last chapter, the Vossian letters alone remain in the possession of 
the field. To these therefore the notice refers. 

And the reference is unusually precise. Polycarp informs the 
Philippians that in compliance with their request he forwards to them 
' the letters of Ignatius which were sent by him to us together with 
any others which we had in our possession (koI uXXas oo-as dxojxev 
Trap rjiuv).'' These, he adds, are subjoined to his own letter; and he 
recommends them to the attention of the Philippians as tending in 
divers ways to edification. The description exactly accords with the 
letters of the existing collection. This collection begins with the 
Epistles to the Smyrn^eans and to Polycarp (see above, p. 234). To 
these Polycarp evidently refers in the first clause. But in addition 
to these it contains five others — Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, 
Trallians, Romans. Four out of the five purport to have been 
written while Ignatius was in Sm}Tna. The fifth— the letter to the 
Philadelphians — professes to have been written indeed from Troas; 
but the messenger, carrying it to Philadelphia, would probably pass 
through Smyrna on his way thither. Thus we see an easy explanation 
how copies of all the five letters not written to the Smymasans them- 
selves might have been in Polycarp's possession. This however is not 
the only notice bearing on the Ignatian letters. Polycarp speaks 
likewise of having received instructions from the Philippians as well 
as from Ignatius himself, that whoever went to Syria should convey 
thither the Philippians' letter (§ 13). What were the contents of this 
Philippian letter, or why it should be sent, we are not told ; but from 
the Epistles of Ignatius himself {Polyc. 8) we learn that he was giving 
instructions ' to all the churches ' to send delegates, or at all events 
(where this was not possible) letters, to the brethren at Antioch to 
congratulate them on the restoration of peace. The reference also to 
the person who was to 'go to SjTia' is illustrated by the Ignatian 
letters themselves. The Smymceans are there bidden to send some 
faithful and valued representative to Antioch to carry thither a letter from 
them ; and this person is to constitute himself the bearer of letters from 
other churches likewise {Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 7, 8). This explains the ex- 
pression Ktti Ta Trap v/jlwv ypa'/x/iara, 'your letter a/so.' In the Ignatian 
letters indeed the writer contemplates Polycarp sending some one else 


{Polyc. 8 rov Tre/xTTovTos avTov UoXyKapirov) ; whereas Polycarp himself 
regards the possibiUty of his going in person {F/iil. 13 etre eyw eire or 
Treixxf/d) Trpea-fBevcrovTa kol Trept v/jlwv). This shows the independence of 
the two documents, and thus it greatly enhances the value of the coin- 
cidences. Again, Ignatius speaks of this messenger to Syria as an 
ambassador {St/iyrn. 11 OeoTrpecr/SevTrjv, comp. Philad. 10 Trpeo-fSevaaL 
iK€L 0eov TrpeajSeiav) ; and accordingly Polycarp in the passage just 
quoted uses the same language (Trp^cr^evcrovTa) respecting him. 

It is evident from these statements that Polycarp is familiar with 
these Ignatian letters. But, his mind being essentially receptive 
rather than originative, he is constantly citing indirectly and without 
any marks of quotation expressions from previous Christian writings, 
sometimes from the New Testam.ent, sometimes from the Epistle of 
Clement of Rome. We should therefore expect his letter to contain 
reminiscences of these Ignatian Epistles. In this expectation we are 
not disappointed, as the passages quoted above (p. 136) abundantly 

But Polycarp is not the only Christian writer of the second centurj- 
who bears direct testimony to the Ignatian letters. Iren^us also, 
writing from fifty to eighty years later (a.d. 175 — 190), quotes from 
jRom. 4 (see above, pp. 143, 148) ; 'As one of our people said when 
condemned (KaraKpiOeU) to wild beasts, /am the 7vheat of God, and la??! 
grou?id by the teeth of wild beasts, that I ??iay be fou?id ptire bread.'' The 
quotation here is direct and obvious. Daille however (p. 267, p. 434 sq) 
contends that the allusion is not to the passage in the Roman Epistle 
but to some traditional saying of Ignatius, urging that Iren^eus writes 
not scripsit, but dixit (ciTre). He appeals moreover to Jerome's {Vir. 
III. 16) statement', ' Cumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, ardore 
patiendi, cum rugientes audiret leones ait, Frii?)ie?itii??i etc.' as showing 
that the words were uttered by Ignatius at the ti?>ie of the ??ia?'tyrdo?n . 
The right reading however is, ' Cumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, 
et ardore patiendi rugientes audiret leones, etc' ; and this reading is 
most naturally understood to mean that in the fervour of his desire for 
martyrdom Ignatius already in imagination heard the lions roaring. 
It is a matter of no consequence however what Jerome says, in- 
asmuch as he was unacquainted with the epistles themselves and in 

1 The passage is discussed below, 11. sage, when correctly read, does not re- 
p. 377; but the correct reading is there quire. Jerome's meaning is correctly 
overlooked, and in consequence I have interpreted by Churton in a note to Pear- 
made a concession to the views of Daille, son Vind. /pi. p. 189. 
so far as regards Jerome, which the pas- 

IGN. I. 22 



this account of Ignatius depends solely on the passage of Eusebius 
in which Irenseus is quoted (see above, p. 156, 11. p. 378). If therefore 
he supposed the words to have been spoken at the time of the martyr- 
dom, he has misinterpreted the el-n-ev of Irensus, which in itself would 
apply equally well to written as to spoken words, though here in ac- 
cordance with the general usage of Irenaeus applied to the former'. 

^ If the interpretation of this refer- 
ence as applying to a written docu- 
ment be open to any objections, they 
must lie either (i) against the word, ' say' 
instead of 'write,' or (2) against the 
tense, 'said' instead of ' says.' But on 
neither point can they be sustained. 

(i) The common usage of Irenseus is a 
direct answer to the objection on the first 
head. There must be from 800 to 1000 
quotations, chiefly scriptural, in Irenseus 
from first to last (a considerable number 
however being quotations of our Lord's 
words) ; but I have not once observed 
a passage cited with ypacpei or ^■ypa\p(v or 
yeypa^ev. The nearest approaches in the 
Greek are i. 8. 4 irepl Tiis...crv(^vyias ypd- 
(pcjv ^<p7] said of S. Paul, i. 9. 4 6...5id tuv 
'Op.ripLKuv ctIx'^v yp6.<pwv ovtus of a con- 
catenation of Homeric verses, and v. 33. 4 
iyypacpus iirifiapTvpei of Papias ; and in 
the parts preserved only in Latin, v. 8. i 
' non enim erant sine came quibus scri- 
bebat,' v. 13. 5 'hoc quod scribit.' In 
these Latin passages ' scribere ' probably 
represents ypacpeiv ; but we cannot feel 
sure of this, since in iii. 3. 3 iir^ffTeiXev... 
ypacp-fiv (of Clement) is rendered 'scripsit 
literas.' Besides these expressions we 
have in scriptural quotations occasionally, 
but not frequently, yiypairTai and 'scrip- 
turn est.' It will be seen at once that 
not one of these examples is analogous to 
the case before us. Possibly however 
some passage may have escaped me, 
though I have gone (somewhat hastily) 
through the whole work. On the other 
hand incomparably the most usual form 
of introducing quotations is some modifi- 
cation of ' saying, ' as X^7et, i^eyev, (prj- 
a-Lv, etpr)Kev, elirev, and in the Latin dici^, 

dicebat, dixit, itiquit, ait, refert, with other 
parts of these same verbs. Sometimes 
again these forms are varied by jxaprrvpu., 
lxip.vqTO.1, p.^}jA]vvKtv, SL7]ye2TaL, eire^o-qcrev, 
and the like. With these facts before us, we 
are justified in maintaining that Irenseus 
would almost certainly not have used 
ypa.<peiv, when quoting Ignatius, and that 
he would most probably have used eiwdv 
or \^yuv or some similar word. 

{2) The rationale of the tenses in in- 
troducing quotations is as follows ; (i) 
The present ' saj's ' {^iyei, (pTjcriv, etc.) 
can only be used where the reference is to 
an extant writing. It is most commonly 
employed of the literary author of the 
work, as Isaiah, David, Paul, Luke. But 
it is also used of any person who occupies 
a prominent place in the writing quoted 
and whose words are permanently re- 
corded, as especially of Christ in the 
Gospels. The perfect (eiprjKev) is used in 
the same way as the present, and always 
implies a written document, (ii) On the 
other hand the aorist ' said ' [it-wtv, ^(prj) 
may be used equally of a written docu- 
ment and of oral tradition. For instances 
of the former use, ■with which alone we 
are here concerned, see i. 8. 2 ev t^ 
aury eTTtcrroXj elnovTa of S. Paul (comp. i. 
3. i), i. 8. 5 /caXws otv elivev of John the 
Evangelist, i. 19. i eiirovra of Isaiah, i. 
18. I iiriEei^ev divihv of Moses as the au- 
thor of Genesis. Accordingly in i. 8. 5, 
in a succession of references to S. John's 
Gospel, Irenceus uses indifferently X^iei, 
(pTjalv, elTrev, ^(pyj, jEtprjKev, etc. So again, 
when quoting Justin, he employs the 
aorist in v. 26. 2 koKus 6 'lovcrrlvos ?07?, 
but the present in iv. 6. 2 Kal koKus 'Iou- 
<TThos...ip7]ai,v. So likewise in i. 8. 2 


The same remark applies also to the writer of the Roman Acts of 
Ignatius (see below, ii. p. 377 sq), who certainly makes Ignatius utter 
these words in the arena (§ 10), and who likewise derived his infor- 
mation from Irenjeus as quoted by Eusebius (see § 12). Daille's assump- 
tion therefore is altogether gratuitous. The interests of sound criticism 
demand an emphatic protest against this practice of thrusting aside a 
known fact, and postulating in its stead an imaginary something which is 
beyond the reach of verification. But the passage of Iren^us suggests 
two further remarks, (i) In the first place; whatever Jerome or 
others may have supposed, the language of Irenseus himself places 
the saying of Ignatius at the same point of time as it is placed 
in the Epistle to the Romans. He does not say ^aAAo/Acvo? or ^X.r]6eL<; 
€is Orjpta but KaraKpLOeis Trpos Orjpca, and this exactly represents the 
position of Ignatius when he wrote the epistle. (2) Secondly; the 
preceding context of the passage in Irenasus (extant only in the Latin) 
indicates a knowledge of the Ignatian letter to the Romans, as the 
comparison shows : 

Propterea tribulatio necessaria est 
his qui salvantur, et quodammodo 
contriti et attetiuati et consparsi per 
patientiam verbo Dei et igniti apti 
sunt ad convivium regis. Quemad- 
modum quidam, etc. 

Tvv p KCLi aravpos, drjpioiv re crvcrTd- 
aeis, [^avaropai, Statpecrety,] crKopTria- 
/ioi ocTTecov, crvyKOTral pe'Kav, dXecrpol 
oXov Tov acofiaros . . . . eV epe ipxiaBoi- 
aav povov Iva 'irjaov 'K.pKTTOv (TnTvx<>> 


Here the three words ' contriti, attenuati, consparsi,' correspond to the 
three o-KopTvia-p.oL, avyKOTrai, dXeapoL, the order however being reversed ; 
and the coincidence in the mention of the fire is the more remarkable, 
as Ignatius was not, like Polycarp, burnt to death. 

Nor is this the only coincidence with the letters of Ignatius which 
we find in Irenseus. Taken in conjunction with the direct quotation 
which we have first considered, the references given above (p. 143) 
furnish the strongest suggestion, short of absolute proof, that the other 
letters, besides the Roman, were known to this father. This is the 
case especially with the description of the heretics in Tra//. 6 com- 
pared with Iren. i. 27. 4 (see 11. p. 166), and in Smyrn. 4 compared 
with Iren. iii. 2. 3 (see 11. p. 298). So again the censure of the Doce- 
tics in Iren. iv. 33. 5 : 

* Quemadmodum enim ipsi vera se putant disputare, quando magister 
eorum putativus fuit ? Aut quemadmodum firmum quid habere possunt ab 

we meet with h t(^ d-Kuv and kv ry e^ Origen's quotation of Ignatius (see 

py\Kha.i in contiguous clauses introducing above, p. 144) ' memini aliquem sancto- 
two successive quotations. rum dixisse ' is a close parallel. 

22 — 2 


eo, si putativus et non Veritas erat? Quomodo autem ipsi salutem vere 
participare possunt, si ille in quern credere se dicunt semet ipsum putativum 
ostendebat ? Putativum est igitur, et non Veritas, omne apud eos : et nunc 
jam quaeretur, ne forte quum et ipsi homines non sint, sed muta animalia, 
hominum umbras apud plurimos perferant.' 

The resemblance of this language to the two passages in the 
Ignatian letters, Trail. lo, Smyr?i. 2 — 5, more especially the latter, 
will be evident at once. Not only is there the same insistence on the 
extension of to ^okCiv, as the logical consequence of their creed, so 
that their salvation, nay they themselves, are reduced to mere appa- 
ritions; but the images also bear a close resemblance (O-qpia a.v6p<a- 
7r6iJiop4>a, <uv veKpocf)6pos). Nor again does it seem to me altogether 
accidental that Irenaeus in the context (§ 8) lays stress on love 
as paramount (' praecipuum dilectionis munus '), just as Ignatius does 
i^Sviyr^l. 6 to yap oXov kcrriv ttiVtis kox dyaTrr], iov ov8ev TrpoKeKptTat : 
COmp. Magn. I Trto-Tews tc kox dyd7rr)<; ^s ovSev TrpoKe/cptTat) — both writers 
taunting these heretics with their neglect of it {Smyrn. 6 Trept ayaTnjs 
ou p.ike.1 auTOis, ib. 7 crwei^epe Se avToi<i dyairdv) and both contrasting it 
(as it is contrasted in i Cor. viii. i) either tacitly or explicitly with know- 
ledge (yvwo-ts) which was the boast of these heretics. Nor again is it 
insignificant that Irenseus, both here (§§ 9, 19) and when he resumes the 
mention of these Docetics a little later (v. i. 2 'Vani enim sunt qui 
putative dicunt eum apparuisse '), lays stress on the testimony of 
Abraham and the prophets, on which Ignatius also lays stress {Smyrn. 
5, 7 ; comp. Magn. 9, Philad. 5, 9), and like him also makes mention of 
the persecutions endured by them in consequence {Magn. 8 Sta tovto 
Kttt &i^yBy]a-a.v k.t.X.). Nor again can we fail to be struck by the fact that 
in the context of this second passage, arguing against these Docetics, 
he uses the very same expression (v. i. i 'et firme et vere') which 
Ignatius uses elsewhere when alluding to these heretics (Magn. 1 1 Trpa^- 
Oeura dXyjOws kol /JeySat'ws k.t.X.). Nor again does it seem to be a mere 
fortuitous coincidence, that both Ignatius {Smyrn. 7) and Irenaeus (v. 2. 
2, 3) in their respective contexts, though from a somewhat different 
point of view, treat the false spiritualism of Gnostic teachers as a 
denial that the eucharist is the flesh of Christ. Above all, I seem 
to see an allusion to Ignatius himself, when Irenseus appeals to the 
sufferings of the martyrs (iv. 33. 9) as a testimony against the Docetics, 
just as the writer's own sufferings are appealed to for the same purpose 
in the Ignatian letters {Smyrn. 4, Trail. 10). Nay, is there not in the 
context a reference to the image which occurs more than once in the 
Ignatian letters and is embodied in the martyr's own surname Theo- 


phorus 'the God-bearer' (comp. Ephes. 9 Travre? 6'co^opoi .... y^idTo- 
</)o/3ot) in these words of Irenseus ? ' Dominus apparuit in terris, cum 
martyribus nostris, quasi et ipse misericordiam consecutus, opprobrium 
simul bajulavit hominis, et cum eis ductus est, velut adjectio quaedam 
donata eis.' So again in the same context he speaks of the Church 
as suffering in the person of those who undergo persecution but ' anon 
growing fresh Hmbs and being restored to her integrity (statim augens 
membra et integra fiens),' herein employing language which closely 
resembles the Ignatian description of the recovery of the Church 
of Antioch after the restoration of peace {Smyrn. 11 d-n-eXa/Sov to 
lotov fxeyedos kol direKaTecTTdOr] avTOts to lSlov crwfj.aTelov). In short the 
passages in Irenseus relating to the Docetic heretics are found, when 
examined carefully, to be instinct with the language and thoughts 
of the Ignatian letters, more especially of the Epistle to the Smyr- 
nseans. It is no surprise to find these resemblances in a pupil of 

Here then is the answer, alike to Daille (pp. 257 sq, 270 sq, 433 
sq), who maintains that Irenseus cannot have been acquainted with the 
Epistle to the Romans because he does not quote against heretics the 
other epistles which formed part of the same collection, and to Renan 
(£es Evangiles p. xxxi), who argues that the Epistle to the Romans can- 
not have formed part of the same collection with the other six because, 
though Irenseus certainly was acquainted with this one epistle, he be- 
trays no knowledge of the others. But one point still remains to be 
considered. What amount of force is there in Daille's assumption that, 
if Irenseus had known these letters, he must have quoted them against 
the heretics ? This question is answered by reference to his practice in 
other cases. Why does he not quote Polycarp's Epistle, though he was 
certainly acquainted with it (iii. 3. 4), and though it contains not a few 
things (e.g. § 7) which would have served his purpose excellently? 
Why does he mention Clement of Rome and Papias once only, though 
they would have afforded abundant material useful for the end which he 
had in view ? Why are only two passages cited from J ustin Martyr, and 
these from works no longer extant, though Justin's extant writings would 
have furnished many more passages suitable for his purpose than the 
Ignatian Epistles? Why lastly does he entirely ignore other early 
Christian writers such as Melito and Dionysius of Corinth, or at least 
not quote them by name, though they wrote on kindred subjects 
and their writings must have been store-houses of serviceable quota- 
tions ? Of the passages in the Ignatian Epistles which Daille especially 
mentions, as likely to have been quoted, a considerable number are 


taken from the Long Recension. With these we are not concerned. The 
fact is only mentioned here as illustrating the deliberate confusion with 
which Daille has been charged above (p. 331, note). Of the rest the 
most important is the description of Jesus Christ in Magn. 8, as God's 
' Eternal Word, not having proceeded from silence.' Though this ex- 
pression does not directly contradict the Valentinian doctrine, as will 
be shown hereafter, yet it contradicts closely allied views, and might 
not unnaturally, though not necessarily, have been quoted by Irenaeus 
against his opponents. But, as Ignatius wrote the passage, both the 
epithet and the negative were absent, so that the expression runs ' His 
Word having proceeded from silence.' Such language would certainly 
have been shunned by Irenaeus, as approaching dangerously near to 
the very views which he was combating, and might even have led 
him to avoid directly quoting the doctrinal teaching of the Ignatian 

Asia Minor and Gaul were closely related both politically and eccle- 
siastically, as mother and daughter. Irenaeus had been educated in the 
one country, and had migrated to the other. His testimony therefore 
represents both regions. But we have also independent evidence alike 
from Asia Minor and from Gaul during his life-time. 

The Letter of the Smyrn^ans, giving the account of the Mar- 
tyrdom of Polycarp (a.d. 155 or 156), shows an acquaintance with the 
Ignatian Epistles. The coincidences in the two passages quoted above 
(p. 137) cannot be accidental. On the latter no stress can be laid, as 
it occurs in a portion of the document which may be a later addition ; 
but the former remains unassailable. Besides these there are other re- 
semblances not unimportant. Thus § 2 'They that were condemned 
to the wild beasts endured dreadful tortures (KoXaVets)... for the devil 
(d Stct^oAos) devised many things against them,' may be compared with 
Rom. 5 ' Let evil tortures of the devil {KoXda-€Ls tov SLa/SoXov) attack me, 
etc.'; and § 6 'that he might make perfect his own lot (rov i8lov Kk-rjpov 
dwapTtari)^ with Philad. 5 ' Your prayer shall make me perfect (aTrapTicret) 
unto God that I may obtain the lot (kXtjpw) wherein I found mercy.' 
So also the expression in § 7 OeoirpeTrrj Trpea/Svrrjv reminds us of Smyrn. 
12 ^eoTrpcTres ■n-peafivTepiov. Again the account of Polycarp's moral at- 
titude § 7 TO eua-Ttt^cs corresponds with Ignatius' charge to this same 
person Polyc. 4 evcrra^ei, and the description of his final achievement 
§ 17 €crT€(/)av<jOjU,eVov tov t^s d(ji6ap(TLas crrif^avov and § 19 tov rrj^ a(f)$ap- 
(ria<i o-Te</)avov aTroXa^iov with Ignatius' exhortation to him Polyc. 2 
vri<^^ COS ©eoii dOX-qri]?- to dijxa d4>6apaLa. With these coincidences 
it would be somewhat sceptical to question a knowledge of the Igna- 


tian Epistles on the part of the author or authors of this letter of the 
Smyrnaeans '. 

The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons records the 
martyrdoms in those cities under M. Aurelius and was written about a.d. 
177. It represents the voice of the daughter Church in Gaul, as the 
other represented the voice of the mother Church in Asia Minor. The 
parallels with the Ignatian Epistles here are slighter than in the Letter 
of the Smyrnseans, as perhaps we might have expected ; but they are 
noticeable. One or two of these are given above p. 141. Other coin- 
cidences are the metaphor of Spoai^ea-Oat 'to be sprinkled with dew, 
refreshed' (§6, comp. Magn. 14), of the 'birth-pangs' of martyrdom (§ 13 
wa-Trep wStvwv, comp. J?om. 6 d TOKerds /J-ol iTriKetrai), of a 'woven crown' of 
human beings (§ 1 1 ha TrXi^avre^ (rricjiavov, comp. Magn, 1 3 ct^ioTrXoKou 
TTvevfiartKov crTe^avoi;), of the 'fragrance' and the 'ointment' of Christ 
(§ 10, comp. Ephes. 17). So again they have certain words and phrases 
in common, as ava^wTrupetv (§ 12, comp. Ephes. i), eiJcrwetSTyTos (§ 11, 
comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 6), O-qpCwv (Bopd (§ n, comp. jRom. 4), oIko- 
vofxia ©eou (§ 10, comp. Ephes. 18), ivkhpa. of Satan (§ 4, comp. Trail. 
8, Philad. 6), KXrjpo'; of martyrs (§§3, 7, 11, comp. Pom. i, Trail. 12, 
Philad. 5), ■7re7ricrT€v/xeVo5 SiaKoviav of ministerial office (§ 9, comp. 
Magn. 6). So again both documents regard martyrdom as making a 
man a 'genuine' or 'true disciple of Christ' (§ 3 yvT^Vtos XptarTov fxad-q- 
T);s, comp. Po?n. 4 [xa6rp-qs dXrjOrjs rov XpiaTov), and in both the prayers 
of those addressed are asked that the petitioners may be crowned with 
martyrdom (§ 17, Trail. 12, Pom. 4). In like manner there is a striking 
resemblance of diction, though the subject is somewhat different, 
between § 6 avoypOwOrj to <TijiiJidTLOv...Ka.\ TTJv tSeW aTreXa/Se rrjv irpoTipav, 
and Smyrn. 1 1 airkXa^ov to t8tov /xe'ye^os koX dTreKarecrTddrj avTois to 
lSlov aruifiaTiov [o"a)jaaT€tov]. 

The testimony of the documents hitherto considered is especially 
valuable as coming from those churches which were likely to be well 
informed. If the Ignatian Epistles were mostly written, as they purport 
to have been written, to or from Smyrna, if the first collection of these 
epistles was made, as it professes to have been made, by an early 
bishop of Smyrna, then the voice of the Smyrnsean Church and of 
her Gallican dependencies is of supreme importance in deciding the 
question of their genuineness. 

^ I have to thank a correspondent for ment, which I should otherwise have 
calling my attention to some of these coin- overlooked, 
cidences in this and the following docu- 


But second only to the voice of these churches stands the testi- 
mony of a wholly different writer. Lucian, the pagan satirist, was born 
at Samosata in Syria, and is stated to have practised as an advocate 
in Antioch. He travelled far and wide. Among other countries he 
visited those parts of Asia Minor — Ionia and Bithynia — where the Chris- 
tians were most numerous. Though he wrote purer classical Greek 
than any writer of his time, his native tongue was Syriac. His satire 
spared nothing in heaven or earth. Among the chief butts of his 
ridicule was one whom he represented as the typical charlatan, half- 
fanatic, half-impostor — Peregrinus, surnamed Proteus from his frequent 
transformations of character'. The self-immolation of this person at 
the Olympian games in a.d. 165 made him famous throughout the world. 
This incident is the main feature in Lucian's satire De Morte Peregrini^ 
which appears to have been written soon after the event. There 
seems to be no ground for doubting the historical character of this 
incident'; but the accessories of the story are open to more question. 
Lucian apparently takes Peregrinus as a peg on which he hangs in turn 
different forms of charlatanry, or of what seems to him to be such. 
Two types more especially are brought prominently forward — the two 
which would especially strike the mind of Lucian as the most bizarre 
developments of life which prevailed on any noticeable scale in his 
day. Peregrinus is represented as first a Christian and then a Cynic. 
There was superficial resemblance enough between the two to render 
this combination, which seems altogether incongruous to us, quite 
natural in the eyes of Lucian's heathen contemporaries ^ Whether 
Peregrinus ever was a Christian or not, we have no means of ascer- 

1 The passages are quoted above, p. monotheism and opposition to idolatry in 

137. The tract of J. Bernays on this the Cynics as a point of contact. In their 

satire, Lucian u. die Kyniker, Berlin practice of public disputation and preach- 

1879, should be read, though it deals ing also they resembled the Christians. 

only incidentally with Lucian's views of Origen c. Ccls. iii. 18 (quoted by Bernays, 

the Christians. p. 93) demands the same immunity 

^ It is however doubted by Baur Die for the Christians in this respect which 

drei ersten Jahrhnnderte p. 396. was accorded to certain Cynics {jQiv Ku- 

^ The resemblance is noted by Aris- vlkQiv TLves 5r]/jLoa-ig. irpbs tovs iraparvyx^-' 
tides Op. II. p. 402, who speaks of the vovras diaXeyofievoi.). The picture which 
Cynics as roh iv ry UaXaLffTLvrj 8vaae^4<TL Dion Chrysostom (Orat. 8, p. 276 sq,ed. 
wapairXrjaioi roiis rponovs, a passage Reiske) draws of Diogenes disputing and 
quoted by Bernays (p. 39) ; but it may declaiming at the Isthmian games con- 
be questioned whether Jews are not in- tains not a few touches which enable us 
tended here rather than Christians. to realize the attitude of S. Paul at the 

Bernays (p. 31) remarks on the strict same place and on a similar occasion. 



taining; nor has the question any material bearing on our subject. 
Neither again need we trouble ourselves to consider whether Lucian's 
primary aim was not ridicule of the Cynics rather than of the Christians '. 
We are concerned solely with his ideas respecting the Christians and 
their doings. His knowledge of the two chief languages of Christen- 
dom at this time would materially assist him in acquiring information ; 
and, as a great traveller, he would not lack the opportunities. 

At an early part of his narrative Peregrinus is described in an 
expression which closely resembles the language used by Ignatius of 
himself. He is 'made a prisoner in Syria' (§ 4 t6v iv Xvpia SeOivra, 
comp. Ephes. i heSe/xevov aVo Guptas). After some vicissitudes and 
wanderings he 'thoroughly mastered the marvellous wisdom of the Chris- 
tians in Palestine, associating with their priests and scribes (rots hpevai 
Kol ypaix/xaTeviTLv avroiv).' So apt a scholar was he, that he rose to pre- 
eminence as their 'prophet and band-leader and synagogue-convener' 
(Trpo^T/TTjs Koi Qtaa-dpxo'i ^at ^vaycoyeus). In fact they were mere 
children compared with him. He interpreted and explained their 
books, and indeed composed many of them himself. Nay, they 
regarded him as a god and looked up to him as a lawgiver and patron 
{iTpoo-TaT-qv). For his Christianity Peregrinus was put in prison ; and 
his imprisonment was as fuel to his passion for notoriety. The narra- 
tive then continues as follows : 

' When he was imprisoned, the Christians, taking the matter to heart, left 
no stone unturned in the endeavour to rescue him. Then, when this was 
found to be impossible, they looked after his wants in every other respect 
with unremitting care and zeal. And from the first break of day old women 
— widows they are called" — and orphan children might be seen waiting 
about the doors of the prison ; while their officers (ot iv reXei avrcov), by 
bribing the keepers, succeeded in passing the night inside with him. Then 
various meals were brought in, and sacred formularies of theirs were re- 
peated (Xoyoi Upol avTcov eXeyovTo) : and this fine fellow Peregrinus — for he 
still bore this name — was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover there 
came from certain of the cities in Asia deputies sent by the Christian com- 

^ Bernays seems to have shown that 
Lucian's satire was aimed directly at the 
Cynics and only glanced incidentally at 
the Christians. 

^ This is the force of ypg-dta XVP^^ 
Tivai. So again lower down (§41) we 
have SiaOriKas TLV as. In both cases Lu- 
cian uses technical terms of the Chris- 
tians, which he only imperfectly under- 

stands. In the former he alludes to the 
cra't^r of widows (i Tim. v. 9); and it is 
worthy of notice that Ignatius himself 
salutes the widows at Smyrna {S»iy?-}i. 13 
see the note II. p. 323 sq), from whom 
probably when a prisoner there he had 
received attentions similar to those which 
the widows are represented by Lucian as 
paying to Peregrinus. 


munities to assist and advise and console the man. Indeed the alacrity 
they display is incredible, when any matter of the kind is undertaken as a 
public concern; for in short they spare for nothing. Accordingly large 
sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time from them, on the plea of 
his bonds, and he made no inconsiderable revenue out of it. For the poor 
wretches have persuaded themselves that, they will be altogether immortal 
and will live for ever, and with this in view they actually despise death (<at 
Karaffipovovat Toii davarov) and the greater part of them give themselves 
up voluntarily {enovres avroiis eVtStSoacriv oi ttoXXoi). 

Peregrinus was ultimately released. After other vicissitudes he went 
forth again on his wanderings, drawing ample supplies from the Chris- 
tians {iKava. ee^oSta rot's )(pL(TTiavov's ^x^v), 'by whom he was attended 
as by a body-guard {v<fi wv Sopt;6opov/x€vos), and so enjoyed abundance 
of everything.' At length he offended the Christians. He was de- 
tected, so Lucian believes, eating something which was forbidden in 
their eyes (n . . . ka-diwv twv aTropptjTwv avTOLs). Then he became a 
Cynic, Of his subsequent life previous to his self-immolation we are 
told that 'he sailed to Italy and immediately on disembarking began to 
revile every one, especially the king, knowing him to be most gentle 
and mild, so that he ventured with impunity.' Then comes the suicide. 
In the preparation of the funeral pyre and in the incidents of the. 
burning we are reminded of the martyrdom of Polycarp, but of this 
I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. After the account of his 
death Lucian adds : 

'They say that he despatched letters to nearly all the famous cities- 
testaments forsooth {8i.adriKas Tivas) and admonitions and laws : and certain 
of his companions he nominated {ixeipoTovrjcre) for this business, calling them 
death-messengers and infernal-couriers.' 

And lower down again he reminds Cronius, 'You have known 
these facts long since, having heard me at the time when I came from 
Syria relate how I had sailed with him from Troas.' 

A tradition spoke of Lucian as an apostate from Christianity, like 
Julian. This does not seem probable. The strange jumble of titles, 
Jewish and heathen, which he heaps on Peregrinus {irpoc^rjrrj^ koI 6iao-- 
dpxf]<> Koi ^uraywyevs), and the description of the respect paid to him, are 
unlike the language of one who had any intimate knowledge of Chris- 
tian modes of thought and life — even after all allowance is made for 
the license of the satirist. So again the account of the offence which 
led to his expulsion from the sect, and which 'apparently refers to 
some profanation of the eucharist, suggests the same inference. But a 


gossiping acquaintance with their doings, and probably also a super- 
ficial glance at some of their writings, is suggested by the narrative. 
We must not indeed overlook the confusion — probably studied and 
intentional — of men and things. Christian and Cynic, Ignatius and 
Polycarp unite in one. In a nearly contemporary writing, the Cle- 
mentine Homilies, in the same way the chief villain of the story, Simon 
Magus, combines in himself all those teachers whom the writer wished 
to stigmatize as heretical — notably S. Paul and Marcion. This is a 
common expedient in such fictions. Bearing this in mind we recog- 
nize how largely the whole description is charged with early Christian 
ideas, even in the portions which do not refer to the Christian career 
of Peregrinus. The comparison with the phoenix recalls the analogy 
of the Resurrection as drawn out by Clement of Rome (§ 25). The 
prediction of the Sibyl reminds us of the taunt of Celsus, who called 
the Christians Sibyllists on account of their partiality for these fabulous 
oracles (Orig. c. Cels. v. 61 ; see S. Clement of Rome i. p. 178 sq). The 
marvellous works of healing ascribed to the hero of the story are a 
counterpart to the miracles of the Gospel. 

Accordingly it is no surprise to find that the resemblances to the story 
of Ignatius are not restricted to the Christian career of Peregrinus, but 
extend through the whole. These coincidences are too many and too 
obvious to be overlooked, and have commanded the assent even of 
opponents of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, such as Baur^ 
and Renan". The latter more especially repeats more than once his 
belief that Lucian alludes to Ignatius and his letters. The first place of 
captivity, certain cities mentioned on the route, the attendance of the 
believers at the prison, the bribing of the guard, the embassies from the 
Churches of Asia, the Christian ' escort ' of the prisoner, the confront- 
ing and defying of the emperor, the letters sent and the messengers 
despatched by Peregrinus on the eve of his death — all these points of 
coincidence taken together are far too numerous to be the result of 

1 Apollonius von Tyana u. Christus p. he is silent on this subject. 

137 sq, republished in Drei Abhandlungcn - See especially Lcs Evangiles p. 493, 

etc., 1876. It is suggested by the editor ' II n'est guere douteux que Lucien n'ait 

in a note, that at a later date, when con- emprunte aux recits sur Ignace' etc., and 

vinced of the spuriousness of the Ignatian he says in a note (p. 494) that Lucian 

letters, Baur would have come to a some- ' may very well have had in his hands the 

what different conclusion. This is by no collection of the seven pseudo-Ignatian 

means certain, as the case of Renan letters ' : see also ib. pp. x sq, 488, VJ^- 

shows. In Die drei ersten Jahrhiin- glise Chritienne p. 465, Marc Aurlle 

derte p. 395 sq when discussing Lucian, p. 376. 


mere accident. The last-mentioned point of resemblance more espe- 
cially challenges attention. The description of these delegates is a 
lively caricature of the language of the Ignatian letters. The coin- 
cidences have been considered already (p. 287); and it is only neces- 
sary here to add that, in designating the letters of Peregrinus 'testa- 
ments ' and ' laws,' Lucian seems to have confused the Epistles of 
Ignatius with the Scriptures, just as in a previous passage (§ 11) he 
relates of Peregrinus, then a Christian, that he 'interpreted and ex- 
plained some of the books (of the Christians) and himself composed 

It has thus appeared that the primary evidence for the Ignatian 
letters is exceptionally good, being both early, precise, and varied. As 
regards the testimony of the next generations, comprising the last 
decades of the second century and the earlier decades of the third, 
we can only say that it does not differ in character or extent from that 
which is forthcoming in similar cases. The coincidences with the 
Ignatian Epistles during this period are indicated above (p. 141 sq)'. 
They are not sufficient in themselves to establish the existence of the 
Ignatian letters ; but reinforcing the earlier evidence, they are valuable, 
as a link of continuity between the testimony of the preceding and 
succeeding ages. One witness indeed, belonging to the period of which 
I am speaking, would be exceptionally important, if we could only be 
sure that we had before us the real person. Theophilus of Antioch, 
as a successor of Ignatius in the same see while the memory of the 
martyr was still fresh, would have the best right to be heard. The 
coincidence (see p. 142) with the Ignatian letters in the Commentary 
bearing his name is sufficiently close ; but unfortunately the suspicions 
which overcloud the authorship of this work have not been altogether 

Towards the middle of the third century Origen again furnishes us 
with precise evidence (see above, p. 144). Besides two direct quota- 
tions {Rom. 7, Ephcs. 19), there is at least one indirect appropriation of 
the language of Ignatius {Rom. 3), and probably others might be found, 
if this father's works were carefully searched for the purpose. The 

^ To the coincidences quoted above tullian (see de Ani?n. 55) ; and the Igna- 

(p. 143) from ike Acts of Perpetua and tian Epistles, if known to the writers of 

Felicitas should be added § 5 ' nos non in these Acts, were likely to be known to 

nostra potestate esse constitutes, sed in this father also. Thus the parallels in 

Dei ' ; comp. Polyc. 7 x/^"'"''"^''os io.vTo\! the one tend to confirm the inference 

e^ova-iav ovk ^x^' aXXd Qeip crxoXdfet. This drawn from the parallels in the other, 
document is closely connected with Ter- 


reference to the existing Ignatian letters is undeniable. The only 
question is whether the Curetonian or the Vossian letters are the source 
of quotation. Of this question I have already disposed (see above, 
pp. 287, 289). 

During the next few decades there was no great literary activity in 
the Christian Church; and the extant remains are exceptionally meagre. 
It is very rarely that we find in these any notice which throws light on 
the earlier literature of Christendom. In the case of Ignatius how^ever 
we have one quotation, though not by name, in Peter of Alexandria 
(see above, p. 145). If indeed we could with confidence assign the 
Apostolical Constitutions to this period (and seemingly they ought not to 
be placed later), the evidence would be largely reinforced ; for the 
influence of the Ignatian letters is perceptible again and again in this 
work (see above, p. 145). 

EusEBius OF C/ESAREA is Separated from Origen by a period of 
half a century or more ; but Pamphilus is a link of connexion between 
the two. Reasons are given above (p. 289) for supposing that with 
respect to the Ignatian literature Eusebius availed himself of the same 
sources of information from which Origen had before drawn. If so, the 
evidence which he supplies is carried back to the earlier half of the 
third century, when Origen lived and wrote. However this may be, 
the account of the Ignatian letters in Eusebius is so full and so definite, 
that it needs no comment and leaves nothing to be desired (see above, 
p. 146 sq). 

From the age of Eusebius onward the testimony is of the most 
varied kind. The Ignatian Epistles appear whole or in part, not only 
in the original Greek, but in Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Latin, and 
(at least in quotations) Arabic. They are abridged, expanded, and 
imitated. They are quoted equally by orthodox Catholics and Mono- 
physite heretics. No early Christian writing outside the Canon is 
attested by witnesses so many and so various in the ages of the 
Councils and subsequently. 

And in this many-tongued chorus there is not one dissentient voice. 
Throughout the whole period of Christian history before the Reforma- 
tion, not a suspicion of their genuineness is breathed, though they were 
quoted in controversy, and not a few disputants were deeply interested 
in denying their genuineness. Even spurious and interpolated Ignatian 
matter is accepted on the credit of the more authentic epistles. One 
witness indeed has been called against them ; but, when cross- 
questioned, he entirely fails to substantiate the case which he was 
summoned to support. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople 


(t A.D. 828), wrote a Chronography to which is appended a Stichometria 
or list of the Books of the Old and New Testament with the number of 
(TTLXpi. or verses in each*. This list comprises three divisions: (i) The 
Canonical books universally received by the Church (^etat ypa^ai ck- 
Kkr](TiatpjX€vai koI Ke/cavovi(7/x,evai). (2) 'Those which are disputed' (oo-at 
avTiA.€yovTai). This section comprises in the Old Testament (roughly 
speaking) the deutero-canonical books included in the ordinary Greek 
Bibles, e.g. Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.; and in the New 
Testament these four, the Apocalypse of S. John, the Apocalypse of 
S. Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews. (3) The 'Apocryphal' books of the Old and New Testa- 
ments (oo-a aTTOKpycjia Trj<; TraXatas, ocra 1-175 ve'as aTrOKpv^a). 

Under this third head the Old Testament list is made up of such 
books as Enoch, the Twelve Patriarchs, Eldad and Modad, etc., ending 

10. Of Zachariah the father of John, 500 verses. 

11. Of Baruch, Habakuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel, spurious works 1 


In like manner the New Testament list, which will be found above 
(p. 224), ends, 

6. Of Clement the First and Second (Epistles)^, 2600 verses. 

7. Of Ignatius, Polycarp, the Shepherd, and Hermas. 

On this passage Daille (pp. 242 sq, 460) lays great stress, as 
Saumaise had done before him. Nicephorus, he argues, held the 
highest position in the Church, and personally enjoyed a great repu- 
tation. Therefore his opinion reflects the feeHng of the Greek Church 
in his age. Moreover his work was translated into Latin later in the 
same century by Anastasius the Librarian, without any word or mark 
of disapproval. From this we may infer the sentiment of the Latin 
Church on this question. This tremendous structure piled upon this 
sandy foundation crumbles at the first touch of criticism. For 

(i) At the outset, it must seem strange that Nicephorus should 

1 This Stichometria seems to be found Boor's edition p. 135, runs Kk-qfievro^ 

only in those MSS which contain the X/3 ; but no explanation can be given of 

Chronography in its enlarged and there- these 32 books. Pearson therefore (p. 

fore later form (see De Boor, Nicephori 130) conjectured 'Quid si pro AB lega- 

Opusc. Hist. p. xxxii sq). Probably mus AB... et duas Clementis Epistolas 

therefore Nicephorus is not responsible intelligamus ? ' His conjecture has since 

for it, directly or indirectly. been confirmed by manuscript authority ; 

^ The text, as read by Pearson {Vind. see Credner Ztir Geschichte des Kanons 

Ign. p. 128), and as it stands in De p. 122. 


condemn at one breath all the writings of the three Apostolic Fathers, 
Clement', Ignatius, and Polycarp, though not a single writer before 
him had ever questioned the genuineness of any of these, except the 
Second Epistle ascribed to Clement. Such a phenomenon would be 
astounding ; and, if this were his meaning, the opinion of Nicephorus 
would be irretrievably discredited. But 

(ii) We have direct evidence that Nicephorus did accept writings 
bearing the name of Ignatius as genuine. Pearson {Vind. Ign. p. 126) 
could only infer this indirectly from the fact that Nicephorus elsewhere 
expresses his adhesion to ' the doctrines and works of all the eminent 
(eKKptroiv) and blessed fathers' (Epist. ad Leon. p. 193, ed. Migne); but 
later discovery has furnished us with a passage of Nicephorus, not 
accessible to him, in which this father directly quotes the Ignatian 
Epistle to the Philippians (see above, p. 225) as authoritative against 
his adversaries. It is therefore certain that whatever else may be 
meant by including Ignatius among the Apocrypha, Nicephorus can- 
not have condemned the Ignatian letters as spurious. But again, 

(iii) The classification itself shows that ' apocryphal ' (ajvoKpv^a) 
here is not a synonyme for ' spurious.' The writings under discussion 
are classed either as (i) undoubtedly canonical, (2) doubtfully canoni- 
cal, and (3) undoubtedly uncanonical. This last class would include 
all writings which, having at any time put forward pretensions to 
canonicity, were unanimously rejected by the Church when the author 
of this Stichometria wrote. Thus for instance the Epistles of Clement 
were attached to mss of the New Testament and treated as Scripture — 
the First more especially, which was publicly read in many churches as 
late as Eusebius and later (see Clement of Rome. Appendix, p. 272). 

^ Inconsistently with the conjecture k^ . 'lyvariov diSaaKoXla 
mentioned in the last note, Pearson Ky'. UoXuKapirov didaaKaXia. 
(p. 154 sq) maintains that in the instances Of such a work bearing the name of 
of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, not Clement we know ; but no record is pre- 
the extant Epistles but a didaxv or served of any ascribed either to Polycarp 
oiSaa-KoKla in each case is meant (see or to Ignatius. We must therefore sup- 
above, p. 262 sq). He supports this pose (what indeed the inversion of its 
view by an appeal to another list of position suggests) that some ill-informed 
canonical and uncanonical books found in transcriber added the word dLdacTKoXla in 
some MSS {Ba>-occ. 206, Jieg. Fans. 1789; the two latter cases, 
see Cotelier/'a/^. /^/ojA I. p. 197 (1724), The fact that our author (whether 
Hody de Bibliorum Textibus p. 649, Nicephorus or another) separates ' the 
Westcott History of the Canon p. 550), Shepherd' from * Hermas ' betrays his 
which includes among the Apocrypha ignorance of some at least of the writings 
KCL. Aida(TKa\ia KXrinipros of which he speaks. 


Again the Shepherd of Hermas is quoted as in some sense Scripture by 
Irenseus and others, and was treated as such in some churches (see 
Harnack Proleg. p. xlv sq). So Hkewise we have it on the authority 
of Jerome {Vir. III. 17), that Polycarp's Epistle was read even in his 
time 'in conventu Asiae,' whatever this may mean. All these writings 
therefore are excluded by name from the Canon in this Stichotnetria. 
Of Ignatius no similar record is preserved. The only ecclesiastical use 
of his epistles which I have observed is the selection of lessons from 
them for Ignatius' own festival and for one particular Sunday, as noted 
above {p. no). But probably the notice in this Stichotnetria refers to 
some wider use, known to him either directly or indirectly. It is 
indeed plain that a-n-oKpv^a. here cannot mean 'spurious'; for in this 
case the classification would not be exhaustive. There would then be 
no place in it for writings which, though written by the authors whose 
names they bore, did not deserve a place in the Scriptural Canon. 
Nor is any violence done by this interpretation to the history and 
usage of the term. For 

(iv) The word d-n-oKpvcjia does not necessarily imply spuriousness, 
though it frequently connotes this idea. Hence our author himself in 
the Old Testament list, as quoted already (p. 350), when he wants to 
describe certain writings as forgeries, uses another word, i/'evSeTrtypa^a. 
The term aTroKpv^a, as applied to sacred writings, denotes in the first 
instance secret, esoteric works, which would probably be magical or 
mystical. In this sense it is pre-Christian. Thus Callimachus says 
ypa/A/nara 8' ovx ciXto-crav dTr6Kpv(f>a (Ammon. S.v. ypafx.fx.a). As referring 
to Christian books, the word passes through the following stages of 
meaning, (i) In its earliest usage it signifies those books which were 
held in reserve and studied privately, as opposed to those which were 
publicly recognized and read in the churches ; Orig. Epist. ad Afric. 9 
{Op. I. p. 19 sq) cl)V Ttva cw^erat ev d.TroKpv^OL%...kv ovSevI twv c^ave- 
pQ>v PifiXiuiV y€ypa[XfJieva...€V rtvi a7roKpv<^a) tovto (^eperat (of Isaiah's 
being sawn asunder), Comni. in Matt. x. § 18 {Op. in. p. 465) o a-wT-qp 
eStSa^e liapTvpoiv, ws oT/xai, ypa(firj jxrj cj>epo/Jievrj iv TOis kolvol<; Kal Se8r]- 
fi€V[jLevoL<; (3lI3\lols, etKos 8e ort ev aTroKpv^ots (fiipofxivr] (of the murder 
of Zacharias the son of Barachias), Didym. Alex. Fragm. in Act. p. 1669 
(ed. Migne) cttciSt; Se qvk clp-qrai ttov iv rais SeST^jaocrtev/Aevats 
jSiySXois, iv a.TTOKpvffiOL's Xcyerat oTt ev t<3 rrapaSelcrw (of the transla- 
tion of Enoch). (2) But, inasmuch as such books were especially af- 
fected by heretics, by whom they were not unfrequently forged, it came 
next, as used by orthodox writers, to connote the ideas of 'spurious' and 
'heretical,' as e.g. in Iren. i. 20. i dfiivOrjTov TrXijOos aVoKpL'^cov koI v66u>v 


ypa^wv a<; avTol tTrXaaav, Tertull. de Pudic. lo 'inter apocryi^ha et falsa,' 
in which passages however the studied juxtaposition of the two words 
shows that they were by no means synonymous. On the other hand 
the term, as used by the heretics themselves, would be an honourable 
designation, seeing that these books contained their esoteric teaching 
and were placed in the hands of the initiated alone \ see Clem. Strom, i. 
15 (p. 357) J3l/3\ov<; aTroKpixfiOv? ravSpos rovSe ol rrjv UpohtKov ju-ctiovtcs 
atpea-Lv avxovaL KCKT^aOaL, ib. iii. 4 (p. 524), Hippol. Haer. v. 7, 22, 23, 
24, 27, etc. But (3) from this association of ideas the word was in- 
vested with a still further meaning, ' non-canonical,' whether the writing 
in question was genuine or spurious. It is in this sense that Jerome in 
his Prologtis Galeatus classes such books as the Wisdojn of Jesus the Son 
of Sii'ach 'inter apocrypha,' adding in explanation 'non sunt in Canone'; 
and that in the so-called Decretu77i Gelasii (Credner zur Geschichte des 
Kano7is p. 221) we find entered ' Historia Eusebii Pamphili apocrypha', 
and other patristic works of questioned orthodoxy are similarly de- 
scribed there, because (as it is explained at the commencement of the 
chapter) 'a catholicis vetanda sunt.' 

It will have appeared from this investigation that the entry in the 
Stichometria has no bearing on the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. 
We may therefore dismiss from our consideration the question whether 
this document is correctly assigned to Nicephorus or not. It may be 
mentioned however in passing that the three-fold classification is not 
likely to have been drawn up after the decree of the Trullan Council 
(a.d. 692), which settled definitively for the Greek Church what books 
were and what were not canonical, and that it contains other indica- 
tions also of an earlier date than Nicephorus'. If so, this pre-existing 
document must have been appended to his Chronography as likely 
to interest his readers. But so far as regards Ignatius, the case is not 
materially altered by this hypothesis ; for the last entry was apparently 
no part of the original document, as the omission of the number of 
verses shows, and might well have been added by the person who 
appended the Stichometria to the Chronography of Nicephorus. The 
author of this last entry, whoever he may have been, seems to have 
swept together under one head any other uncanonical writings of which 
he had heard, besides those already contained in the Stichometria. 

^ See Credner /. c. p. loo^sq. 

IGN. 1. 23 



Internal Evidence. 

Having ascertained that the external testimony is exceptionally 
strong, we turn next to the internal evidence, and proceed to enquire 
whether it yields such results as to oblige the reversal of the judgment 
to which we have been irresistibly led by the previous investigation. 
Our present enquiry may be conveniently ranged under five heads : 
(i) The Historical and Geographical Circumstances; (ii) The Theologi- 
cal Polemics; (iii) the Ecclesiastical Conditions; (iv) The Literary 
Obligations ; (v) The Personahty of the Writer; and (vi) the Style and 
Diction of the Letters. 

(i) Historical and Geographical Circumstances. 

The condetnnation and journey to Rome have furnished much food 
for controversy. The sentence of Ignatius in itself was not indeed open 
to any objection. It is manifest on all hands that from the very first 
the Christians, when condemned, were sentenced to be thrown to the 
wild beasts in the amphitheatre. The allusions to this mode of punish- 
ment are both early and frequent. But exception has been taken to 
the long journey to Rome, as improbable in itself and unsupported by 
any analogy. 

It might perhaps be sufficient to urge in reply that this story of 
Ignatius, whether true or false, was certainly beheved before the close 
of the second century, as the existence of the Ignatian letters them- 
selves shows. To those most competent to form an opinion therefore it 
suggested no improbability. Indeed we may be sure that no forger 
would have selected as the central incident of his forgery a fiction 
which would discredit and stultify his whole work by its inherent im- 
possibility. Hence critics like Renan have without hesitation accepted 
the story, quite independently of the genuineness of the letters, which 
they regard as an ulterior question \ Indeed, when we reflect on the 
enormous scale of these games in the amphitheatre in imperial times, 
it must be clear that the demand could only be supplied by contribu- 
tions from the provinces. The magnitude of these exhibitions culmi- 
nated under Trajan, who thus pandered to the passions of the Roman 

^ Les ^vangiles p. 486 'Ce fait [the prouver la realite du mart}Te d'ls^ace 
existence of these letters] suffit pour etc.'; see also p. x sq. 



populace (see Friedlaender Sittengeschichte Roms ii. pp. 127, 142, 188, 
222)'. After his second Dacian triumph in a.d. 106 he celebrated 
games which lasted a hundred and twenty-three days, and in which 
about 11,000 wild and tame beasts were slaughtered and 10,000 
gladiators fought (Dion Cass. Ixviii. 15). For these murderous con- 
tests the provincial governors must have had orders, far and wide to 
supply human victims as well as animals. Thus we must picture com- 
panies of soldiers, like those who guarded Ignatius, converging from all 
quarters of the empire to Rome, and bringing thither their several con- 
tingents of victims, whom they had gathered on their route, just as the 
escort of Ignatius appears to have picked up prisoners at Philippi on 
the way (Polyc. Phil. 9), and probably others elsewhere of whom 
nothing is told us. 

But indeed we are not left to conjecture on this point. There is 
direct evidence that the provinces were requisitioned for this purpose. 
In the Digests passages are quoted from the work of the jurist Modes- 
tinus, who wrote during the reign of Alexander Severus and later, On 
Punishments, as follows : 

' The governor ought not, at the pleasure of the people, to release persons 
condemned to wild-beasts ; but, if they are of such strength or skill that 
they would make a v/orthy spectacle for the Roman people, he ought to 
consult the emperor 2. Howbeit it is made unlawful by a rescript of the 
deified Severus and of Antoninus for condemned criminals to be transferred 
from one province to another without the permission of the emperor^.' 

This passage implies, (i) That persons condemned to wild beasts, 

^ The language in which the younger 
Pliny {Patu'g. 33, 34) commends Trajan 
for these exhibitions is highly instioictive ; 
' Visum est spectaculum...quod ad pulchra 
vulnera contemptumque mortis accende- 
ret, cum in servorum etiam noxiorumque 
corporibus amor laudis et cupido victoriae 
cerneretur. Quam deinde in edendo libe- 
ralitatem, quam justitiam exhibuit, omni 
affectione aut intactus aut major. Im- 
petratum est quod postulabatur ; obla- 
tum quod non postulabatur '. The in- 
human savagery of this wholesale blood- 
shed does not for a moment trouble the 
panegyrist. The emperor is lauded be- 
cause he gave the people more of it than 
they asked for. Pliny's panegyric was 
written before the Dacian triumpli, and he 

is therefore referring to the earliest years 
of Trajan's reign. 

- Not for leave to send them to Rome, 
as Hilgeufeld supposes {Zeitsckr.f. Wiss. 
Theol. XVII. p. 99), but for leave to release 
them, as the context shows. 

3 Digest, xlviii. 19. 31 '■Idem [Modesti- 
nusl libro tertio de Poeitis. Ad bestias 
damnatos fiivore populi praeses dimittere 
non debet; sed si ejus roboris vel arti- 
ficii sint ut digne populo Romano ex- 
hiberi possint, principem consulere debet. 
Ex provincia autem in provinciam trans- 
duci damnatos sine permissu principis 
non iicere divus Severus et Antoninus 
rescripserunt '. See Friedlaender Sitten- 
geschichte Poms 11. p. 204. 




like Ignatius, were very commonly sent to Rome, and that the spectacles 
in the metropolis were held paramount in importance, so that the wishes 
of the provincials were sacrificed to them; (2) That it was not unusual 
to transfer such persons from one province to another where a victim 
was wanted for provincial games, and that even this latter practice was 
only limited by a rescript of the joint emperors Severus and Caracalla, 
which required the permission of the emperor in such cases '. 

So far therefore as regards the mere fact of the transportation to 
Rome, we find nothing in this instance which must not have occurred 
in thousands of cases besides. But difficulties have been found like- 
wise in the circumstances attending this transportation. Do these 
difficulties rest on any substantial basis ? 

Criticism inevitably goes astray unless it is guided and tempered by 
a historic imagination, which can throw itself into the probabiHties of 
the case. In this instance it has been altogether at fault. Ignatius has 
been regarded as accompanied by ten soldiers, who had nothing else to 
do but to watch him, to whom collectively he was chained day and 
night without a moment's intermission, who controlled his every move- 
ment, who had directions to suppress every interchange of companion- 
ship and every expression of sympathy, and who performed to the 
letter the charge thus laid upon them. 

The picture is absurd. Soldiers were not so numerous even in the 
Roman empire, that ten men could be spared to guard a single pro- 
vincial convict of comparatively low rank, a convict moreover from 
whom the State had nothing to fear. Plainly the guardianship of 
Ignatius was not their absorbing care. It was sufficient if one, or at 
most two, were chained to him at any given time. They had manifold 
other duties besides. Probably, as I have already indicated, they had 
in their custody other prisoners, whom they gathered up on their route. 

^ Renan {Les Evangiles p. 487, note i) 
writes. ' Si ejus roboris vel artificii sint 
ut digne populo Romano exhiberi possint, 
Digeste 1. c. Cette coutume ne com- 
menca d'etre abolie que par Antonin '. 
Here is a double mistake ; (i) The practice 
which was abolished or rather restricted 
by the rescript in question, was the prac- 
tice of sending these human victims into 
another province to meet their death, 
and had nothing to do with sending them 
to Rome. (2) The Antoninus meant is 
not Antoninus Pius or M. Aurelius, as 

Renan evidently supposes, but Antoninus 
Caracalla, the son and colleague of Seve- 
rus, and therefore the rescript dates be- 
tween A.D. 198 — A.D. 2 1 1, during which 
period they were joint emperors. Zahn 
(/. V. A. p. 65) is correct on the first 
point, but he explains the emperors as 
Antoninus (Pius) and (Septimius or Alex- 
ander) Severus. Hilgenfeld falls into the 
first error (Apost. Vdter p. 216) and into 
the second (Zeiischr. /. Wiss. T/ieo/.xvu. 
p. 99). 


Nor indeed, provided that they were absolutely certain of his safe 
keeping, would his attachment to a soldier by a chain be rigorously 
enforced. The 'day and night' must be interpreted, as it would be 
interpreted in any other case, with a reasonable regard to the pro- 
babilities of the case. 

But his guards are represented as allowing his Christian friends free 
access to him, and permitting him to write letters to distant churches, 
thus giving him opportunities of disseminating the very doctrines for 
which he had been condemned. 

Why should they not ? To us, who are wise after the event, 
Ignatius is a highly important personage, a saint and martyr and doctor 
of the Church ; but to his heathen contemporaries he was a mere pro- 
vincial without rank or position, a religious fanatic, whose delusion 
would soon be scattered to the winds hke its thousand and one pre- 
decessors. The last idea which would have occurred to any of his 
guards would be that the sect of the Nazarenes could ever set its foot 
on the neck of imperial Rome. He had been condemned probably to 
gratify some popular caprice. His sole value in their eyes was as 
a victim for the wild beasts in the Flavian Amphitheatre. Provided 
that he did not escape, their end was attained. And meanwhile why 
should they not make a little money out of the folly of these Christians ? 
What harm in accepting a douceur to admit his friends and to allow 
him writing materials ? Their superiors would connive at it. Nay, it 
could hardly be called ' conniving ', when it was the recognized practice 
of themselves and their comrades. 

But he himself complains of their hardness. He says that the more 
* benefits ' they received, the worse they became. Of course they were 
hard. They had him in their grip. They had taken the measure of 
these silly Christians. They had only to ask their own terms; and 
these terms would be complied with, so long as there was any money 
left. So every fresh concession to their demands produced a fresh 
exaction. This, and not more than this, is meant by the expression 
in Rom. 5 6i /cat ei5epy6Toi;jU.€vot ;^eipoi^s ytVovrat (see II. p. 213)'. A 
prisoner smarting under his grievances naturally dwells on the dark side 
of the picture. It does not occur to him to reflect v.'hat interpretation 
will be put upon his impulsive utterances by critics in their study some 
centuries afterwards. 

^ Perkin Warbeck in captivity writes gardes me soient plus amiables en lour 

thus to his mother ; ' Ma mere, je vous donnant quelque chose ' (Gairdner's Life 

prie, que me voelliez envoier un petit de and Reis^n of Richard the Third \>. 385). 
argent pour moi aidier, afin que mes 


This picture, which I have drawn, is probable in itself; and it is 
fully borne out by the description which Lucian gives of Peregrinus 
the hero of his story, then a Christian, under similar circumstances 
(see above, p. 137 sq). The chief passage, which has been translated 
already (p. 345 sq), deserves to be read in its entirety. The zeal and 
attention paid to the imprisoned confessor — for he poses as such to 
the Christians — is ceaseless. The widows, with the orphan children 
committed to their care', crowd about the prison doors at early dawn 
for admittance. The officers of the Christian brotherhood bribe the 
keepers and thus ave allowed to pass the night with the prisoner. 
Meals are brought in ; religious services are held in the prisoner's cell ; 
deputies are sent to him from various Christian communities ; he is 
amply supplied with means. 

There is very strong reason for believing, as I have already pointed 
out (p. 345 sq), that Lucian has drawn his picture at least in part from 
the known circumstances of Ignatius' history. But for my present pur- 
pose this point may be waived. Nor is it necessary to enquire whether 
the story of Peregrinus is true or not. Even if it be fictitious, the 
satirist plainly relates only what is likely to have occurred under the 
circumstances; and this is sufficient for the object which we have in 

Nor does this evidence stand alone. We need not press the earlier 
instance of S. Paul, who during his captivity, though chained to a 
soldier by the wrist, communicated freely with all his friends and 
preached the Gospel without let or hindrance, so that he even regards 
the cause as having gained by his captivity (Acts xxviii. 31, Phil. i. 
12 sq). But even to the close of the era of persecutions, when the 
rapid growth of the Chmxh had given just ground for the alarm of 
statesmen, the same lenient and liberal treatment of prisoners — even 
of condemned prisoners — is seen. The humour of the populace was 
indulged, the supremacy of the law was vindicated, by the condem- 
nation of the offender. Beyond this the majesty of Rome could afford 
to be magnanimous. In the Apostolic Constitutions (v. i) directions are 
given that, if any Christian is condemned to a gladiatorial combat or 
to wild beasts or to the mines, money is to be sent to him to purchase 
food and to bribe the soldiers (eis ixiaOanoSoaLav twv o-TparicoTcov), so that 
his condition may be alleviated (see 11. p. 214). Accordingly we find 

^ The fidelity of the picture is shown comp. Hernias Fis. ii. 3 Fpa-n-TT] 8i vovde- 

by this touch. The widows in the ancient r-qau ras XVP°-^ 'f'" '''o^^ dp<pavovs, and see 

Church had charge of the orphans and the note on Smyr/i. 12 (ll. p. 322). 
would therefore be accompanied by them ; 



in the Acts of Perpetiia and Felicitas (about a.d. 202), that two of the 
mart}TS, Perpetua and Saturus, were allowed, while in prison, to write 
an account of their sufferings, no regard being paid to the effect which 
their narrative would be likely to have on their readers (§ 3 sq, 11 sq) ; 
that the deacons Tertius and Pomponius paid or bribed (constituerunt 
pretio) the gaolers so as to procure the prisoners a few hours' relaxa- 
tion in some better part of the prison (§ 3) ; and that the chief officer 
admitted 'many brethren' to see the prisoners for their mutual refresh- 
ment (§ 9; comp. § 16). In the Cyprianic correspondence again we 
have evidence to the same effect. Cyprian writes freely to the martyrs 
and confessors in prison, and the prisoners answer his letters — appa- 
rently without any obstruction from their keepers ^ Yet the purport 
of these letters is to inculcate an obstinate, though passive resistance 
to Roman law in maintaining a form of religion for which it allowed no 
standing ground. So it remains to the very last. What lesson does 
the history of Pamphilus teach us ? Pamphilus suffered incarceration 
for two years. Then he was martyred. During his imprisonment he 
was engaged in writing an elaborate work — the Defence of Origen — 
in company with his friend Eusebius, who apparently was himself at 
liberty. No one seems to have interfered in any way with this or 
kindred labours. 

Unhappily for criticism, but happily for humanity, histor}' is not 
logically consistent. Men are not automata, which move on certain 
rigid mechanical principles, but complex living souls with various 
motives, impulses, passions, reluctances. The keepers of John Hus 
at Constance were far more deeply and personally interested in pre- 
venting his disseminating the opinions which had locked the prison 
doors on him and for which he ultimately suffered, than the keepers of 
Ignatius at Smyrna and Troas. Indeed it is not probable that the 
human ' leopards ', who maltreated this early martyr, cared a straw 
whether Ignatius made an additional convert or not. The Bohemian 
prisoner too was guarded far more rigidly and treated far more cruelly 
than the Antiochene. Yet John Hus found means to communicate 
with his friends, enunciating his tenets with absolute freedom and 
denouncing his judges without any reserve of language. Here is a pas- 
sage from one of his letters : 

'Oh, if the Lord Jesus had said to the Council, "Let him that is with- 
out the sin of simony among you condemn Pope John," me seemeth they 
would have gone out one after another.... The great abomination is pride, 

^ See also Vit. et Pass. Cypr. 15. 


covetousness, and simony.... I hope to God that He will send others more 
worthy after me, who will expose the wickedness of antichrist.... Written 
on the festival of S. John the Baptist, in a dungeon and in fetters, in the 
recollection that John was likewise beheaded in a dungeon and in fetters 
for the sake of God's truth' (Wratislaw's John Hus p. 370 sq). 

Or this again : 

'Oh, if ye were to see this Council, which calls itself the "most holy" 
Council and asserts that it cannot err, ye would espy abomination exceeding 
great, of which I have heard commonly from the Swabians that Constance 
or 'Kostnice', their city, will not within thirty years be rid of the sins which 
this Council has committed in their city ; and I say furthermore that all men 
have been offended through this Council, and some have spit, because they 
saw abominable things.... Written on the Wednesday after S. John the 
Baptist, in prison and in fetters, in expectation of death' (ib. pp. 371 sq, 

with much more to the same effect. Is John Hus then a myth, or the 
Council of Constance a fiction ? 

Yet this is not a solitary case. There is hardly a single prolonged 
imprisonment of any notable political or religious personage of which 
something similar is not recorded'. The story of Mary Stuart's captivity 
is incredible from beginning to end, if tested by the principles of 
historical criticism which are applied to the record of Ignatius. The 
same may be said also of the imprisonment of John Bunyan^ 

For what does the literary work of Ignatius amount to? During 
a journey, occupying many months, he succeeded at two of his halting- 
places, Smyrna and Troas, in writing seven letters in all. They were 
in most instances certainly, in all probably, dictated. They bear all 
the marks of having been written under pressure of time and with 
inconvenient surroundings. They are mostly expressed in short sen- 

1 See for instance Bradford's letters in to levy fines in the town of Bedford. 
Foxe's Martyrs \\\. p. 196 sq. There was a riot there. The local officers 

2 Froude's Bunyan p. 80 sq 'His refused to assist in quelling it. The shops 
gaoler, not certainly without the sanction were shut. Bedford was occupied by 
ofthesheriff, let him go where he pleased; soldiers. Yet at this very time, Bunyan 

once even so far as London Friends, was again allowed to go abroad through 

in the first place, had free access to him, general connivance. He spent his nights 

and strangers were drawn to him by re- with his family. He even preached now 

putation; while the gaol was considered and then in the woods.' Offor's Works 

a private place, and he was allowed to of John Bunyan (1862) i. p. xc 'His 

preach there, at least occasionally, to his Majesty continued to keep him a prisoner 

fellow-prisoners This was not all. A for preaching more than six months after 

fresh and more severe Conventicle Act he had licensed him to preach!!' 

was passed in 1670. Attempts were made 


tences. Where a long connected paragraph is attempted, it generally 
fails. The grammar is dislocated and wrecked. There is no attempt 
at avoiding repetitions, which a literary forger with leisure at his com- 
mand would almost certainly have shunned. We could imagine that 
the letters, after being dictated, were not even read over to the author. 
The whole seven might have been written at two or three sittings of a 
few hours each. There is throughout not a single word reflecting on 
the prisoner's judges. There is only one sentence which speaks 
disparagingly of his guards {Rom. 5). Is there any difficulty in con- 
ceiving this sentence written, during the temporary absence of his 
guard, or when the soldier in charge, being a Syrian or a Roman, 
was ignorant of the Greek language?' 

From the circumstances of the condemnation and cajDtivity of Igna- 
tius, we turn next in order to his route". 

And here the geographical notices deserve our first consideration. 
By a careful examination and comparison of these notices we discover 
that he did not, as might have been expected, go by sea to Smyrna 
from Seleucia the port-town of Antioch, but that he traversed a great 
part of Asia Minor. They indicate also that having arrived at 
the valley of the Lycus a tributary of the Mteander, he did not con- 
tinue along the valley of the Mseander, in which case he would have 
passed in succession through Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus on his 
way to Smyrna, but took the northward branch of the road leading 
to the valleys of the Cogamus and Hermus, and thus he would pass 
through Philadelphia and Sardis before reaching his goal. I have already 

^ ' About a year before he [John Bun- Woi'ks of John Bunyan p. Ixxx sq. 

yan] was set at liberty, he received a very Is there anything half so incredible in the 

popular work, written by Edward Fowler, attitude and treatment of Ignatius, as 

a Bedfordshire clergyman, who was soon this liberty of action and license of de- 

after elevated to the see of Gloucester... fiance permitted to Bunyan? 
In the almost incredibly short time of ^ The most original and valuable part 

forty-two days, he, in jail, composed an of Zahn's important work Ignatius von 

answer consisting of 118 pages of small Antiochien relates to this point (p. 250 

quarto, closely printed... Of some of Mr sq); but so far as I have observed, it has 

Fowler's sentiments he says, " Here are been entirely ignored by the opponents 

pure dictates of a brutish, beastly man, of the genuineness of these Ignatian 

that neither knows himself nor one tittle letters. Zahn indeed treats the subject 

of the Word of God"... " I know none chiefly on the negative side, as answering 

so wedded thereto as yourselves, even the objections; but it has also the highest 

whole gang of your rabbling counterfeit positive value, as e.xhibiting a mass of 

clergy; who generally, like the ape you undesigned coincidences which cannot fail 

speak of, lie blowing up the applause and to influence opinion when duly weighed, 
glory of your trumpery," etc' Offor's 


referred to the exegetical and historical bearings of this fact (see 
above, p. ;^^ sq, and below, 11. pp. 2, 211, 241, 251, 256, 267), and 
I wish now to call attention to its evidential value. 

The point to be observed is, that though this route which has been 
sketched out, when once apprehended, commends itself, for it explains 
all notices and allusions in these epistles ; yet the fact does not lie on 
the surface so as to be obvious. So far is this from being the case, that 
the author of the Antiochene Acts altogether overlooks the bearing of 
these geographical references, and sends Ignatius by sea from Seleucia 
to Smyrna {Mart. Ign. Ant. 3 ; see esp. 11. pp. 384, 484 sq), though 
he seems certainly to have been acquainted with the epistles. The same 
view of his journey was taken also by Ussher and Pearson and the great 
majority of critics —even the ablest — until quiterecent times, notwithstand- 
ing that Eusebius had represented the matter correctly {H.E. iii. 36 t7?v hi 
'AaLa<s dvaKOfxiZy^v). Only when the spuriousness of the Antiochene Acts 
came to be generally acknowledged, was the journey by land recog- 
nized as the route indicated in the epistles. The fact is gathered from a 
comparison of passages scattered here and there in the letters. Thus in 
Rom. 5, writing from Smyrna, Ignatius speaks of himself as 'fighting 
with wild beasts ', for so he describes the harsh treatment of his guards, 
' by land and sea.' This expression however would not be decisive 
in itself If he had come to Smyrna by sea, the mention of the ' land ' 
must be prospective ; if on the other hand he had come by land, the 
mention of the 'sea' must be prospective, unless indeed we suppose him 
already to have crossed the water from Seleucia to some Cilician or 
Pamphylian port (see 11. p. 211). But a later passage in the same 
epistle {Rom. 9) is more explicit. He speaks of ' the churches which 
received ' him, ' not as a mere passer-by ' (otJ^ <^« TrapoSevovra), and adds 
that ' even those which did not lie on his route {ax firj TrpocrtJKova-aL /jlol 
T-rj oSw TTJ Kara crdpKa) went before him from city to city {Kara ttoXlv /ac 
-irporjyov).' No natural interpretation can be put on these v/ords which 
is consistent with the continuous voyage from Seleucia to Smyrna. 
The tricks of exegesis to which even the ablest critics have resorted to 
reconcile them with the assumed sea route will be seen in the notes on 
the passage (11. pp. 231, 232). 

But it is not here that the most subtle coincidences are to be sought. 
The main fact of the land journey might have been inferred by a 
careful reader, as it was inferred by Eusebius, notwithstanding the 
expression 'land and sea', which might put him on the wrong scent. 
It is when we come to trace the particular overland route which he 
took, that the undesigned coincidences reveal themselves. Not a word 


is said directly about this route or about the places which he visited 
on the way. But we infer from his language that he had not visited 
Ephesus or Magnesia or Tralles ; for he speaks only of seeing the 
Christian brotherhoods of these towns in or through their several repre- 
sentatives {Ephcs. I, 2, Magii. 2, 6, Tra//. i). Nor is there in his letters 
to these churches any allusion implying his personal presence among 
them. On the other hand the letter to the Philadelphians contains 
notices which imply that he had visited their city. The most explicit of 
these is in § 7 ; 'I cried out when I was present, I spoke with a loud 

voice, etc' [eKpavyaara fjura^v wv, iXdXovv /jieydXrj (fi(i)vy k.t.X.). But even 

this language is not quite clear, as the words fxera^v wv might be in- 
terpreted either 'when I was among you' or 'when I was among them'. 
Indeed some ancient scribes and some modern editors have read the 
passage differently, /j-eraiv wv eAa'A-ow ' in the midst of what I was 
saying' (see the note, 11. p. 267)'. Again in § 6 he writes, 'I thank 
my God that I bear a good conscience among you {cvawetSriTo^ djxi 
Iv vfxtv), and no man can boast either in secret or openly that I was 
burdensome to any one in small things or in great.' But here also his 
visit is rather implied than definitely stated. Again in § i he expresses 
his admiration of the character of their bishop, of whom his language 
implies that he has personal knowledge. But as there is no mention 
elsewhere of a visit of the Philadelphian bishop, or indeed of any 
Philadelphian delegate, to Smyrna, their meeting must presumably 
have taken place, if it took place at all, at Philadelphia itself. Again 
in § 8 he mentions, apparently with reference to the Philadelphian 
Christians themselves, a conflict of words which he had with certain 
heretical teachers. Again in § 1 1 he speaks of Agathopus as following 
him 'from Syria', and in Smyrn. 10 it is stated of this same person and 
his companion Philo that they ' followed in his track ' {iTrrjKoXovOrja-dv 
fxoi). But it appears from the context that these two persons were 
entertained on their journey at Philadelphia and at Smyrna. Thus 
after carefully weighing all the passages we are forced irresistibly to the 
conclusion that he had passed through Philadelphia on his way to 
Smyrna. Yet there is throughout no single direct statement of the fact 
so clear as to be beyond the reach of questioning. 

^ Bunsen makes strange liavoc of this Trpoa^x^re k.t.X., may refer to a cliarge 

expression {/^naiius V. A niioc/n'en -p. 72). given in the Epistle to Polycarp, where 

He translates sKpavyaffa /uera^i) wv, '■ Ich the very words occur (§ 6), apparently 

schricb cinen Brief, als ich unter ihnen forgetting that this letter purports to have 

war,' and he accordingly suggests that been written from Troas. 
the words which follow, ry e7rttr/c67r(fj 


We gather then that he did not visit Ephesus, Magnesia, or Tralles, 
and that he did visit Philadelphia. Now the itineraries show that the 
three former places lay on one route to Smyrna, and the last-mentioned 
on another, so that if he had visited any one of the former he could 
not have visited the latter, and conversely. But this route is nowhere 
directly indicated. The notices are all allusive, and the conclusions 

But the congruity of the narrative does not cease here. Critics 
have been perplexed by the presence of delegates from Ephesus, from 
Magnesia, and from Tralles, at Smyrna. It has been objected that if 
sufficient time be allowed for sending messengers to all these churches, 
apprising them of the saint's arrival at Smyrna, and again for the 
journey of the respective delegacies to this last-mentioned city, we 
are obliged to postulate a lengthy sojourn at Smyrna, which under 
the circumstances is most improbable. The difficulty has arisen from 
inattention to the topographical considerations which a close examina- 
tion of the epistles reveals. Now that we have ascertained the 
saint's route, the whole matter becomes clear. At the point where 
the routes bifurcate, and where Ignatius and his guard took the 
northern road, a messenger despatched along the southern would easily 
visit the three cities Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus, in succession, 
or the message might be passed along from Tralles to Magnesia and 
from Magnesia to Ephesus ; so that by one means or another the 
delegates would be prepared, and might easily, if need required, reach 
Smyrna even before Ignatius himself, for he appears to have halted 
some time at Philadelphia, if not elsewhere also. It would appear 
that from Laodicea on the Lycus, where the two routes diverge, the 
lengths of the successive stages in Roman miles by either road are 
somewhat as follows : 





















140 152 

so that there would be no great difference between the two. The 
numbers are only approximate '. 

^ See the papers by Prof. W. M. Ram- iv. p. 377 (comp. Strabo xiv. 29, p. 663). 
say in Jov.rn. of Hellen. Stnd. il. p. 44 sq, The distance between Sardis and Smj'rna 


Moreover the geographical position of these three cities explains 
other incidents in the narrative. We find that Ephesus sent to Smyrna 
its bishop Onesimus with four other delegates {Ephes. i, 2), and that 
Magnesia was represented by its bishop Damas and three others {Magn. 
2), while Tralles despatched only a single representative, the bishop 
Polybius {Trail i). The number of the delegates thus decreases with 
the distance of the places from Smyrna, the order of proximity being 
Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles. These several arrangements would be 
dictated by convenience (comp. Philad. 10, Polyc. 8, for similar cases). 
But the facts are ascertained from the three several letters ; they are not 
put into juxtaposition by the author ; nor is there any indication of the 
relative positions of the three places. 

The personal relations also in these epistles yield results not less 
striking than the geographical notices. It is very rarely that a forger in 
these ancient times has undertaken a fiction of such magnitude and 
variety without falling into the most violent anachronisms and contra- 
dictions. Not only is there nothing of this kind in our Ignatian 
letters, but all the incidental and allusive notices agree in a striking 
way ; and, so far as we are able to apply this test to them, they are in 
entire harmony with the external conditions of time and place. 

The martyr has passed through Philadelphia and Sardis in the 
manner indicated, and so he arrives at Smyrna. Here he receives 
delegacies from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles ; and in recognition 
of this welcome he writes letters to these three churches. In addition 
he writes also to Rome, apprising the Roman Christians that he is on 
his way and may be expected shortly. 

Of the Ephesian delegacy five persons are mentioned by name 
{Ephes. 2), including the bishop Onesimus, who is referred to more 
than once in the letter to the Ephesians {Ephes. i, 5, 6)'. Of two 
others likewise, Burrhus and Crocus, he has something to say. Crocus 
is commended as having refreshed him greatly. Accordingly, writing 
to the Romans from Smyrna, he especially mentions among the 
Ephesians who were with him, and whom he used as his amanuenses, 
Crocus ' that name beloved by me.' Probably he was dictating to 

(63 miles) is given to me by Prof. Ramsay Ignatius is the Onesimus of S. Paul, and 

as an approximate estimate, the railway accordingly finds an anachronism in these 

being much longer. epistles. He seems to have overlooked 

^ The name Onesimus was not un- the Onesimus of Melito, whose existence 

common in the ranks of society from shows the frequency of the name and 

which the Christians were chiefly re- therefore the futility of his argument 

cruited ; see below, li. p. 32. Daillc respecting the Ignatian Onesimus. 
(p. 316) assumes that the Onesimus of 


Crocus at the time when these words were penned. Of Burrhus, whom 
he styles his fellow-servant and a deacon, he expresses the hope that he 
may remain (eu;^o/i,ai irapajx^ivai avrov) to the honour of the Ephesians 
and their bishop. This expression is so incidental and allusive that we 
hardly see the force of it. . But turning to two epistles written from 
Troas {Philad. ii, Sviyrn. 12), we learn that Burrhus had continued in 
his company and journeyed with him from Smyrna to Troas. He is 
the amanuensis of the letters to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans ; 
and from the notices in these we find that he had been commissioned 
to accompany the saint to Troas, not only by the Ephesians to whom 
he belonged, but also by the Smyrnaeans among whom he had stayed. 
Thus the desire of Ignatius had been fulfilled. There is no indication 
that any other Ephesian was in his company at Troas. Indeed his 
silence suggests the contrary. 

But the mention of Burrhus points to another coincidence of a 
different kind. In the apocryphal Acts of S. John which bear the 
name of Leucius, the Apostle is represented as ordaining one Byrrhus 
or Burrhus deacon, and this same person takes a prominent part in the 
last scene of the Apostle's life (Zahn Acta Joa finis pp. 226, 244 sq ; 
see below, n. p. 34). There is no indication whatever that either the 
writer of these Acts had seen the Ignatian Epistles or the writer of the 
Ignatian Epistles these Acts (see Zahn /. c. p. clii sq) ; so that these 
Acts must be regarded as independent traditional testimony (of whatever 
value) to the existence of a person bearing this name and holding the 
office of deacon in the Church of Ephesus at this time. 

The Magnesian delegacy consisted of four persons, whose names 
are given. Of these the bishop Damas bears a name not uncommon in 
these parts, while the names of the presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, 
occur more than once in inscriptions and coins, as borne by Magnesians 
(see 11. pp. no, in). The deacon Zotion calls for no special remark. 

Among the persons whom Ignatius met at Smyrna, and whom he 
salutes in letters subsequently written thither, is one Alee {Smyrn. 13, 
Polyc. 8). In both passages he speaks of her as 'that name beloved by 
me {jo -koOtjtov ixol ovofxa).' The name Alee, though rare, is especially 
connected with Smyrna in an inscription, as I have pointed out (11. 
p. 325). But this is not the main coincidence. In the account of the 
martyrdom of Polycarp which took place at Smyrna some forty or 
fifty years after the assumed date of these Ignatian letters, Nicetes 
the father of the magistrate Herodes is mentioned quite incidentally as 
'the brother of Alee' {Afarf. Polyc. 17 tov tov 'Hpw8ov Trarepa, a'SeA^w 
Se "AXkt/s). Both Herodes and Nicetes are hostile to the Christians, 


Herodes is the magistrate who condemns Polycarp to death ; Nicetes 
takes part in his apprehension (§ 8) and interposes, as related in this 
very passage where his sister's name is mentioned (§ 1 7), to prevent his 
body being given up to the Christians. Yet Alee herself must have 
been a Christian and well known as such. Otherwise she would not 
have been mentioned thus incidentally in a letter addressed to the 
somewhat distant Church of the Philomelians. We have therefore 
in this Smyrnsean family a household divided against itself, in accord- 
ance with the evangelic prediction (Matt. x. 21, 35, Luke xxi. 16). 
But what forger would have invented such a position ? or having 
invented it, would have left his readers to infer it from a vague and 
casual notice like this ? Even Pearson, trusting his memory, can say 
carelessly of Nicetes that, as Alce's brother, he ' intercesserat pro 
Polycarpo' (see 11. p. 325) — this being the obvious attitude of a 
brother of Alee towards the martyr, prior to any evidence. The notice 
therefore has the highest value as a testimony to the authenticity of 
the account of Polycarp's martyrdom. But my object here is simply 
to call attention to the fact, as showing that there was an Alee well 
known as a Christian in Smyrna in the sub-apostolic ages. Moreover 
the dates altogether agree. The Alee mentioned in the account of 
Polycarp's martyrdom (a.d. 155 or 156), if still living, was probably 
then in advanced age; for her brother Nicetes had a son influential 
enough to be the chief magistrate of Smyrna and therefore probably in 
middle life at this time. Such a person might well have been known 
to Ignatius forty or fifty years before as a zealous Christian. 

Among others whom Ignatius salutes at Smyrna is the wife, or 
more probably the widow, 'of Epitropus with her whole household and 
those of her children' {Polyc. 8 tt^V tov 'ETrtTpoTrou crvv oAw tu oikw avTy\<i 
Koi Twi' T€Kvo)v). As I havc pointed out in the note on the passage (11. 
p. 359), we should not improbably treat tov Ittltpottov as the name of an 
office ; and, if so, we have here again a coincidence, for the inscriptions 
more than once speak of such a ' steward ' (eTrtVpoTros) in connexion 
^vith Smyrna. Moreover the expression itself suggests relations which 
a forger was not likely to invent. Salutations are sent not only to her 
ovm. household but to those of her children also. The whole sentence 
points to some widow, who had children married and with families of 
their own. The person so designated here is not improbably the same 
who is mentioned in the companion Epistle to the Smyrnaians, where 
Ignatius salutes 'the household of Gavia' [Smyrn. 13). 

A third Smyrnsean to whom a salutation is sent {Polyc. 8), Attalus, 
bears a name common in Smyrnrean inscriptions (see 11. p. 359). Of 


a fourth, Daphnus {Smyrn. 13), we can only say that, not being a 
very common name, it appears in at least one inscription {Bullett. deW 
Istit. Archeol. 1867, p. 48, dapnvs asiaticvs, quoted in Devit Lexic. 
Forcell. Onomast. s. v. Daphnus) as borne by a native of proconsular 

From Smyrna the martyr is represented in these epistles as going to 
Troas. From Troas three letters purport to have been written — to the 
Philadelphians, to the Smyrnjeans, and to Polycarp. The situation of 
affairs at Antioch has entirely changed meanwhile. Whereas in the 
letters from Smyrna he exhorts his correspondents to pray for the 
Church of Antioch, which is left desolate by his departure {Ephes. 21, 
Magn. 14, Trail. 13, Rom. 9), in those sent from Troas he desires that 
letters and delegates may be sent to congratulate this church on the 
restoration of peace, apparently by the cessation of persecution {Philad. 
10, Sfnyrfi. II, Polyc. 7), and he speaks of this altered state of things as 
an answer to the prayers of the Philadelphians and Smyrn^eans. But 
how did he learn that peace had been restored to the Church of 
Antioch ? In one place he says that it had been ' announced ' (a7n/y- 
ycX?;) to him {Philad. 10); in another that it had been 'shown' 
(iSrjXwOrj) to him {Polyc. 7). The meaning of these expressions is so 
far from obvious that some Ignatian critics have supposed a miraculous 
revelation to be implied in them (Bunsen Die drei aechten etc. p. 73, 
Den.'inger Ueber die Aechtheit etc. p. 45 ; comp. Cureton C. I. p. 312) — 
defenders of the genuineness resorting to this expedient in order to 
account for his possession of- this knowledge, and impugners on the 
other hand condemning the letters on the very ground that recourse 
is had to supernatural interposition. The true explanation however is 
found in the letters themselves. From these we learn that two deacons, 
Philo from Cilicia and Rhaius Agathopus from Syria, had followed in 
his wake. They evidently took the same route with him, as already 
mentioned ('p. 363). Thus we find that they were entertained first at 
Philadelphia {Philad. 11) and then at Smyrna {Smyrn. 10, 13). As he 
had already left Smyrna when they arrived there, they followed him 
to Troas, where they caught him up. But the inference is built on 
scattered notices pieced together. The facts relating to their journey 
are gathered from different epistles ; and they are not placed in any 
connexion with the tidings respecting the restoration of peace at 
Antioch. As we have seen, many intelligent Ignatian critics have 
failed to see this connexion. Yet, when once pointed out, it is the 
obvious and natural account of the receipt of these tidings. But again ; 
the movements of these two persons involve another coincidence. We 


have seen that the saint himself had a conflict with certain false teachers 
at Philadelphia (see above, p. 363 sq). It appears also that, though 
Philo and Agathopus were kindly received by the Philadelphians gene- 
rally, yet 'certain persons treated them contumeliously' (aTi|U,ao-ai'T€s). 
The party which showed its hostility to Ignatius himself was not likely 
to entertain any cordial feelings towards his followers. Of the coinci- 
dence in the name of Agathopus with the surroundings of Ignatius, as 
they appear in other passages, I shall have occasion to speak elsewhere 
(see below p. 388, and 11. p. 280 sq). 

But the injunctions respecting the delegates whom the martyr 
desires to be sent to Syria suggest another coincidence also. This 
desire is expressed to the Smyrnjeans, both in the epistle addressed to 
the Smyrncean Church as a body and in the epistle addressed to their 
bishop Polycarp specially, though obviously intended to be read to the 
church at large, as it appeals in the latter part (§§ 6, 7, 8) to the 
Smyrnaean Christians generally and reminds them of their duty to their 
bishop and to one another. What is the relation of the injunctions 
regarding these delegates in the two epistles respectively? 

At first sight they seem to be mere duplicates ; but this superficial 
view is soon corrected. The injunction in the Epistle to Polycarp 
presupposes the injunction in the Epistle to the Smyrnseans. In the 
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans the object in sending a delegate is distinctly 
stated {Smyrfi. 11 a-vyxaLpyjvai avTots K.T.A.), but nothing is said about 
the qualifications of the person to be sent. In the Episde to Polycarp 
on the other hand the object of the mission is mentioned in such vague 
terms [Po/yC. 7 tVa...8o^acri7 vixwv rrjv aoKvov dya-rr-qv) as would have 
been quite unintelligible, if nothing had gone before ; whereas great 
stress is laid on the character necessary in the person to be chosen as 
delegate. The comparison of the two therefore suggests the priority of 
the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. How does this agree with the more 
direct notices of time in the two epistles ? Here again there is entire 
harmony. The Epistle to Polycarp is represented as written on the eve 
of his hurried departure from Troas (§ 8). On the other hand in the 
case of the Smyrnaean letter, likewise written from Troas, there is no 
indication that his sojourn there was drawing to a close. Again, in the 
Smyrnaean letter there is mention of the Ephesian Burrhus as still 
remaining with him and acting as his amanuensis {S//ijrn. 12). In the 
letter to Polycarp there is no such mention. Burrhus seems to have 
left him meanwhile'. 

^ See Zahn, /. v. A. p. 282. 
IGN. I. 24 


We have hitherto been concerned mainly with his relations to the 
churches on his route ; but something must now be said about the 
church of his destination. The Roman Church occupies an exceptional 
position among the communities addressed in the Ignatian Epistles ; 
and the notices in the Roman letter therefore demand special attention. 
It will be seen hereafter (p. 398 sq) how the absence of any appeal to 
episcopal authority in this letter, and in this alone, harmonizes with 
the conditions of the Roman Church as indicated by other nearly 
contemporary documents. But this is not the only coincidence with 
external history. It is clear, as I have stated elsewhere (p. 32), that 
Ignatius is here represented as a condemned man, sent to Rome, not 
hke S. Paul, to be tried on appeal, but to be executed as a criminal. It 
is equally plain that he is apprehensive lest the interference of the Roman 
Christians should procure a mitigation or a reversal of his sentence, so 
that he will be robbed of the crown of martyrdom. How was this 
possible ? Who were these powerful friends who might be expected to 
rescue him from his fate ? Twenty years earlier, or twenty years later, 
than the assumed date of Ignatius, it is not probable that any persons 
possessing sufficient influence would have been found in the Roman 
Church. At least we have no evidence of their existence at either 
date. But just at this moment Christianity occupied a position of 
exceptional influence at Rome. During the last years of Domitian's 
reign the new religion had effected a lodgment in the imperial family 
itself The emperor's cousin-german Fiavius Clemens is stated to 
have been converted to the .Gospel ; the same also is recorded of his 
wife Flavia Domitilla who, besides her relationship by marriage, was 
herself also own niece of Domitian". The evidence of the catacombs in 
the Coemeterium Domitillae suggests that other members of the imperial 
family likewise became Christians. These facts betoken a more or less 

^ Kraus {Theolog. Quartalschr. 1873, tempus occupat, quod accidit in personis 

p. 131) attempts to controvert the correct eorum qui ad bestias damnantur^ (quoted 

view maintained by Uhlhorn, that Igna- by Wieseler p. 133). 

tius was sent to Rome for punishment as ^ On the subject of Fiavius Clemens 

a condemned criminal. He is fully an- and Flavia Domitilla, and generally on the 

swered by Wieseler Christetiverfolgtingen spread of Christianity among persons of 

p. 120 sq. The language of Ignatius in rank in Rome at this time, see Philip- 

Ro77i. 4, where he calls himself not only plans p. 2 1 sq, Clement of Rome, i. p. 29 

KaTaKpiTos, but dovXos, is illustrated by sq (ed. 2). This is the subject of two 

Digest, xlviii. 19. 29 ' Qui ultimo sup- articles by Hasenclever, C/^rzi/Z/r,^ Pros- 

plicio damnantur, statim et civitatem et elyten der hoheren Stdnde im ersten 

libertatem perdunt ; itaque praeoccupat yahrhundert, in. yahrb.f. Protest. Theol. 

hie casus mortem et nonnunquam longum 1882, p. 34 sq, p. 230 sq. 


widely spread movement among the upper classes in the direction of 
Christianity. In his last year Domitian stretched out his hand to 
vex the Church. Flavius Clemens was executed ; others, including 
Domitilla, suffered banishment for their faith. Further persecutions 
were prevented by his death. On the accession of Nerva (a.d. 96) 
the victims of Domitian's cruelty were restored and their penalties 
remitted. Nerva himself only reigned sixteen months, and was suc- 
ceeded by Trajan (a. d. 98). Thus in the early years of Trajan's reign 
there was a certain number of Christians moving in the highest circles 
of society at Rome ; and, if they chose to bestir themselves, it would 
not be a very difficult matter to rescue one poor victim from the tortures 
of the arena. We do not again hear of Christians in such high places 
till the reign of Commodus (a.d. 180 — 192), when the influence of 
Marcia with the emperor was exerted to alleviate the sufferings of 
certain Christian confessors (Hippol. Haer. ix. 12). 

But this is not the only point. There are also incidental allusions 
to the previous history of the Roman Church, which deserve notice. 
When our author writes 'I do not command you hke Peter and Paul' 
(§ 4), the words become full of meaning, if we suppose him to be 
alluding to personal relations of the two Apostles with the Roman 
Church. In fact the back-ground of this language is the recognition 
of the visit of S. Peter as well as S. Paul to Rome, which is persistently 
maintained in early tradition ; and thus it is a parallel to the joint 
mention of the two Apostles in Clement of Rome (§ 5), as the chief 
examples among the worthies of his time. The point to be observed 
however is not that the writer believed in the personal connexion of 
S. Peter and S. Paul with the Roman Church (this he might do, whether 
a genuine writer or not), but that in a perfectly natural way this belief 
is made the basis of an appeal, being indirectly assumed but not 
definitely stated. 

Again ; he writes to the Romans (§ 3), ' Ye never grudged any one, 
ye instructed others'; where the context shows that the 'grudging' and 
the ' instruction ' refer to their attitude towards Christian athletes 
striving for the crown of martyrdom. The bearing of the passage how- 
ever is at first sight obscure, and certainly does not explain itself But 
a clear light is thrown upon it by the Epistle of Clement, written in the 
name of the Roman Church, which appears to have been in the writer's 
mind when he speaks of the Romans as ' instructors of others.' More 
will be found on this subject in the note on the passage (11. p. 203). 

Again ; the writer evidently assumes throughout that the Roman 
Christians are aware of his present condition, and might already be 

24 — 2 


taking steps to obtain his pardon, or at least to procure a mitigation of 
his sentence. How is this to be explained? Quite incidentally, and 
therefore quite artlessly, at the close of the letter he mentions certain 
persons who had 'gone before him from Syria to Rome' (§ lo), and 
he sends a message to them. These persons then were the bearers of 
the news of his condemnation and journey to Rome. Thus there is an 
undesigned harmony between the general substance and the particular 
notices in the letter. 

Lastly; the Epistle to the Romans alone of all the letters is dated; 
and appropriately enough the Latin mode of dating is adopted, 'the 9th 
before the Kalends of September' (§ 10), i.e. August 24. Appropriate 
in itself, this date also agrees well with the day of Ignatius' martyrdom, 
as given by the earliest tradition, October 17 (see 11. p. 418 sq). This 
interval of 54 days would be long enough, and yet not too long, for the 
incidents which must find a place in it. The Epistle to the Romans 
was written from Smyrna, and presumably towards the close of the 
martyr's sojourn there. From Smyrna he proceeds to Troas. Three 
or four days would be a fair allowance for the voyage from Smyrna to 
Troas. If he travelled by land, it would occupy a somewhat longer time. 
It is not probable that he stayed many days at Troas. He himself 
tells us that his departure was hurried, so that he was unable to write 
certain letters as he had intended {Fo/yc. 8). What the cause of this 
hastened departure may have been, we can only conjecture. Not im- 
probably his guards now found that, if they were to arrive in Rome in 
time for the festival at which their prisoners were destined to fight with 
wild beasts, they must avoid all unnecessary delays. From Troas they 
sailed to Neapolis {Polyc. 8). The voyage between these two places 
took S. Paul the best part of two days with a good wind (Acts xvi. 11), 
but under less favourable circumstances it occupied five days (Acts 
XX. 6). The distance from Neapolis to Philippi is ten or twelve miles. 
Here there appears to have been a short halt (Polyc. Fhii. i, 9, 13) 
before setting out for Rome. Elsewhere {Fhilippians p. 38) data are 
given from which it appears that the journey from Philippi to Rome 
would occupy somewhere about a month, if there was no unnecessary 
halting and no inconvenient hurrying. In this case however the soldiers 
would probably have commissions to discharge on the way, which 
might occupy a little time. Thus the interval of between seven and 
eight weeks would be exhausted and not more than exhausted. On 
what authority this earliest tradition of the martyr's day, as October 17, 
may rest we cannot say; but not improbably it is authentic. In 
October a. d. 97 Trajan was adopted by Nerva, was nominated Caesar, 


was proclaimed imperator, and was associated in the tribunician power 
(see below 11. p. 398). The exact day is not known ; for we are only 
told that all this happened three months before Nerva's death, which 
took place on Jan. 25 or Jan. 27, a. d. 98 (see 11. p. 477). May we 
not conjecture that the festival, at which Ignatius perished, was the 
anniversary of this elevation of Trajan ? Inscriptions yet undiscovered 
may perhaps throw some light upon this point. 

(ii) TJieological Polemics. 

A highly valuable test of date will be found in the theological 
polemics of the author of these epistles. The personal theology of a 
writer is a very vague and uncertain criterion of date ; but his polemics, 
being connected with his historical surroundings, afford a more solid 
basis for an inference. The test will be twofold, positive and negative. 
We shall have to consider alike what th