YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

SECOND PART
VOL. I.

©amtrioge :
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SON,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

PART II.

S. IGNATIVS.
S. POLYCARP.

REVISED TEXTS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, DISSERTATIONS,
AND TRANSLATIONS.

BY
J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,
BISHOP OF DURHAM.

VOL. I.

Hontom :
MACMILLAN AND CO.
» 1885
[Al! Rights reserved.]

PREFACE.

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
IG. I. b

VI PREFACE.
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
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
Antiochien, 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

PREFACE. vn
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 (p. 282 sq.), 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 b2

Vlll PREFACE.
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 history 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 with
drawal 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

PREFACE. IX
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 passu, 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 had 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

X PREFACE.
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 I 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 (ll. p. 657 sq.), and whose knowledge has been placed
freely at my disposal 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 manu
scripts 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 Martyrdom from Professor Guidi's transcript
(ll. p. 865 sq.); and to Bryennios the Metropolitan of Nico-
media, 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 indebted 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 trou
blesome 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

PREFACE. xi
note the fact. One name however I cannot pass over in silence.
I am only one of many who have profited by the characteristic
unselfishness which led the late Mr A, A. VanSittart to devote
ungrudgingly 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

XH PREFACE.
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,
1885.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
FIRST VOLUME.

S. IGNATIUS. PAGE
r. IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 1—49
Clement and Ignatius contrasted [1, 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 Sharbel
and Barsamya [66 — 69].
2. MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 70—126
Preliminary statement [70, 71]. (1) Short Form [72, 73]. (2) Middle
Form, (i) Greek [73 — 76]. (ii) Latin ; History and character of this ver
sion [76 — 81]; Manuscripts [8 1 — 84]. (iii) Armenian. Date and character
of this version [84 — 86] ; a translation from the Syriac [86 — 88]. Acts of
Martyrdom translated from the Greek [89]. (iv) Syriac ; fragments of lost
version from which the Armenian was taken [89 — 99]. Acts of Martyrdom,
a separate translation [99 — 101]. (v) Copto-Thebaic [101, 102]. (3) Long
Form, (i) Greek [102 — 117]. (ii) Latin. Date and contents [117, 118];
manuscripts [118 — 125]; Character of the version [125, 126].

xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE
3. QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 127—221
1 Polycarp [127, 128]. 1 Martyrdom of Polycarp [129]. 3 Lucian
[129—133]. 4 Melito [133]- S Churches of Vienne and Lyons [133].
6 Athenagoras [134]. 7 Theophilus of Antioch [134]. 8 Ireneeus [135].
9 Clement of Alexandria [135]. 10 Acts of Perpetua [13S]. 11 Ter-
tullian [135]. 12 Origen [136]. 13 Apostolic Constitutions [136, 137].
14 Peter of Alexandria [137]. 15 Eusebius of Csesarea [137 — 140].
16 Cyril of Jerusalem [141]. 17 Athanasius [141]. 18 Syriac Mar-
tyrology [141]. 19 Ephrem Syrus [142]. 20 Basil of Csesarea [142].
21 John the Monk [142 — 146]. 22 Hieronymus [147 — 149]. 23 Chrys-
ostom [149 — 159]. 24 Cyrillonas [159]. 25 Rufinus [160, 161]. 26 Theo-
doret [161 — 164]. 27 John of Antioch [164]. 28 Socrates [164, 165].
29 Timotheus of Alexandria [165 — 168]. 30 Gelasius of Rome [168].
31 Dionysius the Areopagite [169]. 32 Philoxenus of Hierapolis [169].
33 Severus of Antioch [169 — 185]. 34 Anonymous Syriac writers [186 —
192] ; Merx on Syriac versions [192 — 194]. 35 Ephraem of Antioch [194].
36 Jovius the Monk [194]. 37 John Malalas [195]. 38 Gregory of Tours
I'9S]- 39 Evagrius [195]. 40 Stephanus Gobarus [195]. 41 Anastasius
of Antioch [196]. 42 Gregory the Great [196]. 43 Leontius of By
zantium [197]. 44 Antiochus the Monk [197 — 201]. 45 Chronicon Pas-
chale [201, 202]. 46 Theodoras the Presbyter [202]. 47 Maximus the
Confessor [202, 203]. 48 Anastasius of Sinai [203]. 49 Andreas of Crete
[203J- SP John °f Damascus [204 — 210]. 51 Theodoras of Studium
[210 — 212]. 52 Joseph the Hymnographer [212]. 53 Michael Syncellus
[213]- 54 Nicephorus of Constantinople [213, 214]. 55 Georgius Ha-
martolus [214]. 56 Ado of Vienne [214, 215]. 57 Antonius Melissa
[215— -217]. 58 Severus of Ashmunin [217 — 219]. 59 Solomon of Bassora
[219, 220]. 60 Gregory Barhebrseus [220]. Concluding remarks [220,
221].
4. SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 222—266
Table of contents of different recensions [222]. Correspondence with
S. John and the Virgin [223 — 226]. Long Recension ; doubts and contro
versies respecting it [227 — 231]. Ussher's discovery and its sequel [231 —
234]. Connexion of the Seven Additional Epistles with the Long Re
cension as shown by (i) Internal Evidence [234 — 237], (ii) External Evi
dence [237 — 241]. The Epistle to the Philippians [241 — 245]. Date and
purpose of the Long Recension ; (i) External testimony [245, 246] ; (ii) In
ternal testimony: (a) Ecclesiastical status [246 — 248]; (§) Persons and
places [248, 249] ; (7) Plagiarisms, relation to the Apostolic Constitu
tions [249 — 254]; (5) Doctrinal teaching [254 — 260]. Conclusions [260,
261]. Fate of this Recension [261, 262]. Arabic and ^Ethiopic frag
ments [262]. Zahn's theory respecting the Epistle to the Romans discussed
[263 — 266].
5. THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 267—314
Progress of the Ignatian controversy [267]. Discovery of the Cure
tonian Syriac and controversy thereupon [267 — 271]. Cureton's method

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
PAGE
discussed [271, 272]. Recent opinion unfavourable to his view [272, 273].
Examination of the Curetonian Letters. (1) External evidence : (i) Quota
tions [273 — 277]; (ii) Manuscripts and authorities for the text [277 — 280];
(iii) Historical relations of the two recensions [280 — 282]. (2) Internal
evidence: (i) Diction [282 — 301]; (ii) Connexion of thought [301 — 306];
(iii) Topics, theological, ecclesiastical, and personal [306 — 309]. Summing
up of this investigation [309, 310]. Motive of Curetonian Abridgement
[310 — 312]. Probable date [312 — 314].
6. THE GENUINENESS. 315—414
The question narrowed to the Seven Epistles [315]. Progress of the
controversy since Ussher's time; Daille and Pearson [315 — 321]. (1) Ex
ternal Evidence: Polycarp, Irenseus, Letter of the Smyrnasans, Letter of
Gallican Churches, Lucian, Origen, Eusebius [322 — 336]. Nicephorus
not adverse [336 — 340]. (2) Internal Evidence: (i) Historical and geo
graphical circumstances [340 — 359]. (ii) Theological polemics ; (a) Posi
tive side, Docetism and Judaism [359 — 368], (/3) Negative side [368 — 375].
(iii) Ecclesiastical conditions [375 — 387]. (iv) Literary obligations [387
— 39°]- (v) Personality of the writer [391 — 394]. (vi) Style and character
of the Letters ; Compounds [394 — 396], Latinisms [396], Reiterations [396,
397], Supposed anachronisms ('Leopard', 'Catholic', 'Christian') [397 —
404]. Indications of genuineness [404 — 407]. The case summed up [407 —
409]. Sylloge Polycarpiana [409 — 414].

S. POLYCARP.
1. POLYCARP THE ELDER. 417—459
The Pionian legend [417 — 420]. The name Polycarp [420, 421]. Date
of his birth [421, 422]. Contemporary events [422]. He was a Christian
from his birth, and probably a man of substance [423]. Was he married?
[423, 424]. His relations with (i) S. John and other Apostles [424 — 426] ;
(2) Ignatius and other contemporaries [426 — 428] ; (3) a. younger gene
ration, especially Irenaeus, Florinus, Pothinus, and the founders of the
Gallican Churches [428 — 433]. His old age [433]. Visit to Rome [433,
434]. The Roman Church at this time [435, 436]. Apprehension and
martyrdom [436 — 440]. Attitude of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and
M. Aurelius, towards the Christians [44(3 — 446]. The early Church of
Smyrna and its rulers ; the message in the Apocalypse [446—448]. Con
temporary religious opinion ; revival of paganism ; Csesar-worship [448 —
452]. The Jews at Smyrna [452 — 454]. The reliques and festival of
Polycarp [454 — 456]. No local tradition of sites [456]. Writings ascribed
to Polycarp [457]. Contemporary veneration of Polycarp [457, 458]. His
significance to the later Church, as ' the Elder' [458, 459].

xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE
The Church and the Empire under Hadrian, Pitts, and Marcus. 460—529
(1) Imperial Letters and Ordinances, (i) Hadrian, (a) Rescript
to Minucius Fundanus [460—464]; (/3) Letter to Servianus [464, 465].
(ii) Antoninus Pius. Letter to the Commune Asiae [465—469].
(iii) M. Aurelius. (o) Letter to the Roman People and Senate on the
Thundering Legion [469—476] ; W) Letter to Euxenianus and Epitaph of
Abercius [476—485] ; (7) Decree against Superstitious Rites [486].
(2) Acts and Notices of Martyrdoms, (i) Hadrian, (a) Telesphorus
Bishop of Rome [486] ; (/3) Symphorosa and her Seven Sons [486—489] ;
(7) Dionysius the Areopagite [489] ; (5) Alexander Bishop of Rome and
others [489, 490] ; (e) Other martyrs [490—492]. (ii) Antoninus Pius.
(a) Publius Bishop of Athens [492] ; (/3) Ptolemseus, Lucius, and another
[492, 493] ; (7) Polycarp and his companions [493]. (iii) M. Aurelius.
(a) Justin and his companions [493, 494]; (£) Thraseas, Sagaris, and
others [494, 495]; (7) Felicitas and her Seven Sons '[495— 499]; (5) The
Gallican martyrs [499, 500] ; (e) Csecilia and her companions [500 — 506] ;
(f) The Madaurian martyrs [506, 507] ; (i?) The Scillitan martyrs [508,
509] . Severity of the persecutions under M. Aurelius [509 — 5 11].
(3) Heathen writers ; (i) Epictetus, (ii) Phlegon, (iii) Fronto, (iv) Celsus,
(v) Galen, (vi) Apuleius, (vii) Lucian, (viii) Aristides, (ix) M. Antoninus
[51*— 51 71-
(4) Christian writers ; (i) Epistle to Diognetus, (ii) Hermas, (iii) Justin,
(iv) Minucius Felix, (v) Melito, (vi) Athenagoras, (vii) Theophilus of
Antioch, (viii) Tertullian, (ix) Hieronymus, (x) Sulpicius Severus, (xi) Oro-
sius, (xii) Xiphilinus, (xiii) Oracula Sibyllina [517 — 529].
2. MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 530— 535
Connexion of the Epistle with the Ignatian Letters [530, 531]. (i) Greek
Manuscripts [531— 534]; (ii) Latin Version [534, 535].
3. QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 536—561
1 Ignatius [536]. 2 Letter of the Smyrnseans [536]. 3 Lucian [537].
4 Irenseus [537 — 539]. 5 Polycrates [540]. 6 Tertullian [540]. 7 Acts
of Pionius [540, 541]. 8 Apostolical Constitutions [541]. 9 Eusebius
[54I—543]- IO Syriac Martyrology [544]- " Life of Polycarp [544].
12 Pseudo-Ignatius [544]. 13 Hieronymus [544, 545]. 14 Rufinus [545].
15 Macarius Magnes [545, 546]. 16 Socrates [546]. 17 Theodoret [546].
18 Sozomen [547]. 19 Timotheus of Alexandria [547]. 20 Dionysius the
Areopagite [548]. 21 Philoxenus of Hierapolis [548]. 22 Severus of
Antioch [548, 549]. 23 Anonymous Syriac Writers [549, 550]. 24 An-
tiochene Acts of Ignatius [550]. 25 Roman Acts of Ignatius [551].
26 Gregory of Tours [551, 552]. 27 Chronicon Paschale [552, 553].
28 Early Roman Martyrologies [553, 554]. 29 Warnaharius [554, 555].
30 Maximus the Confessor [555, 556]. 31 Michael Syncellus [556].
32 Nicephorus of Constantinople [556]. 33 Photius [556,^557]. 34 Geor-

TABLE OF CONTENTS. xvil

gius Hamartolus [557]. 35 Florus-Beda [558]. 36 Ado of Vienne [559,
560]. 37 Anthologia Palatina [560]. 38 Pseudoprochorus [560, 561].
39 Mensea [561].
4. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 562—587
Attacks on its genuineness and integrity [562 — 564]. Twofold in
vestigation, (i) External Evidence [564 — 566]. (ii) Internal Evidence.
(1) Position of Polycarp [566, 567] ; (2) References to S. Paul [567, 568] ;
(3) Supposed allusion to Marcion, involving two points, the character of
the heresy attacked and the reiteration of a phrase [568 — 572] ; (4) Refer
ences to Ignatius, involving two points of objection, irreconcilability of
statements, and suspiciousness of the references themselves [572 — 575] ;
(5) Prayer for ' kings ' [576]. Arguments for the genuineness [577]. Con
nexion with supposed Ignatian forgery, excluded by manifold contrasts
[577, 578] : (1) Ecclesiastical order [578] ; (2) Doctrinal statement [579,
580] ; (3) Scriptural quotations [580] ; (4) Style and character [580, 581] ;
(5) Individual expressions [581, 582]. Other considerations affecting the
relation to the Ignatian Epistles [582, 583]. Incidental tests of authen
ticity [584]. Ritschl's theory of interpolation considered [584 — 586]. Per
plexities of Renan's point of view [586, 587].
5. LETTER OF THE SMYRNMANS. 588—628
(1) The Main Document. Recent attacks on its genuineness or
integrity [588, 589]. External Testimony [589 — 593]. Internal Testi
mony. Claim to be written by eye-witnesses [593, 594]. Points of objec
tion considered. (1) Parallelism to our Lord's history [594 — 598]; (2) Mi
raculous element [598, 599] ; (3) Prophetic insight [599, 600] ; (4) Keim's
'postmark' [600, 601]; (5) Estimate of martyrs and martyrdom [601 —
604]; (6) The expression 'Catholic Church' [605 — 607]. Verisimilitude
of the narrative [607 — 609]. Hilgenfeld's theory of an interpolation [609,
610]. (2) The Supplementary Paragraphs, (i) The Chronological Ap
pendix. Parallelism to Clement's Epistle [610, 611]; dates and persons
[611, 612], especially Philip the Trallian [612 — 618] ; supposed anachronism
of the ' reign of Christ ' [619, 620] ; silence of Eusebius [620, 621]. (ii) The
Commendatory Postscript [621]. (iii) The History of the Transmission
[621, 622]. The true and the false Pionius. (i) The true Pionius.
Acts of Pionius — their genuineness and date [622 — 625]. Acts of Carpus
and Papylus [625, 626]. (ii) The false Pionius; the author of this last
postscript [626 — 628].
6. DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 629— 702
(1) The Year of the Martyrdom. The notice in Eusebius con
sidered [629 — 632]. Subsequent writers (Jerome, Chronicon Paschale,
Idatius, Georgius Hamartolus, Socrates, Menaaa) [632 — 634]. Modern
critics before Masson [634 — 636]. Masson's chronology of Aristides [636 —
638]. Revolt of Letronne and Borghesi against Masson [638], carried

xvill TABLE OF CONTENTS. page
further by Waddington [639]. Interval between the Consulate and Asiatic
pro-consulate [639—641]. Waddington's chronology and date for Quad-
ratus [641—644]. The war with Vologesus [645—647]. Waddington's
chronology tested in various ways [647 — 650]. Its general acceptance
[650]. Slight modifications possible. Readjustment of Lipsius and Hil-
genfeld considered, and Waddington confirmed [650—655]. Refutation of
attacks on Waddington's system by Wieseler [655 — 658] and by Keim
[658—660]. (2) The Day of Martyrdom. Data of the authorities [660].
Different days adopted: (i) February 23, the traditional date, confirmed
by the 'Asiatic' and 'Ephesian' solar calendars [661 — 663], by the state
ment of Galen [66g — 665], and by notices in the inscriptions [665, 666].
Differences in the names of the months considered [666 — 670]. (ii) April 6,
Wieseler's view, refuted [670, 671]. (iii) March 23. Statement of Sal
mon's view [672]. The arguments for the use of a lunar calendar at this
time discussed and rejected [673 — 678]. A solar calendar alone consistent
with the evidence [678]. Probable introduction of the solar calendar
under Augustus [678 — 680] by Paullus Fabius Maximus [680 — 682].
(iv) March 16, the date in the Paschal Chronicle [682]. Its adoption by
older critics discussed [683, 684]. The Syro-macedonian calendar [685].
Hilgenfeld's advocacy of this day considered [685 — 688]. Account of the
statement of Paschal Chronicle [688]. (v) January 16, the day in the
Latin Church, accounted for by a comparison of calendars [688, 689].
Explanation of the 'Great Sabbath' [690 — 693]. The heathen festival
which synchronized [693 — 695].
On the date of Pionius' Martyrdom.
The consulships at this epoch [695]. Acts of Pionius in the Collection
of Eusebius [695, 6g6]. The two extant recensions [696, 697]. The
notices of dates in these [697, 698]. The year of the martyrdom [698,
699]. The day (a) of the apprehension [699, 700], and (/3) of the martyr
dom [700, 701]. AuWs view [701, 702]. The day kept by the Western
Churches [702].
Imperial Fasti. 703, 704
INDEX. 705-736
Map illustrating the route of S. Ignatius. Eitd ofvoiumi

S. IGNATIUS.

I.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR.

HPHE 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 eirteiKeta, the 'sweet reasonable
ness,' which pervades his letter throughout. He is essentially a mode
rator. On the other hand, impetuosity, fire, headstrongness (if it be
not an injustice to apply this term to so noble a manifestation of
i.' IG. I. I

2 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
passion2 — 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
other. 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 God3.
1 Clem. Rom. 58, 62, fiera iKrevovs crov, Kal crov to iravra avvStoiKovvros
iirieixelas. See the note on the former (o-i/JLTravra Bioikovvtos MSS) aiirQ, rah
of these two passages. Tr6\e<n irepl tov fAijSiv veureplfciv irepl
2 See especially Rom. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, -rnj.uiv typaipev k.t.X. Here indeed there
7, Philad. 5, Smyrn. 4. In Rom. 7 he de- is no direct mention of Trajan, but he
scribes himself as ' enamoured of death ' must be included in iv oh, as one who
(ipQv rov airodaveiv). 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) ixbvoi vavroiv ...rbv ko.8' which could not have been made without
Tjfias iv 8iaf3o\jj Karao-TTjo-cu \6yov ij0i- qualifications and explanations. Ter-
\r)o-ai> l^ipoiv Kal Aopt,€Tiavos...a'K\a t^v tullian, who otherwise copies Melito,1
ixelvuv ayvoiav 0! (roi ei5<re/3«s iraripes supplies the omission; Apol. 5 'repe-
iirrjvapdiio-avTo, ttoW&kis 7ro\Xois iimrXii- rietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam
fopres £yyp&<pws, 6V01 irepl Totiruiv vea- cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano
replo-cu iToknyaav iv oh 0 ixh Trairiros gladio ferocisse . . . temptaverat et Domi-
<rov 'ASpi-avds ttoWois /xiv Kal aXKois Kal tianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate...
$ovv8av$...ypa.(pwv (palvercu, 6 8i irovrrip Tales semper nobis insecutores, injusti,

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR.

This favourable estimate of Trajan culminates in medieval legend.

impii, turpes, quos et ipsi damnare con-
suestis...Ceterumde tot exinde principi-
bus ad hodiemum divinum humanumque
sapientibus edite aliquem 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 nuUus
Hadrianus, quamquam omnium curiosi-
tatum explorator, nullus Vespasianus,
quamquam Judaeorum debellator, nullus
Pius, nullus Verus, impressit.' Lactan-
tius (de Mort. 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 memory 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 fiepiKus Kal Kara. iroXeis, c. 33
fiepiKois Kar' iirapxlav), and were brought
about either by an uprising of the
people or by the hostility of individual
magistrates (c. 31 ii- iwavaiTTacreus brip.uv,
c. 33 #<r&" omj p.iv tuv Stuiuv, lad' Siry
Si Kal tuv Kard x&Pas apxovruv k.t.a.) ;
while the emperor himself interposed
to mitigate their violence by laying
down the rule for Pliny's guidance that
the Christian community /*rj iKftpreitrBai
ptiv, iinrecbv Si Ko\al~ecr8ai. ' 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 Ruffinus, for the most part
set the fashion to subsequent writers.
Sulpicius Severus indeed goes further and
represents Trajan as stopping the per
secution (Chron. ii. 31 'Tertia perse

cute per Trajanum fuit ; qui cum tor-
mentis et quaestionibus nihil in Chris
tians morte aut poena jiignum 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 wpbs
ravra avriypa\pev [Tpaiavbs] to tujv
~S.picrTi.avHv <j>v\ov /iii iKJJiTeicdai, the
latter clause ifiirecrbv Si Ko\a£ecr6ai being
absent, as in the Armenian translation
(see Schoene 11. p. 162) and in the Syriac
Abridgment (ii. p. 214) likewise. In
Jerome's recension (ii. p. 165) the se
cond clause is restored direct from the
text of Tertullian, ' inquirendos non esse,
oblatos vero puniri oportere ' ; but Sul
picius Severus seems here to have had
the original of the Chronicon before
him (comp. Bernays Ueber die Chronik
des Sulpic. 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. 258), 'His edict was by
one party viewed as u. 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
(see 11. p. 496 sq.), and in the Acts
of Sharbil and his companions preserved
in Syriac (Moesinger Act. Syr. Sarbel.
p. 4), 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

4

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

Gregory the First— so runs the story1— 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 commemorated2. 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 me3?' The emperor, notwithstanding the

larly in the Armenian Version of the
Chronicon of Eusebius (Schone n. p.
162) the negative is omitted from Tra
jan's order pA) ixiftTeurBat, and he is re
presented as commanding the Christians
to be hunted out. From this version of
the Chronicon doubtless was derived the
notice in the Chronique de Michel le Grand
Patriarche des Syriens Jacobites (Venise
1868, translated by Langlois from the
Armenian) p. 105, 'L'empereur lui fit
repondre, Exterminez-les sans pitii'
1 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.
872—882). 2 The earlier biographer Paul writes,
' Cum quadam die per forum Trajani
procederet, et insignia misericordiae
ejus conspiceret, inter quae memoraiile
illud comperiret, 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 discover
ed in the Forum Romanum, he seems
to be issuing the edict relating to the
alimenta (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; yvvatKbs irapibvTos avrov 08$
nvi SeojU&ijs, to p.iv irpurov elwev airy
6V1 Ou irxoXafu, lireiTa, £>s iKelvy &»a-
Kpayovcra ?0?; Kal pji) fSaalkeve, iirc-
o-Tpk(pri Te Kal Xbyov airy ISaiKev. 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
alimenta 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, recordatus.'
3 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,

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 5
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 thefr 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 Damascene1 (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
biographers2, John the Deacon, is told by English 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
Salisbury and by Dante.
1 Joann. Damasc. In Fide Dormient.
16 (Op. I. p. 591, Lequien) on tovto
yvycriov rAei Kal &Sid^\rjTov, piAprvs 17
£<pa iraea Kal t) io-iripios. 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
Damas&us-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
Aquinas. 2 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.

6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 prayer1, though it is not admitted to a place in
the Mensea on S. Gregory's day (March 1 2). 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
earth2. 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
heaven3. Lastly of all, this legend received its crowning triumph, when
it found a home in Dante's poem4, and 'the great victory' of Gregory
over death and hell was handed down to all time enshrined in his un
dying verse6.
1 Euchol. Graec. u. 19 lis IXvcras rrjs 1612), Quaest. Disput. vi. Art. vi (Op.
fiio-Tiyos tpa'Cavbv 6V iKrevov; ivrtb- viii. 688) ; comp. Summa Theol. Fart.
Jews tov Soi\ov crov Tptryoplov tov Am- Tert. Suppl. Qusest. lxxi. Art. v (iv,
\byov, iiri.Kovcrov Kal ijyufic bcop.Cvav gov, 1242, ed. Migne).
quoted by Ussher (see below). 4 Purg. x. 73 ' L' alta gloria Del
2 Joann. Saresb. Polycraticus 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 Farad, xx. 44 sq., 106 sq., in which
Gregory he ends, ' Unde et merito prae- passage Dante adopts the solution of
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.' » The intense and general interest
3 The references to Thomas Aquinas which gathered about this story, even at
are In iv Libr. Sentent. Distinctio xiv. a later date, may be inferred from the
Quaest. ii. Art. ii (Op. vn. 223, ed. elaborate disquisition of Baronius Antial.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 7
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 nurnbers,
from caprice or in passion ; but the first imperial edict issued against

Eccles. 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
Bacon's Advancement of Learning i. 7. 5
(Works in. p. 304, ed. Ellis and
Spedding). It appears in Piers Plough
man's Vision 6857 — 6907 (ed. Wright),
and in Hans Sachs (Overbeck Ueier
die Gesetze etc. p. 154). In Henry of
Huntingdon, Hist. Angl. i (Mon. Hist.
1. 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; quem Gregorius
ab inferis revocavit ' etc. ; an embellish
ment of the story which he may have
got from the Aurea Legenda.
1 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
Ueier die Gesetze der Romischen Kaiser
von Trajan, etc., in his Studien zur
Geschichte der Alten Kirche I. p. 93 sq.
(1875), who discusses the question at
length. About the same time Aube in
his Persecutions de I'liglise etc. p. 186 sq.
(1875) advocated the same view. Some
years before (1866) he had written a
paper De la ligaliti du Christianisme
dans V Empire Romain pendant le premier
siicle, in the Acad, des Inscr. Comptes
Rendus Nouv. Ser. 11. 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 Trojans p. 118 sq. in Bii-
dinger's Untersuchungen zur Romischen

Kaisergeschichte Band 1 . Friedlander also
(1871) regards Trajan as the first to
legalise the persecution of the Christians
(Sittengeschichte Roms m. p. 518). Over-
beck's view has also been accepted by
Gbrres in his Beitrdge zur alteren Kir-
chengeschichte in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr.
f. Wissensch. Theol. xxi. p. 35 sq.
(1877), and again in his Christenthum
u. der Rbmische Stoat zur Zeit des Kaisers
Vespasianus in this same periodical xxn.
p. 492 sq. (1878). 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 Casaren p. 1 sq. (1878), by
Boissier Revue ArMologique FeVr. 1876,
by C. de la Berge Essai sur le Rigne de
Trajan p. 208 sq. (1877), and (to a
certain extent) also by Keim Aus dem
Urchristenthtim 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 Rom
u. das Christenthum p. 512 sq. (1881),
which appeared while these sheets were
going through the press, he takes a view
substantially the same as my own.]
Renan (Les Avangiles p. 470) says,
' Trajan fut le premier persecuteur syste-
matique du christianisme,' and again he
writes (p. 480) ' A partir de Trajan, le
christianisme est un crime d'Etat ; ' but
these statements are materially qualified
by his language elsewhere (p. 483), 'La
reponse de Trajan a Pline n'etait pas une
loi ; mais elle supposait des lois et en
fixait ^interpretation, '

8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 policy 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, Non 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 before1.
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
1 The passages of Melito and Ter- imperii clavum regimenque tenuerunt,
tullian are quoted above, p. 2, note 3. The nullos 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 vex-
Mort. Pers. 3, 4 * secutisque temporibus aret ecclesiam. Quis enim justitiam,
quibus multi ac boni principes Romani nisi malus, persequatur ? '

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 9
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 earliest 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 Philippi, ' 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. 33). Moreover this confusion
underlies the famous notice of Suetonius respecting Messianic distur
bances at Rome in the reign of Claudius1. 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 emphasize 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 (Ann. 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. 25 ; see Philippians p. 16.

IO EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
opposed to the hypothesis in question ; not ' the common people calls,'
but 'the common people called them 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
out1, 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 standing2,
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 new 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 1 6). 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 crucified3.' 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 stages4, 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 i See Philippians pp. 24, 331 sq.
datis legibus religio vetabatur, palamque .

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. II
would soon be cleared up. The Jews had a powerful advocate at head
quarters. If Nero ruled the world, Popptea 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 question1; 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 presents2. 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
sequence. 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 religion3.
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 Domitian4 was exercised in such a
1 See Philippians, pp. 39, 41, 330. was originally paid by every Jew for the
2 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
sufficiently 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 <pbpov Si rots
4 The didrachm, or half-shekel, which ottovStiitot' ovgiv 'lovBalois inifiaXe Sio

12 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 failed to be
otherwise3. 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 nationality, 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 sufferer. 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-

Spaxp-as Ikogtov KeXeiGas civd irav Itos els Judaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est ; ad
to KaTriTutXtov cf>ipeiv, ojG-jrep irpbrepov els quern deferebantur, qui vel improfessi
tov iv 'IepoGo\ip.ois vedv ovveriXovv, Dion Judaicam viverent vitam vel dissimulata
Cass. lxvi. 7 Kal air' iKelvov SISpaxp-ov origine imposita genti tributa non pepen-
irdxOy robs rd irdrpia abruiv idri ireptGriX- dissent.' The first class would include
Xovras Tip KawiTuXtip Ait /car' £tos d-rro- proselytes of the gate and other loose
<pipei.v. 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 (Einleitung in das
Med. Impir. Rom. 1. p. 476, Eckhel Neue Test. p. 541), Aube (Persicutions de
Num. Vet. vi. p. 404 sq.) ; but it is clear FFglise etc p. 423), and Gbrres (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. 14 (Op. ' qui vel improfessi Judaicam etc.' Gratz
1. p. 28, Delarue) Kal vvv 70W 'Ptafialuv (Geschichte der Juden IV. p. 79) would
paGtXevbvruv Kal 'lovSaluv to SlSpaxp.ov read 'vel uti professi' for 'vel impro-
avTois TeXoOvrojv. fessi.'
1 Sueton. Domit. 12 'Praeter ceteros 2 Sueton. Domit. 12.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 1 3
perty confiscated at the very least1.' 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 with 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. When for
instance Tacitus (Ann. ii. 85) says, 'A debate was held on the expulsion
of Egyptian and Judaic religious ceremonies (de sacris JEgyptiis Judaicis-
que pellendis) ; and a decree of the Senate was passed ordering that
four thousand persons of the class of freedmen, tainted 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 already drawn from the distinct notices of
the Neronian persecution.
2. Nor again does the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny2
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, lxvii. 44 iTryvixo'y Si vov ol Si tu>v 70W' ovai&v iaTepy6i]Gav .
' a/Mpoiv ZyKXripia aSebT-ifros, i<f> ijs Kal The bearing of the passage is discussed
aXXoi els to. 'lovSaluv 18t) i%oK£XXovTes in Philippians p. 22 sq.
iroXXol KareSiKdadiTGav, Kal ol ptiv airida- a Plin. Ep. X. 97, 98.

14 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 henceforward 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

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 1 5
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 Trajan.
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
Flavius ? 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
faith1. What may be the ground of this exceptional notice in the

1 Hilar. Pictav. c. Arian. c. 3, Op. 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 Bernays
dictisque regis Paulus, cum in theatro (Ueber die Chronik d. Sulpic. Sever.
spectaculum 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. 503, in 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

1 6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Melito1 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 Christians2, 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 reign3. 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 life-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 the Christians. Fourthly, the assertion,
question throughout. 'Secondly,' he that the first Flavius had persecuted the
writes, ' this father of the Church pro- Church in the manner of a Decius, con-
ceeds from the unhistorical assumption tradicts the historical connexion, that is
that Christianity was already a religio to say, the political situation of Chris-
illicita in the Apostolic age. Thirdly, tendom generally before Trajan's time.'
with this fundamental error is connected 1 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 26, quoted
the fact that Nero, the partial persecutor above, p. 2, note 3.
of Christianity from the transient caprice 2 Apol. 5, quoted above, p. -i, note 3.
of a despot, is placed on the same level 3 Euseb. H.E. v. 1.
with Decius the first systematic foe of

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 1 7
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 when 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
1 extent of the persecutions, has only to make deductions for the exag-
' gerations of Christian writers. In other words, it is assumed that the
3 Christians forgot nothing, but magnified- everything. 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
IG. I. 2

t8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
the first and second centuries. Yet no record whatever was preserved
of it in any Christian sources. Tertullian derived his knowledge of it
from the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan ; Eusebius from Tertul
lian ; later Christian writers from Tertullian 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 Trajan1, 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
danger that it might be perverted to political ends ; and therefore it
must be suppressed at all hazards. In the correspondence between
1 These fictitious persecutions under authority of John Malalas, I have dis-
Trajan are discussed and refuted by cussed elsewhere in this work (II. p. 438).
Gbrres Kaiser Trajan u. die Christliche The Syriac Acts of the Edessene, Martyrs
Tradition in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Sharbil, Barsamya, and others, are shown
Theol. xxi. p. 35 sq. (1877). The alleged to be unauthentic by Gorres. See also
persecution in Palestine under Tiberi- the appendix to this chapter (p. 62 sq.). '
anus, together with others given on the

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 1 9
Pliny and Trajan, which precedes the letters relating to the Christians,
two occasions arose on which the propraetor 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
emperor1 :
' 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
small.' We should regard this as an excess of caution, but it is far from
satisfying the emperor. Here is his reply.
Trajan to Pliny 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 form themselves into clubs all the
same2. 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.' (")
Amisa was a free city under a special treaty. The people presented
a petition to Pliny respecting certain convivial gatherings where there
1 See Plin. Ep. X. 42 (33), 43 (34). inserts ' sodalitates ' before 'que'; others
2 ' Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque insert other words ; others alter ' que
causa dederimus iis, Qui in idem contracti brevi' into 'quamvis breves' ; but plainly
fuerint, hetaeriae que (or quae) brevi fient.' it should be read 'hetaeriae aeque brevi
So the passage stood in the MS. Doring fient,' the ae being repeated.
2 — 2

20 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
was a subscription supper. 'I have appended it,' writes Pliny1, '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. x. 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 dead2. 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
1 See Plin. Ep. x. 93 (92), 94 (93). p. I0 sq. , to whom we are indebted for
2 See De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea 1. bringing this fact into prominence.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 21
protection which was accorded afterwards to its burial clubs. If there
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 treason1.' 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 ot
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 ot
Israel ; secondly, that he was a Christian and therefore the adherent of
an unlawful religion. Atticus was then proconsul, and before Atticus
he was tried. For many days he was tortured, to the astonishment of
all beholders, not least of the proconsul 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 informed3. 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.
1 The different offences, of which a 1866, p. 358 sq.
Christian might be guilty, are investi- 2 In Euseb. H. E. iii. 32.
gated by Leblant Sur les bases juridiques 3 See II. p. 447, on the relative
des poursuites dirigles contre les martyrs chronology of these persecutions.
in the Acad, des Inter., Comptes-rendus

2 2 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 was always the policy of the Jews in these agitations
to work upon the political 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 Caesar, ' 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 proconsul 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 brother1- 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 Cassar 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 Rome2. But it has been shown that both these documents
alike are absolutely valueless. We are therefore thrown back on the
incidental 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. 298) the ability and daring of the Samnite general, Gellius
1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iii. 20. unauthentic character of these two mar-
2 Mart. Ign. Ant. 2 (n. p. 477), tyrologies, see 11. p. 376 sq.
Mart. Ign. Rom. 2 (n. p. 496). For the

IGNATIUS THE -MARTYR. 23
Egnatius, foiled the Romans for a time, till the struggle was ended by
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. lxxv, 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 by 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. 1. 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 1. § 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 indifferently 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
Tyvcmos in Appian (Civ. i. 40, Schweighaeuser's note), though written
Egnatius in Livy. So too the lieutenant of Crassus is called 'lyvdrios
by Plutarch (Fit. 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
elsewhere (see Zahn, I. v. A. p. 28). There is however no persistence
either in the Greek or the Latin orthography of the name. Thus for
instance 'Eyvanos appears in inscriptions (e.g. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Grac.
Index p. 85 ; Corp. Inscr. Lat. vi. p. 85), and coins (Mionnet in. p. 16),
and in Dion Cassius (liii. 24, lxii. 26). On the other hand, Ignatius,
Ignatia, occur in Latin (e.g. Corp. Inscr. Lat. 11. 1457, if correctly so
read), though rarely, until a comparatively late date. There is there
fore no ground for supposing with Wieseler (Christenverfolg. d. Cdsaren
pp. 122, 133) that Ignatius and Egnatius are two separate names.
The name was not unknown in these parts. The Stoic, P. Egnatius
1 So evocatus becomes lovoKaros in Hegesippus (Eus. H- E- iii. 20).

24 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Celer, who under Nero won for himself an exceptional place in the
annals of crime (Juv. Sat. iii. 114 sq., Tac. Ann. xvi. 32, Hist. iv.
10, 40), was a native of Beyrout (Dion Cass. lxii. 26). At a later
date again, during the joint reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, we
have an inscription at Phseno or Phsena in Palestine, which mentions
one Egnatius Fuscus, a tribune stationed there (Boeckh Corp. Inscr.
4544 <ba.ivt)<JiOL dcpiepoicrav icpecrruiTOs ^[tXtap^ou] X£"y[e(3vos] y TafXXJiK^s;
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 find the name, though in the abbreviated form,
'Iyvans (Boeckh Inscr. Grcec. 9694).
Connected herewith is the name Nurono (Kliiai), by which the
martyr is not unfrequently designated in Syriac (Gregor. Barhebr.
Chron. 1. p. 42, ed. Abbeloos et Lamy ; Assem. Bibl. Orient, in. p.
16 sq.). Tentzel (Exerc. Sel. 1. p. 46 sq.), misled by Pocock's render- .
ing of the words of Barhebrseus (Hist. Dyn. vii. p. 119), '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. n. p. 1 sq., Fabric. Bibl. Grcec. vn. p. 32 sq., ed. Harles). The
true derivation was divined by Pearson (Ign. Epist. Gen. p. 1, annot.),
who called attention to a passage of Epiphanius (Heer. xxvi. 1), where
vovpa is given as the Syriac equivalent to irvp, and by others (e.g.
Wesseling Itin. Anton, p. 84 sq.). A passage in Severus the Mono-
physite patriarch of Antioch, 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 him1.
1 There is some corruption in the Sy- cause he foreknew things future ; for any
riac text here, as Zahn (/. v. A. p. 555) one who is only moderately acquainted
has noticed. As it stands, Severus is with the language of the Romans knows
made to say that the saint ' was appro- that Nurono, that is, Inflamed, as we also
priately named Ignatius from facts, be- say, was derived from hence; for the

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 25
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 (I. v. A. p. 73 sq.) is probably right
in conjecturing that it was introduced by the Syriac translator to
explain the meaning1. 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 tide 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. 1,
Trail. 4, Smyrn. 5). All such references melt away in the light of
criticism. On the other hand, an attempt has been made2 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
ficance which some late fathers and many modern critics have assigned
to it, this silence, though it would have little weight against the unani-
Romans call the fire which is lighted up nicus ?), which must have been nearly
and in flames, ignis. Who then is he that contemporary with Severus, and of which
has in himself the flame, that is to say, extant mss bear the dates a.d. 563, 569,
the lamp of divine love, and is inflamed 576, is preserved in great part in MSS
by the desire to suffer for Christ ? The in the British Museum (Wright's Catal.
same who also in writing to the Romans p. 546 sq.) and the Vatican (Assem.
says,' etc. (Cureton C. I. p. 247). The Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. MSS. Catal. 111.
prescience evidently should not be as- p. 241 sq.), but the portion containing
cribed to Ignatius himself, as in the this homily is wanting. Otherwise a corn-
present text, but to God or to the person parison of the two translations might
who gave him the name. have enabled us to arrive approximately
1 The translation of Severus, which at the original words of Severus. A
is here quoted, was made by Jacob of translator would have to deal freely with
Edessa, a.d. 701 (Wright's Catal. of the Greek here, and the insertion of a
Syr. MSS in the Brit. Mus. p. 534 sq.). word like Nurono was a necessity.
The older version (by Paul of Calli- 2 See n. p. 22.

26 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 (6 ko.1
©eo^o'pos), abound in the inscriptions. A few of these have been given
in the notes (n. p. 22); but, if it were necessary, instances might be multi
plied manifold. Illustrations also might be gathered from extant authors.
Thus a nearly contemporary writer, Aristides, mentions a certain
prsetor, 'Sedatus by name, but originally Theophilus' (Orat. 26 S^oaros
oVo/ita, to S' apxo.ioi' ©eo'^iAos, Op. i. p. 506, ed. Dindorf). So too Jose-
phus speaks in one place of 'Diodotus also surnamed Tryphon' (Ant. xiii,
5. 1 Ato'Soros o kol Tpvcpwv kiriKkridek), in another of 'Joseph also called
Caiaphas' (Ant. xviii. 3. 2 T<oo-r/7ros d kcu Ka'idcpas), 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 Map«o9 Avprfkios 6 ko.1
Ovrjpos (Chron. 11. p. 170, Schone), and elsewhere describes him as
M. Avpt]Xio<s Ovrjpos 6 Kal 'Avtwij/os (H. E. iv. 14). In like manner
Socrates (H. E. i. 30) tells of 'A^aa/? o Kal 'IaiaVvqs, 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.'1
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 A%ip.wvic)i]ii...o Kal A-ypi7T7ras tTrucA^eWs), 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. 1, 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 Caecilius from the presbyter to whom
he owed his conversion (Catal. 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 SavAos.-.o' xai IlavAos). Of the Palestinian martyrs
again it is related (Euseb. Mart. Pal. n), that they assumed the names
of the old prophets, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel, Daniel, instead of
1 See also Marquardt Privatleben der Rb'mer p. 25.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 27
their original names, which in some cases were derived from idols (tlSw-
Xikcov oVtw el tux01)- 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' (Otocpopos) or 'the God-
bearer' (6eo<p6pos).
(1) 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, unlike 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. 1), 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
Smyrnseans (§ 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 eum usque in corde gerebas,
Pictores Christum dant tibi ferre humeris
(see M. Miiller, Science of Language, 2nd Ser. p. 552 sq.). In the older
accounts he is a converted heathen, who takes the name Xpiorocpo'pos 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. 1.
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 0£o<po'pos, which however
in this instance was correctlv taken in an active sense. Vincentius of

28 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Beauvais (Spec. 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 legitur);
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
€KTp<op.a, 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. 1 1). He speaks of himself as 'the last' (errxaTos) 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 loss of precedence 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 (I. 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, like 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-

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 29
chene bishops, or (if S. Peter be reckoned) the third1. Of extant writers
our first authority for this statement is Origen (Horn, vi in Luc. § 1, Op.
in. p. 938 a), who however does not give the name of Ignatius' predeces
sor. This missing name, Euodius, is supplied by Eusebius (H. E. iii.
22; Chron. 11. pp. 152, 158, ed. Schone), 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 (n. p. 450 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 explicit2; 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 Peter3.' In the Apostolical Constitu
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: (1) 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 Antioeh, 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 cISo? irXeKop-evoV ovtos Si ian to per'
without additions, by Origen (1. c. pt.era ixelvov tovtov StaSi^aaBai rty apxyv...
tov pM.xdpi.ov RiTpov), Eusebius (Chron. ourw 817 koI Uirpov /xiXXovros ivrev$ev
II. p. 213, ed. Schone; H. E. iii. 22, 36 airoSfip.eiv, trepov dvrlpporov Jlirpov Si-
T7)j /cot' 'Ajinoxeiav JliTpov StaSoxvs ; SoATKaXov t) tov irvevp.aTOS avretG-qyaye
Qucest. adSteph. 1 p.erd robs AttogtoXovs), x<V'S «-t-a- Tnus Euodius is altogether
and others ; the ' third, ' with a mention of ignored.
S. Peter, by Jerome (Vir. III. 16 'post 3 Epist. 151 (Op. iv. p. 1312, ed.
Petrum apostolum') and Socrates (H. E. Schulze) 'lyvdnos ixeivos 0 iroXvBpiXXrjTOs,
vi. 8 dirb tov diroGToXov Jlirpov). 6 Sid tt/s tov p.eydXov Uirpov Sepias ripi
2 Op. II. p. 597 iweiSi) Si ipxyooTiv apx<-epuGvvr)v SeiJx.p,evos.
Uirpov, Kal Trifxirrov e| avTov Gritpavov

30 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
The origin and spread of this form of the tradition is discussed below
(n. p. 473 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 (n. p. 446 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. 110, 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. no, 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. n, as Zahn
seems disposed to think. Even though o-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-vvrjvecrav ' consented unto'
seems slightly more probable than crvvija-av ' 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 (toV rpoirov tov opa/iotTos rrj h

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 3 1
'Avnoxeia €KK\i)arla wape'SuiKev), whence this custom spread likewise
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 Barhebrseus (Patr. Ant. 3, 1. p. 42,
ed. Abbeloos et Lamy), by Nicephoras Callistus (H. E. xiii. 8), and by
Amr of Tirhani (Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 397). A tradition which
appears so late does not deserve consideration, as containing any
element of historical fact ; but it is a matter of some little 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 musterings of the principalities,'
and partly on his directions (not however intended in this literal sense)
to one and another church (Ephes. 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 arrange
ments of the Greek chorus. It was practised with much elaboration
of detail in the psalmody of the Jews, as appears from the account
which Philo gives of the Egyptian Therapeutes1. Its introduction into
the Christian Church therefore was a matter of course almost from the
beginning2; and, when we read in Pliny (Epist. x. 97) that the Chris
tians of Bithynia sang hymns to Christ as to a god ' alternately ' (secum
invicem), we may reasonably infer that the practice of antiphonal sing
ing prevailed far beyond the limits of the Church of Antioch even in
the time of Ignatius himself3.
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 has been shown elsewhere (n. p. 376 sq.) that the Martyrologies
of Ignatius cannot be accepted as authentic history. With these the
1 Philo de Vit. Cont. 11 (n. p. 485) XPe^t Ka^ avriGrpoqiovs Toiovpievoi k.t.X.
elra ctSown ireiroiripiivovs els tov Oebv 2 See Harnack Christl. Gemeindegot-
vp.vovs toXXois pAhpois xal fiiXeGi., t% p.iv tesdienst p. 221 sq.
GvviyxovvTes, rxi Si avrirpoivois dpp.o- 3 Theodoret, H. E. ii. 24 (19), ascribes
vlais iirixeipovoptovvres xal iiropxovp.evoi, this mode of singing to Flavianus and
Kal iTiSeidfavTes Tore piiv to, TpoGdSia, Diodorus in the reign of Constantius.
Tore Si to GTaGip.a, arporpas re rds iv But see the note of Valois on Socr. 1. c.

32 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. 12, 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. 1, 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
has 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 arena 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 (Rom. 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

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 33
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 (Rom. 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 sword1 If elsewhere he mentions,
as possibilities which he was prepared to meet, ' the fire, the sword, the
wild beasts' (Smyrn. 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
(Rom. 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 n. 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
1 For S.Paul see Tertull.ii-<7^.i5 'Tunc and Lyons, the original document pre-
Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur na- served in Euseb. H. E. v. 1 § 43 00-01
(itivitatem, cum illic martyrii renascitur f.iv iSoKovv jroXweiav 'F<ap.alo>v iaxriKivai.,
a generositate '; for the martyrs of Vienne tovtwv dvirep.ve ros Ketj>a\as k.t.X.
IG. I. 3

34 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
traverses Asia Minor from East to West bifurcates1. The northew
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 reaches Ephesus (see n. 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 (n. 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
Church. 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 j
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. 1, 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 (Philai
11, Smyrn. 12). Of Crocus also he speaks in affectionate terms (Ron.
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 Zorion
(Magn. 2). Of all these Ignatius speaks in language of high commen-
1 Herod, vii. 31 iis Si iK rijs ipvyiys cj>epovGr)s, ttjs Si is Se£ir/v is 2dp8is urX
ioifiaXe is tjjV AvSIijv, ax^ofiiv-qs tt\s Xerxes, like Ignatius, took the road i
o5ow, Kal rrjs p.iv is apiaTepty iwl Kaphjs through Sardis.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 35
dation. Tralles, being more distant, was not so largely represented;
but her bishop Polybius came, and he was in himself a host (Trail. 1).
Of the members of the Smyrnsean 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, Magn. 15, Smyrn. 12, Polyc. 1, 7, 8).
Next in order of prominence comes Alee, 'beloved name to me'
(Smyrn. 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 (Mart. Polyc. 8, 17). He mentions by name likewise Eutecnus,
Attalus 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 Magnesians, 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
stances. 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 land and
3—2

36 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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' (Philad. 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 (Philad. 10,
Smyrn. n). More especially Polycarp is enjoined to select an excep- l
tionally trustworthy representative, to act in this capacity of 'God's
courier' (Polyc. 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 (Polyc. 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' (Poi^

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 37
Phil. 1). Of these others two are especially mentioned by name, Zosi-
mus and Rufus (ib. 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 tos €7rto-ToXas...Tas wep.<p$eiaa'; ijp.Lv)
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 Philippians, he knows nothing about the subse
quent moments 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
y army of martyrs. After S. Stephen, the leader of the band, no martyr-

38 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
dom has had so potent an influence on the Church as his. The tw"6
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 Epistle 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. 38. 4) is the passage in which he
describes himself as the wheat-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.
It is a cheap wisdom which at the study table or over the pulpit desk
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 victory 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 was life
and life was death. Pie 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.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 39
So should the frail become the perfect, rapt
From glory of pain to glory of joy1.
He felt that if his friends, kindly cruel, should interpose between him
and martyrdom, a golden opportunity would be lost and a grievous
wound inflicted on the Church of Christ. Who shall say that he was
wrong? Would it not have been an irreparable loss, if their intercessions
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 rougher 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. 78.

401 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
Irenseus 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 likely 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 committed1. 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
1 Eusebius (H. E. vi. 34) relates the (Chron. Pasch. p. 503 sq., ed. Bonn.),
incident, but does not name either the He stated that Babylas repelled both
place or the bishop (tov TrpiiKaSe irpoeoTu- Philip and his wife from the church, and
tos). Philip however would pass through he 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 the death of Gordian, he perfidiously and
History Babylas would be bishop of that cruelly slew this prince, and himself seized
see at the time, for his accession is men- the empire. Somewhat later Chrysostom
tioned earlier (vi. 29), and his death tells a similar story, which he decks out
later (vi. 39). On the other hand in the with all the luxuriance of his rhetoric;
Chronicon (both the Armenian and but he does not mention the name of
Jerome's recension) the accession of Philip or of Gordian, and he represents.
Babylas is placed after the death of the victim as the son of a foreign king
Philip (n. 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. Ssq.
Antioch, about A, D. 350, gave the names Op. 11. p. 544 sq.).

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR.

41

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
tion1. 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 Caesar
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

1 This seems to be the natural inter
pretation of the earliest notice of his
death; Euseb. H. E. vi. 39 tov Ba^uXa
pLera T7]v bfioXoylav iv Seap.orr'qplip pceraX-
Xdi-avros. For the accounts of later
writers see Tillemont H. E. 111. 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. (1) Eusebius (about a.d. 325) re
lates his repulse of Philip and his death
under Decius, without suggesting any
connexion 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 Emp. in. p.
645 sq. An attempt is made in the Bol-
landist Act. Sanct. Sept. IV. p. 438 sq. to
defend Chrysostom'snarrative ; 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 ex
cellent authority for the events connected
with the removal of the reliques from
Daphne, which occurred only twenty
years before he wrote ; but for the mar
tyrdom, which happened 130 years be
fore, he is worthless.
Another account, mentioned apparently
with favour by Philostorgius (1. c.) and
appearing commonly at a later date, makes
Numerianus (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. m. p. 729 sq.

42 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 attraction1. It was thought
disgraceful, says the Christian historian, for any decent man to set
foot in this suburb2. 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 Julian3,
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 Misop. 361
time see especially Sozom. HE. v. 19, (p. 466, Hertlein); Liban. Or.m. p. 331
Chrysost. de S. Bai. <.. Jul. 12 sq. sq. ; Chrysost de Hierom. Bab., Op. II. p.
(P- 555 sq.), Liban. Or. I. p. 303 sq., p. 531 sq., de S. Bab. c. Jul. 12 sq., Op. II.
351 sq., III. p. 332 sq. (ed. Reiske). p. 555 sq. ; Ruffin. H. E. x. 35 sq.;
2 Sozom. I.e. imfsalveiv tois imelKeaiv Sozom. H. E. v. 19 sq. ; Socr. H. E.'ii.
aloxpbv ivop.L£eTo ; comp. Chrysost. p. 18 sq. ; Theodt. H. E. iii. 6 sq., Gmc
555 sq. Aff. Cur. x (Op. IV. p. 964, Schulze);
3 The following are the authorities for Philostorg. H. E. vii. 8 sq. ; Evagr. ff.M.
the incidents connected with the removal i. 16 ; Theophanes Chronogr. p. 76 sq.,
of the reliques and the conflagration of ed. Bonn.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR.

43

bones'. So the younger brother undid the work of the elder. Julian
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 restingplace within the city. Along the whole
route — the Daphnsean sanctuary was four or five miles distant from the
city 3 — 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 torture4 ; 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 Daphnsan grove. Shortly after the re
moval of the martyr's bones, a fire broke out in the shrine5. The

1 Julian in Cyr. <.. Julian, p. 335
(Spanheim) and elsewhere.
2 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 in-
sulam 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 (5ii to p.r)Skva tusv
dXXuv veKpwv, dXXd. pjovov tov pAprvpa
p.eraKivri$%vai exeWev ; comp. also p. 534) ;
and so too Theodoret (H. E. iii. 6) : and
their account is borne out by the language
of Julian himself (Misop. 361 e-rrel Si
iireTreptij/ip.eBa tov vexpdv ttJs haxpvris...
rots virip tov Xeupdvaiv TryavaKTijKOGi. tov
veKpov) and of Libanius (Or. ill. p. 333
vexpov twos evoxXovvros), so that there
can be no doubt as to the motive or
the effect of the emperor's orders,
whether they are couched in general
terms or not.
8 Ruffinus says 'six,' but this ap
pears to be an exaggeration.

4 One of the chief sufferers, Theo
doras, was afterwards known to Ruffinus
(x. 36), who questioned him about the
incident ; see also Socrates (H. E. iii. 19,
who mentions this interview with Ruffinus.
It is alluded to also by Sozom. v. 20,
Theodt. H. E. iii. 7, but they speak of
'certain persons' and do not mention
Ruffinus by name. Gibbon seems to
confuse this young man Theodoras 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 St Theodore in
the Acta Sincera of Ruinart.' On the
confusion of the names ' Theodoras,'
' Theodoretus,' see Tillemont H. E. vii.
P- 735-
5 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

44

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

1

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 wood1. 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 heaven3. 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 same4.

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
temple. 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 Misopogon p.
361 he himself speaks vaguely and not
very intelligibly, oi Si elVe XaBovres etre
fii} to irvp iSet^av exeivo.
3 All those Christian writers who
mention the conflagration account for it
in this way. They regard it as an an
swer to the prayers of the martyr, who
thus confounded the demon ; Chrysost.
p. 565, etc. ; Theodoret 11. cc. ; Philostorg.
1. c. Sozomen (H. E.y. 20) says iSoxei Si

tols XpiGTiavois Kara atrTjGiv tov pdprvpos
Berfkarov ep.ireGetv Tip Salpiovt. irvp, ol Se
"EXX^pes eXoyoirolovv HLpiGTiavCiv elvai to
Spa/xa k.t.X. Theodoret (HE. 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. iu. p. 334)
believes it was the work of an incendiary,
but does not name the Christians.
4 The successive resting-places of Ba
bylas were as follows ; (1) He lay in a
martyrium within the city, Chrysost. p.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR.

45

But, though obscured for a time
martyr, the memory of Ignatius
554 stl> 5^51 etc-; (2) He was translated
by the Coesar Gallus to the precincts of
the Daphnasan Apollo, and placed in a
martyrium there ; (3) He was removed
by order of Julian and replaced by the
Christians in his former martyrium within
the city (Chrysost. p. 564 twv UpHv etoa
ireptptcXw iv oh xal irporepov ^tutxcwcv
uv irplv els ryu Ad<pvriv iXBetv, p. 565 els
Tip ttoXw dtpiKero ; comp. ib. Tb piaprvpiov
ixarepov, to Te iv Ty &d<pVQ t6 re iv T%
7ro\ei) ; (4) A magnificent church was
built 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
Hierom. Bab. p. 535 1) Si tov GeoC x&Pls
ovk etaGev e/cet dLijveK&s pieivai, dXXd
irdXw ay-roc tou irora/xov tripav fLeriGTTj-
aev k.t. X. The bishop (his name is not
mentioned by Chrysostom, but Meletius
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 38 1 ) he was buried
by the side of the martyr, for whose
honour he had been so zealous (comp.
also Sozom. H. E. vii. 10). This church
is mentioned by Evagrius nearly two
centuries later (H. E.i. 16 veds avrip irpo
ttjs iroXews Trap.p.eyi8i)s dvlararo 6 Kal
fiixpt 7Jp.03v Gtoftfievos).
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 de 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, ubi cum Apollo mortui
hominis vicinia os sibi occludi questus
est...Julianus ea ossa in illud 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, etXxvGav tyjv Bt)k-qv eirl
ttjv ttoXiv &Gel GTaSia TeoGapdxovra, ov
vvv 0 pAprrvs KeiTai SeStiiKUis air avrov tt\v
irpoGrryopiav t$ TOirtp, thus overlooking the
period when the saint's bones reposed a
second time within his original mar
tyrium. Again Stephens, Saint Chrysos
tom 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 17 Si XApva% ovKhi irdXiv dviyerai),
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 H. E. m.
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 KariipXele. . .
rb /taprtipiov iKdrepov, t6 re iv Trj Adtpvij
tS re iv ttj irbXei, el ps>i tov 8vpu>0 6 gjbpos
rpi pelfrav k.t.X., 'He had burnt both the
martyria...if his fear had not been greater

4.6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
decades of the fourth century his grave was shown in the Christian
cemetery, outside the Daphnitic gate1 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 birth2.
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 with
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 filleth those who come to
him with blessings, with confidence, with a noble spirit, and with mudi
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.
in. p. 406 sq.) correctly describes the x Hieron. Catal. 16 'Reliquiae ejus
successive migrations of the bones of Antiochiae jacent extra portam Daphni-
Babylas. ticam in coemeterio ' ; see below II. pp.
Gibbon's command and marshalling 376 sq. , 429 sq.
of facts is admirable ; and he is gene- 2 See below 11. p. 416 sq., with re-
rally credited with exceptional accuracy. gard to the day of S. Ignatius.
But having examined the two pages re-

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 47
Church' of Antioch1, 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 description3. But the thrice-repeated invitation to 'come hither3'
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
martyrium built over the grave in the cemetery near the Daphnitic
gate. 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 metropolis' — Memno-
nius, Zoilus, Callistus, Anatolius, Nymphidius. The empress Eudocia
herself claimed kindred with the Antio'chenes and bore her part in this
labour of love4 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 honours5.' The genius of the city, the Fortune of
Antioch6, 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 Tychaeum or Temple of Fortune7. To this
ancient shrine the remains of Ignatius were borne aloft on a car with
1 C. O. Miiller de Antiq. Antioch, p. * Evagr. HE. i. 16. The passage is
103 sq. quoted at length below, n. p. 386, note.
3 Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 50; comp. 6 For this deity and her statue see
L. C. ix. § 15. Miiller p. 35 sq.
3 Op. II. p. 601 ivravBa irapayt- 7 Ammian. xxiii. 1 'gradile Genii
vIgBw, ivravBa irapaylvea8ai, iXBiav iv- templum,' Julian Misop. p. 546 (Spanheim)
radBa. rb ttjs tvxw Tipevos, Libanius Pro Tempt.
* Miiller, p. 115. n. p. 201 (Reiske) ; see Miiller p. 40.

48 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Tychaeum1. 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 festival2.
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 excellence '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 building3. 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 eclipse 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. 432. 3 See below, 11. p. 419 sq.
2 See Marl. Ign. Ant. 6, with the 4 Evagr. H. E. i. 16, quoted below,
note (11. p. 486). 11. p. 386, note.

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR.

49

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 see1. 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 liturgy, though obviously late in date, bears the
name of Ignatius*.
In the West on the other hand he seems never to have been a
popular saint. It will be shown elsewhere (n. p. 427) that his foothold
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 date3: and in the sixteenth
century it acquired an unwonted prominence in the founder of the
most powerful order in Christendom.

1 See Assemani Bibl. Orient. II. pp.
381, 382, and also his Dissertatio de
Monophysitis (which is unpaged). From
the close of the 16th century the practice
has been constant. I have not how
ever found any notice which connects

it with Ignatius the apostolic father.
2 See Renaudot Liturg. Orient. 11.
p. 214 sq.
3 Yonge's History of Christian Names
I. p. 401 sq.

IG. I.

50 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

Notices relating to persecutions under Trajan.
I.
C. Plini et Trajani Epistulae 96, 97.
C. PLINIUS TRAJANO IMPERATORI.
Sollemne est mihi, domine, omnia de quibus 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 fait
desisse non prosit, nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia
nornini puniantur. Interim [in] iis qui ad me tamquam Christiani defere-
bantur hunc sum secutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiarii. 1
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
urbem remittendos. Mox ipso tractatu, ut fieri solet, difiundente se i;
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 dt
been the reading of the MS, since it ap- Ira i. 18 'Cumiratus ducijussisseteum...
pears in Avantius, though Aldus has conscendit tribunal furens Piso ac jubet
'instraere.' If it be correct, the metaphor duci utramque... ipsum centurionem, qui
is taken from the erection of a building in damnatum reduxerat, duci jussit... 'Te,
a vacant area; e.g. Cie. Resp. ii. ii inquit, duci jubeo, quia damnatus es.'
' aream sibi sumpsit in qua civitatem ex- So the Greek dirdyeoBat., e.g. Acts xii. 19
straeret arbitratu suo.' iKeXevGev diraxBr/vai, where there is a
Cognitionibus] ' the judicial enquiries.' v. 1. (a gloss) dvoKTavBijvai.
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, does not appear ; see above, p. Aurelius xi. 3 p.-r) Kara fiXtpi Trap&n&i
15. Pliny was prsetor in a.d. 93 or 94, &s ol xpurruwol (see Gataker's note).
but there is no reason to suppose that any 15. ipscHractatu] 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 (difiundente se 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,

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN.

51

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. Alii ab
indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt ; fuisse
quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante
viginti. [Hi] quoque omnes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra ve-
nerati sunt et Christo male dixerunt. Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse
summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante
lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem,
seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta,

1. praeeunte] 'dictating the words' 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) rrj tov riXtov Xe-
yopiivr) 7ip.epa irdvTav...iiii to avrb Gw'eXev-
gis ylverai, and in the context he gives the
reasons for the selection of this day. See
also Barnab. 15, Ign. Magn. 9. For
Pliny's account of these services of the
Christians generally see Hamack'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 praeire dignatus es'). Yet
here probably it is used in this more re
stricted sense, as the words secum 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. [Hippolytus]
in Euseb. H. E. v. 28 ^oX/toJ Si 8001 Kal
ipSal dSeX$wv air' apxr)s iirb iriGrwv ypa-
qjeiGat tSv Abyov tov 6eo8 rbv XpiGrbv
vjuiovgi BeoXoyovvres. Of such an

early hymn' we have perhaps an example
in 1 Tim. iii. 16 (though 6eos is not the
correct reading).
secum invicem] 'antiphonally' : see
Harnack /. c. p. 223 sq., Probst /. c. p.
278. Compare the legend of Ignatius
considered above, p. 31 sq.
11. sacramento] The word sacramentum
in early Christian writings has two senses.
(1) It is the equivalent of the Greek
laiGTripiov, 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 Sakramente u. Sakramen-
talien p. 1 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 (Tertull. adv. Marc.
iv. 34 'ad sacramentum baptismatis et eu-
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 oath
of allegiance taken by soldiers. The ap-
4—2

52

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositura
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 Ty GrpaToXoyrjGavri dpiG-Q, Ign.
Polyc. 6 dpiGKere $ GrpareveGBe k.t.X.);
see Tertull. 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 Rebaptism. 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
baptized. 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
position. 2. rursusque] The account here supposes
two meetings in the course of the day :
(1) 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 (Lehn
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 cultus sacri
Christianorum (1851), attributes the sepa
ration of the eucharist from the agape to
the Apostles themselves. On the other
hand Harnack (I.e. p. 230 sq.) advocates
the view that the separation was due to
the edict of Trajan. In some parts of
Asia Minor, and probably at Antioch,
the two were still connected when Igna
tius wrote ; see Smyrn. 8 oire dyatf
¦notelv with the note.
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 Xi/^'as &

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN.

53

quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata
tua hetaerias esse vetueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus
ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta
quaerere. Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam immodicam.
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
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. Trajanus Plinio.
Actum quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in excutiendis causis eorum qui
Christiani ad te delati fuerant secutus es. Neque enim in universum

ivarpoiriiv Kal ras dviSrpi p.l!-eis Kal dvBpa-
iretav aapxuv fiopas (comp. §§ 10, 23, 29,
Apol. ii. 12, Dial. 10, 17), Ep. Vienn. et
Lugd. 14 (in Eus. H. E. v. 1) xaTeij/eb-
govto i)p.av QviGTeia Seiirva Kal OlSnro-
Selovs plfcis k. t. X. (comp. Iren. Fragm.
'3> P- 832 Stieren), Athenag. Leg. 3
rpla iin<pi]ptA£ovGt,v rjpLLV iyxXrifiara, dBeb-
Tirra, QviGTeia Seiirva, OlSiwoSelovs pixels
(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. Fei. Octav. 9, 31. Origen, reply
ing to Celsus (c. Cels. vi. 27), accuses the
Jews of circulating these very slanders
Kara tt)v dpxty ttjs tov xpLffri.avLGp.ov 5t-
SaGKaXlas. They will explain the epithets
used by Tacitus when speaking of the
Christians, Ann. xv. 44, 'per flagitia
invisos...per urbem etiam quo cuncta un-
dique atrocia [Qviareia Seiirva} et pudenda
[OlStiroSeioL /*(£«!] confluunt celebrantur-
que.' 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 xaaid Tiva Saipibvia ol toiov-
tol dvTeGfpipovTes iroXXobs dvairelBoVGiv
dXXorpi.ovop.elv, xax toOtov xal GVvoip,OGlai
Kal GVGTOGets iracpeial Te ylyvovrai, direp
TjKiGra p.ovapxla Gvpupipet, Philo in Flacc.
1 (ll. p. 518) ras Te iraipelas xal Gvvb-
Sovs, at del iirl irpo(paGei Bvgluv elGTiQvro
Tots irpdyp.aGt.v ip.irapoivovGat., SiiXve. Ro
man guilds are the subject of a mono
graph by Th. Mommsen de Collegiis et
Sodaliciis Romanorum (Kiliae, 1843).
3. quae ministrae dicebantur] This
is doubtless Pliny's own translation of the
Greek Sidxovoi. 'deaconesses' (comp. Rom.
xvi. 1, 1 Tim. iii. n) which he heard.
The word ministra is not, so far as I
remember, used as an equivalent for dia-
conissa in the Latin ecclesiastical lan
guage. 11. pastum] i. e. fodder is sold for the
cattle which are wafting to be sacrificed.
The ed. princ. has passum, which is
corrected by Beroaldus. Aldus boldly
corrects passimque venire victimas qua-
rum.

54 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
aliquid quod quasi certam formam habeat constitui potest. Conquirepdj
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 Uostris, quamvis suspectus in praeteritum, veniam
ex poenitentia impetret. Sine auctore vero propositi libelli [in] nullo
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 in. 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 Pliny'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 (1 — 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 Critiai
Epistolarum 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. Jun. 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
forger. With the -two letters however, which relate to the persecution of the Christians,
the case has been different. With characteristic recklessness Semler in his Nam
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 Pers&utions de I'Eglise etc. p. 215 sq. (1875) has marshalled in detail
the misgivings to which he had already given expression elsewhere, Revue Contemp-
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

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 55
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 Mondes ier December 1874. The objections are answered by Variot
de Plinio Juniore et Imperatore Trajano apud Christianos etc. (Paris, 1878), and again
in the Revue des Questions Historiques ier Juillet 1878, p. 80 sq. ; by Boissier in the
Revue Archiologique Fevrier 1876, p. 114 sq. ; and by Renan Les Evangiles p. 476,
and Journal des Savants, 1876, p. 721 sq.
These objections hardly deserve serious refutation. Thus much however may be
said generally; (1) 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 £vangiles 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, SvvaaBe p.a8eiv ix rav iirl IJovtIov
HiXoVou yevop.ivwv oktwV. 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 agapse 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.

56 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Nor again is there sufficient reason for adopting the suspicion of De la Berge (Essai
sur le Regne de Trajan p. 109) 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 chancelry'.
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 that 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 offences 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. Ign. Rom. 11 (11. p. 532). His title
was 'Legatus pro praetore provinciae Ponti et Bithyniae consulari potestate' (see
Marquardt Rbmische Staatsverwaltung 1. p. 194), 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 ll
Berge I.e. p. 119 sq.
Like his master Trajan (see above, p. 4 sq.), 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, n. 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 Trajan}'''
Jovi templum extraxerat. 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 «. freedman of the'
family of Pliny. But in older authorities the place of martyrdom is differently given,
Thus in the Bucherian Catalogue we have among the depositions 'vn Id. Aug.
Secundi, Carpophori, Victorini, et Severiani, Albano et Ostiense,' and in the fliers-
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. 1, 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. 1. c, Mayor Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature p. 148 sq.

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 57
2.
Tertullianus Apologeticum 2.
Atquin invenimus inquisitionem 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
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
sententiam necessitate confusam ! "/Negat inquirendos ut innocentes, et
mandat puniendos ut nocentes. Parcit et ssevit, 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
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, quern nemo voluit requisitum ; qui, puto, jam non ideo meruit
poenam, quia nocens est, sed quia, non requirendus, inventus est.
3. de cetero] ' for the future' ': comp. than another, it is that Eusebius derived
ad Scap. 3, with Oehler's note. all his information respecting this perse-
6. ut deo] There can be no question cution from a Greek translation of Ter-
about the reading, though the mss have tullian.
et deo, which is retained by Oehler: see 7. confoederandam] i.e. 'to strengthen
below, 11. p. 533. To the arguments there and consolidate by a common pledge and
urged it should be added that Jerome in league.'
his edition of the Chronicon (n. p. 165), 14. militaris statio] Sueton. Tib. 37
having the text of Tertullian before him, ' In primis tuendae pacis a grassatoribus ac
writes 'Christo ut deo.' Variot (Revue latrociniis seditionumque licentia curam
des Questions Historiques, ier Juillet 1878, habuit : stationes militum per Italiam
p. 142) strangely argues that Eusebius and solito frequentiores disposuit' (comp. Oc-
Jerome must have consulted the original tav. 32). For the Roman police arrange-
of Pliny, because they read 'Christo ut ments see Marquardt Rbmische Staats-
¦ deo,' whereas Tertullian has 'Christo et verwaltung I. 521, 11. 468.
i deo.' If there is one point more certain
Tertullian doubtless derived his information entirely from the same correspondence
between Pliny and Trajan which we possess. Ulpian indeed, in his 7th book de
Officio Proconsulis, collected all the -imperial rescripts issued against the Christians
(Lactant. Div. Inst. v. 11); but this work can hardly have been in existence when

58

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

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 Regne de Trajan p. 209, note 1) is disposed
to do.

3-
Eusebius Historiae Ecclesiae iii. 32, 33.
Mera Nepava Kal Aop,enav6v, Kara, tovtov ov vvv tov,
XpoVous i^eTd^ofiev, pepiKws Kal Kara. ir6\evs i£ eiravaorao-Ews
hrf-xaiv tov Ktxff njp.wv Kare^ei Xoyos dvaKivy]6rjva.i oway/xw,
iv at Ityfieaiva tov tov K\(U7ra, ov SevTepov KaTtxo"rt]vai tt\%
iv 'lepoo'oXu/xois eKKX^crias imo-KOTrov iSr)\d>arapev, p.apTvpu$ 5
tov fiiov dva\vo~cu TTa,p€iX'ij<f>ap.ev. Kat tovtov fiapTVS avros -
ckeupos, ov Star^opois 178''; irporepov i\pnr}0-dp.eda ^xavak,
'Uyijo-Linros' os Si) irepi tlvcov alpeTucaiv laropcov imftpei

1. tovtov] i.e. tpa'Cavov, as appears
from the sequel.
3. Karixet. X<$7os] Comp. H. E. ii. 7, iii.
11, 18, 19, iv. 5, vi. 34, etc. A com
parison of these passages shows that the
expression is not confined to oral tra
dition but may include contemporary
written authorities, and that it implies
authentic and trustworthy information.
5. iSijXwGap.ev'] The succession of Sy
meon after the martyrdom of James the
Just is related H. E. iii. 1 r, where it is
introduced with the same expression
Karixei Xoyos, which occurs here.
7. 1787; irpbrepov] H. E. ii. 23, iii. 1 1,
16, 19, 20. This writer is also quoted
several times afterwards.
8. irepl tivoiv alpeTixuv] Hegesippus
speaks more than once (H. E. ii. 23, iv. 22)
of 'the seven sects' (alpiGeis). The names
of these are given ; Essenes, Galileans, He-
merobaptists, Masbotheans, Samaritans,
Sadducees, and Pharisees (H. E. iv. 22).
They were mainly Jewish (twv iirra, alpe-
ceav tov iv tQ Xa$), as their names im

ply, and as the narrative of Hegesippti
supposes. Hegesippus ascribes the death
of James the Just to members of these seven
sects (H. E. ii. 23), and his persecutors
were evidently anti-Christian. He also
assigns to them (H E. iii. 19 rav alpm-
KtSv rtvas) the persecution of the grand
sons of Judas ; and in the passage before
us he describes them as the authors of the
martyrdom of Symeon. Elsewhere (H.E.
iv. 22) he mentions one Thebuthis, who
was sprung from the seven sects, as having
been disappointed of the bishopric when
Symeon was elected, and having in con
sequence corrupted the Church with here
tical teaching; but he does not (at least
in the extracts preserved by Eusebius)
connect his name directly with the death
of Symeon. In the Chron. Pasch. p. 4?'
(ed. Bonn.) Symeon is represented as
being accused iirb twv rijs polpas Ki)/)M*
xal tQv Xeyopiivojv JUiKoXa'Criov. An ex
planation of this statement will be given
below (p. 66).

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 59
orjXwp, tus apa viro tovtcov Kara ToVSe tov )(p6vov uVo/Aeiras
Karrjyopiav, ttoXut/doVgjs 6 Sr)\ovp,evo<s (aadv XpicrTtavos eVl
TrXeiarats atKio~(9els ¦Jj/xepais, ovtov tc tw 8iKao"Tr)i' Kal tous
a/x^ auToi> eis Ta fiiyiara KaTa/irArjizas, tg3 tou KvpCov irddei
trapairkqcriov to TeXos dirrjveyiaxTO. ov8ev Se o!bi> Kal tou
cruyy/oa^>«us eVaKouVai, aura S7 TauYa Kara Xe'£w> cSSe' mus
loTopovvros' And TOYTCON AHAAAri TOON Aip6TIK(X)N KATHTOpOYCl' TIN6C
ZyMecoNOc toy KAoonA, <ibc ontoc atio AayciA kai XpicnANof,
KAl ofTOd MApTYpeT, eTOJN CON 6KATON eiKOCIN, 6nl TpAl'ANOY
KAICApOC KAl YTIATIKOf 'AtTIKOY-
(j>7)o-l Se d auVds, ws a/>a Kal tous Kar^ydpous clvtov,
£flTovp.£va)V totc tcov diro t^s /8ao~iXiKijs 'louSaicov (j>vAr}s,
cocrdv i£ avrijs owas aXtuvai o~vvej3rj. \oyLO-/xw S' ai> Kal
tw Itvfieava twv avroiTTcov Kal ainqKoatv euroi av tis yeyo-
veVai tou KvpCov, T^Kpuqpico T&5 ju/rjKei tou ^(povov rr/s avrov
tfitrjs xpa>iLevos, Kal to) [ivr)p,oveveiv Tt\v twv evayyekCatv ypa^rrjv
Ma/oias ttjs tou KXa)7ra, ou yeyoveVai auTO> Kal irpoTepov 6
Xdyos eSr;X<uo"ei/. d S' aurds o~uyypa<£eus Kat eripovs a7ro yeVous
2. wow] '&r fe'w^-,' a favourite expres- 1 1. iiranKov] The wordcame to be used
sion in Eusebius (see below liadv i£ avrijs in the second century especially oiprovin-
oVras), not however implying any doubt of cial governors who had held the consul-
the fact which it introduces. ship, and at a later date of such governors
5. dmiveyKaTo] 'carried off,' as if it were even though they might not have been
a prize. For this use of dvoaj'epeGBox comp. consuls: see Marquardt Romische Stoats-
Mart. Polyc. 17 Ppafieiov dvavrlpp-qTov verwaltung I. p. 409, and comp. the
direvrjveyptivov, where again it is used of index to Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Graec. p. 44.
martyrdom. See also Tatian ad Graec. 33. Here ^tt! viranxov 'Attikov means ' when
6. uSe irtas] Used even ot verbatim Atticus was governor'; whereas below iirl
quotations, H.E, i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 'Attikov tov viranKov is 'before Atticus
ii. 10, 12, 20, 25, iii. 7, 19, 23, 31, 39, etc. the governor,' the difference being due
10. papTvpeZ] See the note on Clem. to the absence or presence of the article.
Rom. 5. 'Attikov] See II. p. 450.
iirl Ipauwov] The preposition, applied 17. ttjv twv evayyeXlwv yparprjv] Hhe
to Trajan, can only signify 'in the time passagein the gospels' i.e. John xix. 25.
of,' and it must have this same meaning 19. 0 5' avrbs k.t.X.] The reference is to
here as applied to Atticus : see the next H. E. iii. 20. The account there is ge-
note. On the mistakes which have arisen nerally printed as if Eusebius gave it
from its ambiguity see II. p. 442. throughout in Hegesippus' own words ;

60 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
evds twv (pepop.evwv dSek<j>wv tov crwTrjpos, w ovop,a 'IouSay,
(fryjcrlv ets Trfv avTrjv imfiuuvtu fiao-LAeCav, //.era tt)i> ijcfy
irpoTepov io~Topr)6eio-av ovtwv virep tijs ets tov Xpiaroj/
mo-Tews iirl Aop.eTi.avov papTvplav. ypdipei Se outcus'
IpXONTAI OYN KAl npOHTOYNTAI UACHC 6KKAHCIAC obc M&p^J
TYpCC KAl And T6N0YC TOY KYpiOY, KAl r£NOM6NHC eipHNHC
BAOeiAC 6N UACH IkkAHCIA M6N0YCI M£)(P I Tp Al'AN 0 Y K AIC ApOC,
Mt'xpic of 6 Ik Gei'oY toy KyP'OY, d npoeipH/weNOc Zymecun
YIOC KAOiUA, CYKOCpANTHGeiC ytto tcon AipececoN, cocaytcoc
KATHrOpH0H KAl AyTdc eni Tu3 AYTO) AOTOO eni 'AtTIKOY TO? 10^
Yuatikoy- ka! eni hoAAaTc HiwepAic aikizomsnoc eMApif- :
pHC6N, obc uantac fnepe AYMAZei n ka! ton yuatikon, noic
6KAT0N ei'KOCI TYrX<^Na)N„ eTOON YneM6IN€- KAl eKeAeYCflH
CTAYpOOOHNAI. Toctoutos ye prjv iv irXeiocn T07rots d naff r]pwv eVeraftjij
totc Siwyfios, ws UXivvov %ckovvSov iirio-rjpoTaTOv rjyeixoiw,
iirl tw irAijdei, twv p.apTvpwv KiviqdevTa, /8ao~iXet Kowur
o-ao~6ai irepl tov 7tXt/(9ous twv virep rrys 7rtcrrecos dvaipov-
p.evwv, aua S' iv tlxvtw p.n]vvcra.i, pr)8ev dvocriov ///nSe mpLi
tous vd/xous irpaTTeiv auTOUs KaretXr;<£eVai, TrArp/ to ye djuaji
Trj ew Steyetpo/xeVous tov ~Kpio-Tov ®eov BCktjv vpveiv, to
Se pot^eveiv Kal fyoveveiv Kal ra crvyyevrj toutois ddi[UTa
TrXry/x/xeX'dju.ara Kal auTous dirayopeveiv, TrdvTa Te trpa/niw
but the change to the infinitive, etra Si 'the whole church,' as some take it; for ^
xal ras x«pai rds iavTwv iiriSeixvvvat, 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 verbatim. 8. oixBelov] ' the son of an uncle'; comp.
Moreover he has here preserved in the H. E. iii. 1 1 tov yap ovv MXairdv aXeltfn
writer's direct words, Ipxovrai ovv xal tov IwGrjrp virapxeiv 'Uyr/Gtiriros IcTOfii.
irpoiiyovvTai...KalGapos, the same part of On the relation of this statement to the
the account which is there given in the ob- notices in the Evangelical records see
lique narration, tous 52 diroXvBevTas...ToZ Galatians p. 256 sq., 267 sq., 277.
§lip : and the difference between the 10. iirl t$ avr$ Xbyip] 'on the smut
two is considerable. account,' as the grandsons of Judas, who
5. iraGip iKxXijGias] 'every church,' i.e. have been mentioned just before (He
rn Judeea; paraphrased by Eusebius (#..£. gesippus in H. E. iii. 20 ovs tihjM'
iii. 20) twv ixxXr/Giwv. It cannot mean pevGav us ix yivovs ovras AavelS).

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 6 1
okoXou&os tois vopois. irpos a tov Tpai'avdv Sdyua TotdvSe
TeOeiKevat, to xpt,o~n.avwv (pvXov /xr) eK^rjTeurflai jtiev, ipne-
trov Se KoXa£eo"0ai" ov yevopevov 7rocr<3s pev tou Sttoy/xou
o-f3eo~6r}va.i rrjv airetXr)v o-<f>oSpoTaTa eyKeiju,evr/v, ov yeipovd<i
ye prjv tois KaKovpyeiv trepl T//xas i6eAovo-i \evneo~9ai irpo-
<pao"ets> eo-cf 07rr/ /xev twv orjpwv, ecrtf oirrj be Kat tojv
Kara -)(wpa<s dp^ovrwv ras Ka#' ijpwv avo-Kevatppevwv eVt-
j8ouXas> <us Kal aveu irpoip'a.vwv Siwypwv pepinovs kolt
iirap^tav i£dnTeo-0cu, irXeCovs Te tJjv ttio-twv Sta^d/iois
kvaywvitficrdai paprvpCois. eiArjiTTai, S' tJju.iv rj lo-TopCa i£
t/s dvwTepw dedrjXwKapev tov TepTuXXtavou 'Pw/xa'tKrys a7ro-
Xoytas, t;s rj epprjveta tovtov e^et tov TpoiroV
KAITOI 6YPHKAM8N KaI THN eiC HMAC ItTIZHTHCIN K6KC0AYMe-
NHN. TTAl'NIOC TAp ZeKOYNAOC HTOYMGNOC [THc] ItTApXIOY, KATA-
KpiNAC XPICTIAN0Y'C TINAC KAl THC AilAC IkBaAoON, TApAX9elc
toj nAhieei AmrNoei ti aytco Aoitton em ttpaktIon. TpAi'ANto
oyn tuj BACiAeT ANeKOiNoiCATO Aer^N, llco toy mh B0YAec9Ai
aytoyc eiAtoAoAATpeTN oyAen anocion In aytoTc efpHKeNAi.
Imhnyg Ae ka'i toyto, ani'ctac6ai ecoGeN toyc XpiCTiANOyc, ka'i
ton XpicTON QeoY Ai'khn ymncTn, ka) rrpoc to thn Iiticth'mhn
aytwn Aia0yAacc€in, KooAYeceAi cpoNeYeiN, /woixeYeiN, rrAe-
0NeKTe?N, AnocTepe?N, ka'i ta toytoic omoia. np6c tayta antg-
rpA»pe TpAIANOC, TO TCON )(plCTIANCON (pYAON MH eKZHT6?c9AI
men, iMnecoN Ae koAaz6c6ai.
i teal raura pev iv toutois rp>.
' 12. i/ ippaqvela] Eusebius is here quoting ofCaesarea). This version of Tertullian
from a Greek translation of Tertullian's which he used was translated by some
( Apology. This translation is mentioned one who had a very inadequate know-
5 in H. E. ii. i rSeprvXXiavbs...iv tt, ledge of Latin. For instance in the pas-
'7po0e«rj; pttv avrQ 'Vwp.alwv tpunrj, piera- sage quoted H. E. ii. 25, the translator
spXi)Belari Si xal iirl rrjv 'EXXoSa yXwrrav betrays his ignorance of the common
.''birip xfmavwv diroXoyia, and is quoted Latin idiom cum maxime, which he
^both here and in H.E. ii. 25, iii. 20, v. 5. renders \\vixa. pjdXiGTa, 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.
• tChrist. Biogr. 11. p. 324, s. v. Eusebius

62 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
(iirl ttjk tup i£rjs irpoiap.ev iGToplav) ; 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. 446 sq.).

Joannes Malalas Chronographia xi. p. 269 sq. (ed. Bonn.).
'Em Se tt/s jSacrtXetas tou auTou Tpatavou S«wy//,ds ueyaf
t<3v xpicrTiavwv eyeveTO Kal 7roXXol iTtpwpr]$r)o-av. iv a
~)(p6vw eVtcrrpaTeuo-as dvijkde troXepwv peTa dvvdpews iroWrji;
Kara Pw/xavtas ck yevous TLdpdwv ^Sao"tXeus Tlepcrw, 0
dSeX^ids 'OcrSyodou fiacrlXews 'AppevCwv  Kal TaSraj
aKoucras o f^eidraTOS Tpa'tavds /SacrtXeus evdews iirecrTpd-
revo-e tw i/T eret tt/s )8ao-iXeias auTou, i^eXdwv naT aihav
prjvi OKTwfipiw tw Kal virepfiepeTaCw dtro 'Pto/xr/s  Kal
KaTeipdacrev iv SeXeuKta tt/s Suptas pyjvl arreXXatw tw kox
SeKep/3pLw. 10
Kal naTrfAdev 6 auYds fiacriAevs Tyoatavds aird Actios
Kal eio-rj\9ev iv 'AvTto^eta, ttjs Suptas Sta Tr/s x/>ucreas Ws
Xeyo/ie'vrys, TouTecm tt/s Aac^vr/TiKr/s, (faopwv iv Trj avrov
Ke<f>a\rj o-Te<f>avov aVd e'XatoKXaSwv, pjiqvl avb-qvaiw tQ km
iavovapiw efiSopr) -qpepq. e, wpa Trjpepivf} S'.
9. direXXalw] Here and below (p. 63, Xiui differing from the correct form only
1. 22) the MS has dirpiXXewi. This may be by itacisms.
explained by an intermediate word oVaiX-

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 63
'Ev t<5 Se ZiaTpifieiv tov auVdv Tpa'tavov /Sao-tXe'a iv
Avrio^eia tt/s Suptas {SovXevopevov Ta 7repl tou iroXepov
ipTJwarev avrov Ti/3epiavds> rfyepwv tov ttpwTOv IlaXaio--
tivwv idvovs, rauTa'
AfTOKpATOpi NIKHTH KAICApi GeiOTATCp TpAl'ANCp. ATTeKA-
MON TIMC0p0YM6N0C KaI CpONeYoiN toyc TaAiAai'oyc TOYC TOY
AdrMATOC TOuN AerOM6NO)N )(piCTI&NU>N KATA TA* YM^TepA
eecni'cMATA' KAl OY TTAYONTAI 6AYT0YC MHNYONT6C €IC TO
ANAipeTcGAI. 06eN eKOni'ACA TOYTOIC TTApAINtoN ka! AneiAcoN
MH TOAMAN AyTOYC MHNY6IN MOI YnApXONTAC CK TOY TTpoeipH-
M6N0Y AOTMATOC" KAl ATTOAlOo KdlWeNOI OY TTAyONTAI. 9ecnicAi
MOI OYN KATAllOJCATe TA UApiCTAMCNA T(|) YMCTepqi KpATCl
TponAioYX^- Kal CKeXeuo-ev auV&5 d auVos Tpatavds iravo-acrdai tov (poveveuv
tous XPloTtaI,0"s' d/xotcus Se Kal Tots 7ravTa^ou dp)(ovcrLV
tovto CKeXeucxev, /at) <f>oveveiv tov Xolttov tous Xeyopevovs
Xpiortavous" Kal iyevero evSocrts pixpd tois x/atortavots.
Kal i^rjXdev dirb 'Avrto^etas tt/s /xeydXr/s iroXepov Kara
Tlepo-wv Kivr/aas d auTos Tpatavds.
'EttI Se tt/s ^8ao-tXetas tou auTou BeioTarov Tpa'lavov
eiradev 'Avno^eta r) peyakr} 77 tt/jos Ad<pvr)v to t/htov
aurrjs ird#os jttr/vl aVeXXatto tgj Kal SeKepfiptw vy, rjpepa
a', perd dXenTpvova, erous Xpnr)paTi.t,ovTO<i p£&' Kara tous
auTous 'Avrio^ets, jotera Se yS' err/ tt/s irapovo-Cas tov deio-
totov j6ao-iXe&>s Tpatavou tt/s eVl tt/v dvaToXr/v.
S 
ii d Se aurds ^SactXeus Tpatavds ev tij auT]/ irdXet Str/yev
^otc 17 deoprjvia iyeveTO. ipaprvpyjcrev Se eVl auTou totc
('0 aytos IyvaYtos d eVto-K07ros tt/s 7rdXews 'Avtto^etas"
r/yavaKTT/o-e ydp kot' auTou, oti eXotSdpet auVdv. o-vveayev
3. Tt/3e/iio»ds] Reasons for condemn- .£»#. 11. p. 578.
ing this document as spurious are given 21. irpbs] The MS has ;rpd.
^below, 11. p. 438. See also Dodwell Dis- 27. iirl airrov Tore] See below, 11. p.
sert. Cyprian, xi. § 23, 24, Tillemont 442 sq.

64 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Se totc Kal Tre'vTe ovopara -^picrTiavwv yvvaiKwv 'Avno-
^icrcrwv Kal i£rJTacrev auras Xiywv, Tt's ecrrtv 77 e'Xms vpav,
otl outws eVStSoTe eauTas ets ddvaTov ; at Se direKptdrjcraiil
Xeyovcrai otl <3>oveuo/xe'vas rjpd<; trap vpwv dvLO-Tacrdai
r//xas 7rdXtv ojs exppev crwpaTi ets alwviav t,wr\v. Kai!
iKeXevcrev auras 77U/3tKaucrrous yevecrQai Kal tov -^ovv tuv
ocrTewv avTwv crvvepL^e yaAKw Kat iiroCrjcre tov ^oXkov
ets d iiroCrjcre Sr//xdcriov ^dXKta tou 6epp,ov. Kal ore r)p%aio
irapeveiv to Si//xdo"tov, et Tts idv iXoveTO ets auTo to $17/10-
ctlov, ecrKOTOvTO Kal eiMTTev Kal i^rjp^eTO /3acrTaypw. /cat 11
paOwv 6 ySaaiXeus Tpatavds touto r/XXa^e Ta aufd ^d\/cto A
Kal ivotrjcrev dXXa dirb Kadapov ^aXKou, Xiywv otl Ov Ka\<us =
eVotTjcra *xpvv crwpaTwv cru/x/xt^as auVots Kal Kotvwcras Ta
Oeppa uSara. raura Se eXeyev, eVetSr) ot xpicrriavol "fwre'cfi-
£ov-f- tois "EXXi/o"t Kav)(wpevou. rd Se irpwTa ^dXKta dva^oivev- ij
eras iiroCrjcre cnr'Xas ^aXKas nevTe Tats aurats yuvatft, Xeyw
oti loou eyw auTas aveo"TT/cra Kafws eiirov, Kat ovyi 0 peos
auToJV. atrtves crTr/Xat ets auTo to Sr/ixdcrtov Xovrpov
tcrravTat eicos drjTt- iiroCrjcre Se Kal Kapivov irvpos, Kal
e'/ce'Xeucre tous fiovXopevovs x/no"Tiavous ySdXXetv eavTOU?
ev irpodecrei. Kal itoXXoi e/3aXXov eauTous Kal ipapTvp-qcrav.
ipaprvprjere Se totc r/ dyta Apocnvr) Kal dXXai irapdivoi
TroXXat. 4. dvlGTaaBai rjpids] sc. Airfs £<mi', if Chilmead conjectures bird^ij^v, i.e. 'were
the text be correct ; but the repetition of somewhat sour' (comp. Athen. III. p.
ijuas excites suspicion of some corruption. 1 14 c), but this could hardly stand.
12. Ou raXfis] So the MS, but the 15. dvaxwvefoas] So the MS,' but the
negative is omitted in the printed text. printed texts have avaxwGas.
14. biri^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. ). I 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, II. pp. 407, 411,435%
in which last passage his statement that Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Antioch is

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 65
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, II.
p. 444. 5-
Chronicon Paschale p. 470 sq. (ed. Bonn.).
'IvS. a. £'. U7T. "%vpiavov to fi' kol MapKeXXov.
'E7rl tovtwv Ttuv viraTwv Stcoy/xds "XpicrTiavwv eyeveTO,
Kal 7roXXol evSdftus ipaprvprjcrav Std tt)v ets XpicrTov
opoXoyCav.
! 'Em tgov irpoKeipevwv warav <£acri tov aytov 'Iwdvvrjv
yevopevov erav p' kol pr/vwv £' KoiprjdrjvaL.
'Ev tovtw t<5 xpovw KXt//xt/s d 'P&I/xr/s eirto"Koiros
TeXeuTa. KaTa tov auVdv %p6vov kol %Cpwv o Kavavirr/s
d eViKXr/#els 'louSas IaKw/3ov, 6 yevopevos eVtcrKoiros uera
> 'iaKtoySov tov dheXcpov tov KvpCov, £r/cras erq pK, icrTavpwdrj.
'E?rl toutou tou Tpa'Cavov Kal MapKos o euayyeXto-Tr/s
Kal iirCo-KOiros 'AXefavSpetas yevopevos, koXwv Xafiwv Kal
crvpels diro twv KaXovpevwv Ta BoukoXuuv ecus tcov Xeyopevwv
'AyyeXwv, eKetcre irvpl KaTeKavdrj cpappovdl irpwTrj, Kal
j outws ipaprvprjcrev.
Kpr/o-Kr/s Ktjpvi;a<; to euayyeXtov tou KvpCov r)pwv
'Ir/crov XfjLcrTov iv TaXXtats iirl Nepwvos diroOvrjcrKeL,
Kal iKeiare ddirrer'ai. ovca' 'OXu/i7Ttas.
1 'IvS. )8'. r/'. vit. KavStSou Kal KouaS/adVov.
Tpatavou KaTa ypicTTLavwv Suuy/xdv Ktvr/cravTOS, %Cpwv
6 tou KXea)7rd tt/s ev 'lepocroXvpous eKKXr/crtas emo-KOTOS
yevopevos ipaprvprjcrev, yevopevo<s er<3v pK, iirl 'Attlkov
viraTiKov Sta;8Xr/0els uVd tcov tt/s poCpas KtjpCvdov Kal tcov
Xeyopevwv NtKoXatTtuv, cos ou povov xpicrnavos. aXXa Kat
<us airo tcov tou yevous AauelS vrtdpywv, os eVi irXetcrTas
r//xe/>as aiKicrfSeis, Kal avrbv tov SiKaoTr)v Kal tous ttc/ji
IG. I. 5

66 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
auTov Ta /xeyicrra KaraTrXr/fds, tw tov crravpov iravu
irapairXrjcrLov tov KvpCov Te'Xos dirrjviyKaTO. o/aouos Se Kal
'IyvaTtos 'AvTLO^ewv iirCcrKoiros iv Pco/xi/ ipapTvpr/o~ev.
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 Mart. Ign. Rom. 1
(II. p. 493).
On this writer's reckoning by Indictions see Smith's Diet, of Christ. Antiq. s. v.
' Indiction ' (1. 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. 1. 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 Jacsii
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 Judas Jacobi, but blunder
ingly forgetting that this name was Lebbceus or Thaddceus, and substituting Simon
the Cananaean. The latter of the two accounts is evidently taken from Eusebiigj
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 CerinthiaBs
and Nicolaitans in the preceding chapters (H. E. iii. 28, 29), and the compiler,
seeing the words dirb tovtwv twv alpenKwv, 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, II. pp>
408, 446.

6.
Acts of Sharbil p. 41 sq., Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents.
¦¦In the fifteenth year of the Autocrat Trajan Csesar, and in the
third year of the reign of King Abgar the vnth, 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 administratSBi
and that those who did not sacrifice should be arrested and be delivered

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 67
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, eta'
Acts of Barsamya p. 63 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
5—2

68 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 our Sharirs
which we have in the countries of the dominion 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 punishment from such as do them; we
therefore by the justice of our Rectitude have given command that on account of
these things the persecution of the sword should cease from them, and that
there shall be rest and quietness in all our dominions, they continuing to
minister according to their custom, and that no man should hinder them.
But it is not that we show affection towards them, 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 us to pass upon those
who neglect our decree, the same have we ordered to pass upon 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 with
us by setting to their hand, as the ancient laws of the ancient kings
prescribe.' '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 Abshelama 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.]

PERSECUTION OF TRAJAN. 69
The Acts of Sharbil and of Barsamya were first published in Cureton's posthu
mous work, Ancient Syriac Documents (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. 1083, mi. A Latin translation of them was given
by Moesinger, Acta SS. Martyrum Edessenorum (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.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS.

' I 'HE 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 Smyrnseans, 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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 7 1
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 (Smyrnseans, 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, iEthiopic, 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 simplicity1. 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 %, 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. S„ a%, S„; L,, L2; g„ g„ g„ g4; etc.
1 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 might 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.

72 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

SHORT FORM.
This is represented only by a Syriac Version [S], which was
published for the first time by Cureton in 1845 from mss recently
brought from the Nitrian desert and deposited in the British Museum. ,
In his later volume, the Corpus fgnatianum (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;1]
(1870 — 1872), the following account of the mss is derived.
1. British Museum Add. 12175 [2J ; 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 written 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 by Tattam in 1839.
2. British Museum Add. 146 18 [SJ ; 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. 1 ' 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 [2J; see Wright's Catalogut :
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. 1 'The
Epistle of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch' [the Epistle to Polycarp].
At the end is written, ' Here endeth the First.' 2 ' The Second Epistle, j
to the Ephesians'; at the close, 'Here endeth the Second Epistle.'
3 'The Third Epistle'; at the close, 'Here endeth the Third.' Thevi|
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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 73
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 published his first edition.
These mss, which I have designated S1( Sj, Sj, appear in Cureton's
notation as a, j8, y, respectively. The text of this version is edited
below (11. p. 657 sq.) by Prof. W. Wright, who has collated the three
mss anew and given their various readings. A translation is also ap
pended, p. 670 sq.

MIDDLE FORM.
The Latin version of this recension was published first by Ussher
{Poly carpi el IgnatU Epistolae etc., Oxon. 1644) from two mss dis
covered in England ; the original Greek two years later by Isaac Voss
(Epistolae Genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris, Amstelod. 1646) from a Medi-
cean ms, with the exception of the Episde to the Romans, which was
published afterwards by Ruinart (Ada Martyrum Sincera, 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 fgnatianum (p. 197 sq.), though Cureton himself
failed to perceive that they were taken (as I shall show presendy) 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 of
these epistles appears in the present edition for the first time.
(i) Greek [G].
1. Lour. PL IviL Cod. 7 (described in Bandini's Catal. MSS. Graec.
Bibl. iMurent n. p. 345 sq.), the famous Medicean ms at Florence, from
which Voss published the editio princeps of this recension. The Ignatian
Epistles occupy from foL 242 a — 252 b. They commence toy ap'oy
ipiATi'oY enicTd. cmypnaioic The episties contained here are (1) Smyr
nseans, (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 a, 3, r, etc., in the margin prima

74 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
manu. The Epistle to the Tarsians breaks off abruptly in the middle
of a word, mieirurta.r 01 yap eltrlv tov kc- (§ 7)1. 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 sheets2. It was doubtless originally complete and contained all
the thirteen epistles, the Epistle to the Romans probably being em
bedded in the Martyrology, as is the case in the Latin version and 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 Jacobson. Still more recently Dressel himself and his
friends for him 'inspected it again in the principal places with scru
pulous care ' (p. lxii). 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. twi irATjpuyiaTi) adscript.
Casanatensis G. v. 14, 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 15 th century. In a later part of
the volume the Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas are found ; but they
have no connexion in handwriting 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. lxi). I
think that few who compare Dresser's own collations will agree in this
opinion. The differences are very trifling, being chiefly blunders if
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 oVou -itv for oirou l\ in
Philad. 2. The headings of the epistles also are copied from the Medi
cean ms, but this is not always intelligently done ; e.g. the transcriber
1 The language of Dressel (p. 162) on AyaB6irovs,Tars. 10, he writes^*
leaves the impression that this MS reads dix p. 103) 'desiderata hoc nomen i»
dveTlGTaroi. yap tloi tov vov tov ki- with Graeco Mediceo.' The end of the epistle
others. This is not the case. is altogether wanting in this MS.
2 TJssheris misled and misleading, when

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 75
has misread the contraction hrurro. (for eirioroAcov) at the head of the
first letter and gives tov d-yiov lyvcmov eirKncoVov o-p.vpva.toK. In the
margin of Polyc. 6 the transcriber himself copies the gloss apyos (for
oWspTiop) from the Medicean ms. Otherwise the marginal notes are in
a much later (17th cent ?) hand, and on Magn. 8 ovk aVd o-iyijs 7rpo«\-
diov there is a reference to a printed copy of the Long recension, ev
avri.ypa<jjif Terxnrutp.a'io os eoriv avYov Adyos ov pijros k.t.A. 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 aV«noTaToi -yap elo-lv 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. 145 1 (formerly Colbert. 460), in the National
Library at Paris. On fol. 109 a begins M^pTypioN toy ap'oy («*) iepo-
MApTypOC irNATlOY toy 6eoo>dpoY. "Arm SiaSefa/xevov k.t.A. These
Acts of Martyrdom are printed in the present work (p. 473 sq.). They
incorporate the Epistle to the Romans, and were first published by
Ruinart (see above). The Epistle to the Romans begins on fol. 1 1 1 a.
The commencement of the epistle is not marked by any title, illumi
nation, or even capital letter, but the writing is continuous... vn-oreraKrat.
fywmos d Kal Oeocbopos k.t.A. The epistle ends ... iv xy a/if/. KaTapraras
toiW k.t.a. This ms may be ascribed to the 10th century, the date
assigned to it in the printed Catalogue. It is written clearly and in

j6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 ms was collated again by Jacobson, and I
myself have recollated it.
3. Paris. Graec. 950, a paper ms of perhaps the 15th century,
contains (fol. 165 sq.) an extract from the Epistle to the Ephesians, § 18
6 yap ©cos ijp.<Sv... § 19 Oavdrov KaraAvcnv. I have collated it anew.
As Laur. lvii. 7 and Paris. Graec. 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. Graec. 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. 1381), and William Wodeford (c. a.d. 1396), while they differed
considerably from the text of this father as hitherto known (the Greek
and Latin of the Long recension), agreed exactly with the quotatipns in
Eusebius and Theodoret (Polyc. et fgn. 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 i
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 (011
Polyc. 3) betrayed the nationality of their author ; ' Incus est instrumen-
turn fabri ; dicitur Anglice anfeld [anvil].' But if the translator were an
Englishman, no one could be named so likely as Robert Grosseteste
(p. cxlii). Ussher'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 Ruffinus or Jerome
by Gildas and Bede) by any English writer before the time of Grosse-
1 See below p. 83.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS.

77

teste, or included in any patristic lists. Grosseteste himself was one of
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
mss1; 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 Areopagite3; 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 Oxford4, and
that John Tyssington and William Wodeford, who quote these epistles
in the latter years of the fourteenth century, belonged to this convent6.
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 England6.

1 Leland in Tanner Bibl. p. 431 ; see
Pegge's Life of Grosseteste pp. 15, 67, 345.
2 Ma'tthew Paris Chron. Maj. s. a.
1242 (iv. p. 232, ed. Luard) 'Testamenta
Duodecim Patriarcharum 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
1 Pegge's Life pp. 163, 289 sq., 345 sq.
I This version is conveniently accessible in
, Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. 1.
, P- 519 s1-
a See Pegge 1. c. p. 290.
4 Pegge p. 230 sq.
1: K For the quotations see Churton in
j: Pearson's Vind. Ign. p. in (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
(twv Bijptwv twv dvBpwrrop.bprpwv 'beasts
in human form ') with 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 Ephe
sians 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 Rom. 7, but evidently
takes his quotations directly from Tys
sington. 6 Turrianus Defens. Can. Apost. 2 says
' Ignatius in vetere interpretatione Latina
manuscripta epistolae ad Philadelphenses,
quae in Vaticano est, non habet quod in
Graeca epistola nuper in publicum emissa
legitur de Paulo inter eos qui uxorem

78 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. 10 £ts to o-vyxapi}vai avTOis em m
aird yevop.eVois ' in congaudere ipsis in idipsum factis,' Smyrn. 5 t<£ ^{.
repa tcov Kar' avSpa TraOrjpara 'nostrae eorum qui secundum virum
passiones,' ib. II e?s to yevopevov €<ds Svptas o-vyxap^vat avTOis (i.e. 'that
he may visit Syria and congratulate them') 'in factum usque Syriam
congaudere ipsis,' Polyc. 6 idv irep Sia tov ira9eiv ®eov eVtTvx<o «s to
evpeOijvat ev ttj aVaorao-ei vp-wv p-aOTrr-qv, ' siquidem per pati Deo potiar in
inveniri me in resurrectione vestri discipulum,' Trail. i2tj per dXKrjKm
irpoo-evxfj ' ea quae cum adinvicem oratione,' Mar. Ign. 3 ipopav eyowa
(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. Polyc. 5 ' ingloriatio ' (aKavxqoCa), Magn. 1 ' multibona
ordinatio ' (to iroAvevVaKTov), ib. 14 ' superindigeo ' (en-iSeo/Mu), Rom. 5
' injustificatio ' (dMKr)pa), Mar. Ign. 5 ' subrememorans ' (virop.ip.rip
o-Kovo-a), Ign. Mar. 3 ' scrip tibilis ' (ypaepiKos), Ant. 3 'potestativus'
(efovo-iao-nf s), ib. 1 1 ' amaricatio ' (n-apof vo-p.ds), etc. And again, par
ticles are scrupulously reproduced in violation of Latin idiom, such as
av, which is rendered utique, e.g. Trail. 11 iepaivovro av 'apparerent
utique,' Magn. 12 orav '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. lvii. 7 and Paris Graec. 1451).
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 tov V7rep rjp.(ov lavrov avevcyKOVTOs ®e<3 Trporrrfaopdv Kal 6vmavt
ib. 2 KaTiqpTio-p.e.voL t<3 avT<3 voi k.t.A., ib. 3 Ta yap p3X.ar6p.eva irpocntoipa
k.t.A., ib. 4 K007UKOV r) p-draiov, Rom. 5 avaTop,ai Statpe'o-cis, ib. 6 n yap
<u<pcAeTTai av(?pa>iros k.t.A., ib. 10 TovreoTiv Avyovorov eucaSi Tpmj. Sinu-
habuerunt.' Hence Smith infers (Ign. Ignatius from the Medicean MS, before it
Epist. praef.) that Turrianus must allude was published by Voss.
to a manuscript of our Latin Version Pearson (on Smyrn. 3) strangely con-
('plane cum nostra eadem esse mihi vide- jectures (p. 13) that our translator was
tur '). But some mss of the Latin of older than Jerome and led him into the
the Long recension omit the name of error of translating otSa by vidi. The
S. Paul in Philad. 4, and one of these is converse (see Zahn /". v. A. p. 402, note)
found in the Vatican: see below p. 122, is possible; that the translator was led
and comp. Ussher p. cxxii sq. Turrianus astray by the well-known passage in Je-
however quoted the Greek of the genuine rome.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 79
larly it is free from the omission of Adyos after ©eov and the substitu
tion of Tp(x»>v for <pa>i'i? 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. 1 'videre festinastis,' Trail. 7 'qui vero extra
altare est, non mundus est,' Philad. 7 ' Dei voce,' Rom. 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. 1 ' consuetudinem ' (op-oijOeiav for (loijOeiav), Philad. 5
' imperfectus ' (dva7rapT«rros for dvapwaoros), Rom. 3 ' suasionis ' (7reio--
porij'S for o-uairrjs p-dvov), ib. 6 'termini' (irepara for repirva), Mart. 6
' ab impiis ' (irapd t<3v d6£mv for ¦n-apd t<3 va<3). Again, it is free from
some glosses which disfigure the Greek text; e.g. Magn. 8 'secundum
Judaismum ' (for Kara vop.ov 'IovSaio-p.dv), ib. 9 ' secundum dominicam '
(for Kara Kvpiaicqv fon?v), Rom. 6 ' homo ero ' (for a.v9pojiros ®<=ov eo-opai).
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. lvii. 7,
a'pyds (for 8eo-ep™p) in Polyc. 6, is translated in the text of the Latin,
'nullus 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 Smyrnseans, 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 aliqualem,' Mar. Ign. 1 ' et Sobelum ' («al Sd/ifyAov for
Kao-o-djSqAov or Kao-o-o/3i?Aojv), 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 x«>p<3v xt0P£t''r<a' tottos p-ij8eva ^vmovro), the Latin rendering, ' qui capit
capiat ; qualiter nullis infletur,' arises obviously from a corruption x<"p«-
t<i)[to]7t<os for yup&.TuiTOiro'i. Thus again in Ephes. 3 for ev t<3 ovop-ari it
has 'in nomine Christi,' where 'Christi' is an obvious gloss; and in
Smyrn. 10 'P«W 'AyaOoirow 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 7rvp
ttSiAdiiAov, v8<op 8e £<3v may perhaps give the original reading. But the

80 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 [LJ (see the Catalogue of MSS in Caius Colleger),
1 93) '. 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^J
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 ccccmoxl 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 ms2. 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; (1) Smyrnaeans, (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,
(n) 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 11. p. 653); and then follow (14) 'Epistola eiusdemad
johannem evangelistam,' (15) 'Ignacius johanni evangeliste,' (16)
1 Cureton in several passages (Corp. College Oxford.'
Ign. pp.291, 308, 338) mentions a 'Corpus 2 Thus Smith, whose work was pub-
Christi MS,' apparently mistaking Jacob- lished in 1709, speaks of this MS as 'ante
son's notation C. C. (' Codex Caiensis ') ; quadringentos annos aut circiter, ut ex
for no such ms exists at Corpus Christi characteribus et figuris literarum coniec-
College in either Oxford or Cambridge. tu'ram facere libet, scripto' (S.Igmt.Epis-
On p. 338 he speaks of 'the two copies tolae pra.ef.), thus ante-dating it by more
of the... Latin Version belonging to Caius than a century and a quarter.
College Cambridge and Corpus Christi

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 8 1
'Ignacius sancte marie,' and (17) 'Ignacio sancta maria'; the whole
terminating with ' Expliciunt 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 and
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.). Whether he
or some one else was ultimately employed, does not appear from the
correspondence. 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. n. On the second page
(the first is blank excepting the date) is written in Ussher's handwriting ;
' Hoc Ignatianarum Epistolarum apographum ex Bibliotheci Collegii
Gunwelli 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
his work ' Junii 200 1631." After the first leaf, several leaves (apparently
1 On July 28, 1631, Ussher writes to transcript is mentioned by Ussher on
Ward, 'The copy of Ignatius Mr Bur- Aug. 9, 1632 with approbation: 'The
nett writeth unto me he hath received, copy was well taken out and serveth me
!but it is not yet come into my hands' to singular good use' (ib. XV. p. 559).
(Life and Works xv. . p. 542). This
IG. I. 6

82 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Smyrnseans 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'1.'
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 [L2], 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 known2 Ussher points out the mistake (Polyc. et
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' (S. Ign. Epist. praef.). I too have
angled for it in many waters, but enquiries made in all likely quarters
have proved unsuccessful. It would probably 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,
1 See Ussher Polyc. et Ignat. Epist. (lectionem)sequiturvetusinterpresAdone
p. cxli, from whom the error has been Viennensi antiquior ; vertit emmEgsini"
transmitted to later writers (e.g. Zahn et post resurrectionem in carne ipsM 1
/. v. A. p. 552). vidi>
2 Orig. Feci. p. 457 (a.d. 1640) 'Hanc

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 83
a.d. 1643 (Life and Works 1. 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 1. 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 (Dublin,
D. 3. n), 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
work. 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. 1 ' sapientes fecit ' this annotator writes, ' unum est verbum
in Graeco [o-o<pio-avTa], Latine sapientificavit' (Ussher Annot. ad loc.
p. 46). Thus again on Smyrn. 5 tcuv rot dVSpa he gives a gloss, 'Graeci
dicunt secundum virum pro singulum vel singillatim ' (Annot. ad loc.
p. 49). Again on Polyc. 8 'in et ipsos facere' he explains the grammar,
'regit haec propositio [1. praepositio] in more Graeco hoc totum ipsos
¦.facere^ Again on Ephes. 1 'dilectum tuum nomen quod possedistis
natura iusta' he writes, 'ephesis Graece, 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 theos (thoes) are thus
^described, 'bestiae sunt ex yena et lupo natae, et dicuntur licopantiri;
*veloces enim sunt, Hcet habeant tibias breves", where the clause
1 This is one of the very few excep- Caius MS also. It appears there with
tions where notes are preserved in the slight variations.
6—2

84 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
' veloces etc' refers to the derivation of 0<os from Oiw, 6o6s. This gloss
is translated from the Greek lexicographers1. 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 sup
pose. Lastly ; I find in this ms some words which seem to me to be
significant. After the table of contents at the end of the Acts of Mar
tyrdom, and before the commencement of the Correspondence with the
Virgin and S. John (i. e. at the end of the translated portion of this
Ignatian collection), the scribe writes, 'Consummatori bonorum Deo
gratias.' Does not this look like an ejaculation of thanksgiving on the
part of the translator at the completion of his task ?
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
sions. 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
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 Armenischm
Literatur p. 73 sq. (Leipzig 1836), who translates from PI. Sukias Somal
Quadro delle Opere di vari autori anticamente tradotte in Armeno p. 10
(Venezia 1825); see Cureton C. I. p. xvi. More recently it has been
rendered accessible to others besides Armenian scholars by Petermannj
1 Suidas B&es' Bijpla e"f valvrjs Kal \b- Magn. p. 459. It is worthy of notice
kov yevviip.eva: Etym. Gudian. Bwer ol that Suidas is mentioned among the
XvKoiravBijpoi,' raxeU ydp cIgi, Kalirep Greek works of which Grosseteste made
PpaxvGKeXeU fores; see Gaisford, Etym. use; Pegge pp. 284, 291, 346.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 85
who has reprinted and translated the whole, paragraph by paragraph, in
his edition of Ignatius (LipsiEE 1849). This version contains the
epistles in the following order : (1) Smyrnseans, (2) Polycarp, (3) Ephe
sians, (4) Magnesians, (5) Trallians, (6) Philadelphians1, (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 Smyrnseans. 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 Armenian version is attributed by Somal to the 5 th century,
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 con
siders that the internal evidence is favourable to its truth. The follow
ing 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, 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 ven
ture, 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 : (1) 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 pro
ceeded from the same hand as the Long recension ; (3) The translation
of the two sets of letters, thus combined, into Syriac, for it will be seen
1 The order is correctly given by Peter- mann, transposes and gives it, (5) Phila-
' mann (p. vi). Somal, followed by Neu- delphians, (6) Trallians, as in the Greek.

86 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. (1) 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 indeclinable 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 required 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. Magn. 7 'tentando tentate,' Rom. 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 dvOponros (frequently), 'sons of the city' for TroAu-ai (Tars. 2),
'by the hand of for 8td (frequently), 'our Lord' for d Kvpios (fre
quently). (2) Syriac ambiguities are wrongly taken by the translator.
Thus in Ephes. 8 tois atcoo-iv is rendered ' omnibus ethnicis,' the link
being the Syriac r£2al^. which signifies either ' age ' or ' world.' See
also 11. 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 rib.ui, will serve as an
instance. So again in Philipp. 10 k<xAwv 'funem' is rendered 'corrup-
tionem ' from the ambiguous Syriac p<Jl=u», which has either meaning
as differently vocalised. Two other remarkable examples of wrong
vocalisation appear in one chapter alone, Magn. 6 (see pp. ity
121). Of the confusion of letters numberless instances occur. ' Among,
others, more or less convincing, which Petermann gives, are the follow-

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 8 J
ing; Bouppos (Eph. 2) becomes Buerdos (•floQ.iias for jaooiioa);
KpoKos ib. is changed into Markos (jjoctovsa for .ttaaic); IIoAu-
/Jios (Hero 8) into Polekhes (.cw.«>,.\* for t*..-i.\c\.) ; to ovop.a
fyunv (Ephes. 1) is translated 'salus vestra' (,  /* 1 t« \ t. for
^___OAiax.); aVo t^s 00-p.^s (Magn. 10) 'a spiritu ejus' (cnuoi for
c«*ii»i); "va KaTeuoSu^Te (Magn. 13) 'ut splendeatis' (.^_a-»*5a— A».l
for ^__ft*»l— Ami ; comp. Hero 9); 6 tokcto's (Awz. 6) ' dolores mortis'
(r^AiOSa for rV.TiOSa); Tpo<pf? <p0op<xs (Rom. 7) 'lac' (rfi\»» for
rV law); al eyyicrra £kkAijo-uu (Philad. io)'sanctae ecclesiae' (rV&xxtiio
for rV^vajin) ; aVo tou TtdOovs (Smyrn. 1) ' a signo ' (n^T-1 for rdxu ;
see the note on Ephes. 1); tov p.eXAovTa (Polyc. 8) 'eum fratrem qui
paratus est' (r^jjK* oeo.i for r^i»rV oco.i); tjj a-eo-axrfievy iKK\rjo-ia
(Tars, inscr.) 'egregiae ecclesiae' (t<lx»ia. for r<lajia); i<pav\io-a
(Antioch. 10) 'obtegebam' (&wflo_a> for oVum ->); olKirrqpuov (Hero 6)
'discipulus' (rV:u2a\&t for rVT»S»^.At). 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 ai ywaiKes
Tipdruio-av tous avSpas us crapKa tSiW, the Armenian has ' mulieres hono-
rent viros suos, sicut Sarra Abrahamum.' He supposes that the trans
lator read Sdppa iSiov for o-dpKa ISiav, and that ' Abraham ' was an ex
planation of "Siov. Even if this solution be correct, and if the change
be not rather due (as seems more likely) to a reminiscence of 1 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. 1, 2, 6) given by the Armenian

88 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 "va ata$wp.ev, 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. (1) 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 the 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.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 89
Armenian Acts of Martyrdom [Am], containing the Epistle to the
Romans. For the editions of this work see 11. p. 366. A full account of
the contents of these Acts will be found below, 11. p. 370 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 p.r/8eis ovv k.t.A. (p. 170, Petermann), § 8 81*
okiyasv k.t.A. (p. 176), ib. ov Kara crdpKa k.t.A. (p. 177), § 9 pvrjpovevere
k.t.A (p. 178), ib. eyw 8e k.t.A (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 (I. 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 0eo<p6pos 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
ribui in the plurals, Rom. 7 ' cogitationes meas,' 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 gubernaculis for the singular o'aKt (Mart. Ant. 1),
which appears also in the Syriac Acts [Sm], proves nothing, since it is
easily explained by the fact that the ancients commonly had two rudders
(Acts xxvii. 40 t<3v ¦jrr/SaAiW). Nor does there seem to be any more
force in his other arguments. In this respect the phenomena of the
Armenian Acts [Am] present a marked contrast to those of the
Armenian Epistles [A].
(iv) Syriac [S].
This version is represented only by a few collections of frag
ments. (1) Paris Bibl. Nat. Syr. 62, formerly Sangerm. 38 [SJ. 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 published and
translated by the latter in the Corp. Ign. pp. 197 sq., 232 sq. They

90 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
have been collated afresh for the present work (n. p. 677) by M. Zoten-
berg. The ms itself is described by Munk ib. p. 342 sq., and by
Zotenberg Catal. des MSS Syriaques etc. p. 22 sq.
This collection contains the following passages :
Ephes. 5, 6 o-irovSdo-iopev ovv... Set irpocr^A«rav.
13 oTrouSd£eTe ouv...Kat ortyEtW.
15 ap.£tvov Iotlv...o Aeyaiv iroirj.
Magn. 5, 6 ot airiaroi tov Koo-pov . . .T<3v StaKovov.
6, 7 dAA' €va)^ijT£...iSta up.iv.
Trail. 2, 3 orav yap t<3 e7rir/Koir<p...ov KaAetTat.
5, 6, 7 Kai yap ey<o . . . <puAaTTecr0e ow tous TotouVous,
8 i5p.ets ow TTpavirdO£iav.,.alp.a 'lrjo-ov Xpto-Tou.
9, 10, n Koxpu^ijTe ow...ovTas peAi; a-uTOv.
Polyc. 3 ot 8oKo5vTes...i;pds viropeivrj.
6 ™ ct-io-koVo) 7rpoo"£i)(eT£---0"X£''v' ,raPa ©*<*>•
7 7rp£7ret, IIoAi;Kapir£...a7rapTta'i7T£.
Philad. 3, 4 00-01 yap ®£ou £trrtv...To{i atpaTos awov.
7 EKpavyarra p.era£u Lov...p.ffiev iroievre.
10 dirrjyyiXr) p,OL...Trpeo-j3vr4povs Kat SiaKOVODS.
Smyrn. 8, 9 ouk e£ov £0-Ttv...TU 8tay8o'Au> 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; Polyc. 3; 6; Philad. 3, 4; 7; 10;
¦Sott^. (called 'the Church of Asia') 8, 9; i%. 6, 7; Th*//. (again
Titilians) 8; 9, 10, n; ./fr/jv. 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 ixe siecle.'

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 9 1
(2) Brit. Mus. Add. 14577 [S2]; 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 kym ypaep<o...TOv o"u>p.aTos pov.
5, 6 o~vyyviopr]v p.01 c^eT«...av6pa«ros ea"op.ai.
Ephes. 15 ouSev Aav0avei...aya7ra)p.ev aurov.
20 iv pia irtOT€t...Kat vlaj ®eov.
Magn. 10 aVoirov eo-Tiv...ets ®edv awijxGv-
Smyrn. 4, 5 £t yap to 8oKelv...tjpvij6T]o-av vit avrov.
Hero I irapaKaAai ore 7rpoo-0etvai t<3 Spop-a) o~ov.
vr;oTetais . . . o-avrov KaTaySaAjjs.
They have been collated anew by Dr Wright for the present work
(11. p- 684).
(3) Brit. Mus. Add. 17 134 [SJ ; 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. 336). 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 ypdxpLo... tov o~u>paTos pov.
AtTav£«o"aT£...€V avno lAewepos.
6 a<p£T£ p.€ Kaflapov... rov ®cov pov.
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 11. p: 686).

92 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Cureton, apprehensive (it would seem) of the consequences which
would follow from the admission, will not allow that these fragments
(S1( S2, S8) 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 Tgnatian 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. 90), 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 with 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, Su S2, S3, the passages quoted are all
different with two exceptions. The exceptions are Rom. 4, 6, of which
parts are common to both S2 and Sa. Now in these passages there are
remarkable coincidences between S2 and S3, which are inexplicable 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 ri'JSaaA 'the mouth' in S3 for c£jjL 'the teeth'
in S2, and Rom. 6 nfima.l=) ' S2 'in the light' for rdx-sia Ss 'son
of man ' ( = ' man '). In the first case S„ has quoted loosely; in the
second S2 has a corrupt text, the corruption being explained by the
fact that r^icnai 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.
(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 frag
ments before us (Su S2, S„) belonged to this missing Syriac version.
s,.In Ephes. 5, 6, the comparison leads to no important results. In

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 93
Ephes. 13 al 8wdp.6is becomes a singular in St A; and for o" oA«0pos
olvtov Si has coi.iucvr^ ' dommio ejus', which appears to have been
corrupted from cnirjraK' 'pernicies ejus', and has itself apparently
been corrupted into eraJnoncvsw 'memoria ejus', as rendered by A.
In Ephes. 1 5 no decisive resemblance appears.
In Magn. 5, 6, the coincidences are very striking. For tov
Koo-pou tov'tov S^ have 'principes hujus mundi,' and for xaPaKTVPa
[Ixovo-tv] 'imago sunt'; at the beginning of § 6 «Wt ovv iv tois
irpoyeypap,p.evois Trpoowots is translated in Si ^^Aicaas ^>.i A.X.^73
^_ocnA^. &\sii£k i\i?3.iiD.i r^a/i&, 'sed quoniam in iis
personis de quibus (quod... de iis) antea scripsi ', but the words were
displaced in the text used by the translator of A, so that he has put
KlSiO-.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 7rpoowots, ' episcoporum videlicet et presbyterorum et
diaconorum ', and this gloss is inserted also by A. For irapaivio St A
have 'peto a vobis'; and irpoKaQiiplvov is translated by Si aiu s^
 n»AW.^-t 'quum sedeat in capite vestro', which becomes in A
' et sedeat in capitibus vestris '. Again the existing text of Si for
xai T(3v irpco-jSvTepoov ets tvjtov (v. 1. toVov) trvveSptou t<3v aTrooroAtov Kai
ti2v SiaKovwv has rdaiso .i&rusa.l rdfla^c\.^=) tVTiTno
KLuxAsLi Pf*w °>o\a nf.\r •siaLsao 'et presbyteri in forma
(typo) angelorum consilii et diaconi in forma (typo) apostolorum ',
while A renders it 'et sacerdotes tanquam angeli (legati) regis et
diaconi in formis (specie) apostolorum '. Here the coincidences are
decisive: for (1) The Armenian translator is misled by an ambiguity
in the Syriac r^laJsa, 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 rf tf '» 1 rf tv>°kcJ^s3 'in forma apo
stolorum ' after the mention of the deacons. The explanation seems
to be that ets tujtov oweSptov tc3v a7roo-ToAft)v 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

94 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Armenian translator has taken the whole passage as he found it in
his Syriac copy. In Magn. 6, 7, again some curious coincidences
appear. The preposition in irpoKaOrjpevuiv is translated in S, as before,
and so it again becomes 'in capitibus vestris' in A. Moreover in
rendering twos the word adopted in S2 is r^iftw, which differently
vocalised signifies either 'the form' or 'the sight', and accordingly :;
the corresponding words to ets twov are 'in conspectum' in A.
Again the words rjvwpevo? <Sv are omitted by both Si and A. Again
the Syriac m__&aiih\ cutei=a 'tentando tentate' is reproduced'
in the Armenian, where the Greek has simply ATupdo-qre Again tSi'a
i5p.iv in Si is cola culm ^^oaajsi .im :u»X, literally 'uni
uni e vobis ab ipso et ad ipsum ', and in A ' unusquisque e vobis
a se ipso '.
In Trail. 2, 3, likewise, SiA keep very close together. Thus both
render KaTa dvOp<oirov ' in corpore '. Again the reading of A, ' quando |
creditis ortum ejus et mortem ', for mcn-evo-avTes ets tov #avaTov auVov . ,
must be explained through the Syriac. Sx has ^JLSOtcoJsa SA
cohyOiSns ^oAurV following the Greek; but the Syriac ms from
which A was ultimately derived must have had a corrupt reading
cd.tIqsjs 'his birth' for on&\cvsa 'his death', whence, owing
probably to a marginal correction, both words got into the text
which was used by A. Lower down SiA have ' presbyteris ' (' sacer-
dotibus') for t<3 irpeo-^vrepi<a. Again Si translates pvcmjptW by
tVtr^i dOra 'filii mysterii', i.e. 'the initiated', thus forming a
link with the Armenian which has ' participes-mysteriorum '. Again
Kal owSecrpov oVoo-toAgiv is translated by Sx — *n •'¥ 1 riisa.icoo
' et membra apostolorum ', which explains the rendering of A ' et
a sociis apostolorum (sc. erubescat)'. In Trail. 5, 6, the phenomena
of St account for some renderings in A. Thus 'deficiens (deminutus) ",
sum ' is the rendering of iroAAd 17p.1v AetVei in both; again both have
'commiscent personas suas (semetipsas) cum Jesu Christo' for the
difficult words Katpoi [Kat tu>?] irapepirkeKovo-iv 'ir/o-ovv Xpiorov; and
again both omit iv TjSovy (or r/Se'uis) and Kamj; besides some minor
points of resemblance. In the short quotation from Trail. 8 S! 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 TrtWet o eoriv o-apf toS TLvpiov Kal iv ayaVij o eoTtv al/ia
'Iijo-oi! Xpto-Tov ; the change depending mainly on a confusion of the

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 95
Syriac words tVi-ttYi ,-t 'in spe' and ~fj<*» -« 'caro'. In Trail.
9, 10, 11, again the two coincide generally, besides presenting some
special resemblances. Thus KoxpwO-rrre is rendered by both ' estote
sicut muti ' ; 6rjpiopaxrjo-ai in Sx is ' vorari a feris ', in A ' voratus-a-feris
fieri'; ecpatvovTo av is oocn ^\_»cVvr>3 f»ocn ' fierent apparentes ' in
Su ' fierent et apparerent ' in A ; 81' ov ev tw Wflet avrov Trpoo-KaAetTai
ipas ovras peAi7 avTov is mutilated in the same way by both, Si 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 81' ov and irpoo-KaAetTat and insert tov oravpov, while
A moreover has had a corrupt text of Si, reading criTiii * signo' for
coxjjo 'passione' (a common confusion : see 11. p. 25 sq.).
In the short passage Polyc. 3 both read ' aliquid ' for dlioVioroi ;
both translate eTepoStSao-KaAetv by 'docere alienas doctrinas'; both
have 'in veritate' ('in firmitate') for eSpatos; both give tO&ullm
' vir fortis ' for a.Kp<av. In Polyc. 6 again the two closely agree ; e. g. in
translating jrpoo-exeTe by ' spectate ' and inserting ' spectet ' with 0' ©eos.
In Polyc. 7, though A contains some Syriasms and some special
coincidences with Si (e. g. ' paratus est ' for o-xoAd£et), yet it frequently
departs from S1; 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 Sj in the gloss on o-xi£ovti,
' separatoris (separantis) ecclesiae ' in A, ' separantis (scindentis) eccle-
siam dei ' in St. 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 diro o-apKos dvOpairivrjs, as if aVo dvOpiomov with Si (r^Tliln).
The perversion of one sentence moreover ' Et dixi hoc. Testatur mihi
is, etc' in A, may be explained from Si but not from the original.
In Philad. 10, besides the usual Syriasms, A translates the sentence
eis to irpec/Jevc/ai eKet ®eov 7rpeo"/8etav ets to orvyxaprjvai airrots ' qui possit
fieri praecursor (nuncius) Dei, ut proficiscatur illuc et simul gaudeat '
after S, ; it inserts tov Kvptbv after to ovop,a with Si; and it reads
'sanctae ecclesiae' for at eyyiora eKKAiyo-tai with St (see above p. 87).
Lastly; in Smyrn. 8, 9, the Armenian rendering of dydmjv 'a love-
feast' by 'quietem' is explained (as Petermann had conjectured without
seeing Si) by the intermediate word in St rVAviiw^i ' refreshments ',
of which word an allied form is used also as the rendering of dya7njv in
Jude 12.

96 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Sr
The coincidences are equally striking here. In the short passage
Rom. 4 A reproduces two characteristic Syriasms from S2 ' per manum
(manus) earum' (8t' <3c), and 'provocando provocate' (pdAAov koXo-
KevcraTe). In Rom. 5, 6, the phenomena are conclusive, and exhibit
clearly the corrupt state of the Syriac text, when the Armenian version
was made. A translates ti p.01 avpcpepei 'quod mandatum est mihi'
after S2, where the reading 3 in °\ ' mandatum est ' is a corruption of
n"** ' expedit '. For dp^opat A has ' credo ' ; where the translator evi
dently had iixjsa or iuso for rc*i T*a, the correct reading, which
is still preserved in S2. For f%>iW o-vardo-eis A and S2 have 'bestiae
quae paratae sunt'; for o-Kopmo-p,ol oarenv they have 'divisio et dispersio
ossium ' ; and they agree also in the form of rendering Ta Trepara tow
Koo-pov ovSe at /3ar/tAetat tov atuivos tovtov, ' termini (thesaurus A) mundi,
etiam (et) non regnum hujus', omitting tov atoivos because the cor
responding Syriac word was already exhausted in rendering Ko'o-pov.
The word tokctos again is rendered in A by 'dolores mortis', which
exactly reproduces S2 rVcVaso.i rdLau, where the word r?b\OZ3
'death' is a corruption of rc*slosa 'birth', for 'birth-pangs' are
meant by ToKeTo's. Again the words o-vyyvan-e' p;oi 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 tov ©eov cVAoira eTvai Koo-pM are wrongly
connected by both with the preceding sentence, and translated as if
tov prj OeAovra elvai ev Koarpta (see ii. p. 2 1 9). Again vXy is rendered by
both, as if it had been tois o'paTots. Again for dvOpunro's A has 'homo
perfectus', and S2 'in luce perfectus', where rVieocUa 'in luce' is
evidently a corruption of rdjuia 'homo ' (lit. 'Alius hominis').
In Ephes. 15 the only remarkable coincidence is the omission of
the clause oirep Kai. . . wpoowov ijpiSv by both. In Ephes. 20 A agrees,
with S2 in omitting Kat after wurret. In Magn. ro they agree in rendering
droirov eoriv Tijcovv Xpiorov AaAetv Kat k.t.A. ' non est decens ubi JeSUS
Christus narratur, etc.', and in substituting ' omnis ' (^sa Aa S,) for
irdo-a yXZo-o-a. In Smyrn. 4, 5, after 'in mortem' (T^ 0avaT<») both
add 'et in ignominiam (contumeliam) ' ; both render p-eratf B^im
p.tTa£v ®eov 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 TeAetov dvOpwirov [yevop;evov].
In the two lines quoted from Hero 1 there is no substantial de
parture from the Greek in either.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 97
s,.
The passages from the Epistle to the Romans here are in great
part the same as in S2. Of the various readings, which S3 presents, it is
only necessary to observe that rdLzncxS*. S3 for r£xL S2 is a departure
from A, as from the original Greek, and that on the other hand S„ preserves
the correct rslrjin (where S2 reads reversals), thus agreeing
exactly with A. In the passages not contained in S2 the agreement of
S3 A in adding ' ex mortuis ' (rVcKj-sa cWls JSi) after dvao-r>]o-opai
(Rom. 4) should be observed.
The conclusion from the facts adduced is irresistible. We have
plainly in these fragments (St S2 S3) 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 (Sx S2 Sa), and the
Syriac version of the three epistles in the Short recension (2), in those
passages which are common to both. This is so patent, 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. Briefs
App. x. p. i; seep. 96), that no escape from the inference is possible.
I shall not occupy space here by going over this 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, inas
much as my apparatus criticus does not aim at reproducing the pecu
liarities 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 2 is an abridgment of S, in which case all the evidence
for the genuineness of the Short recension disappears ;, or 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.
IG. I. 7

98 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 establish 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 pre- ¦
judged. 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
Si S2 S3, 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 (Melelmatu
Ignatiana, 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 Si S2 S3 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 Sj S2 S3, of a complete Syriac version which was closely con
nected with 2 (just as Sj S2 S3 are connected with it), and from which the
Armenian was translated. In other words, we have independent proof,
that Si S2 S3 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 establish1.
1 The reader is now in a position to against 'Professor Petermann's assump-
estimate the value of Bunsen's protest tion that the Syriac text is an extract

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 99
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, n. p. 3 sq.
Syriac Martyrdom [Sm], a version of the Antiochene Acts, incor
porating the Epistle to the Romans. It is contained in three known
mss, of which the first and third are imperfect.
(1) Brit. Mus. Add. 7200, a volume containing various Acts of
Martyrdom. It contains these Acts of Ignatius (fol. 98) from the
beginning to 7rdAtv ecropat <po)vrj, 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, qui in Mus. Brit.
asservantur 1. p. 92 sq., where it is assigned to the 13th century; but
Cureton (C.I. p. 362) considers it ' to be rather more ancient'. From
this ms Cureton first printed these Acts (C.I. p. 222 sq.), with a trans
lation (C. I. 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
edition. (2) Borg. 18. From this ms Moesinger (Supplementum Corporis
Ignatiani-o. 3 sq., Oeniponti 1872) first pubhshed the Syriac version of
the Acts complete. He describes the ms thus (p. 4) ;
'Codex, in quo haec acta continentur, a Georgio Ebedjesu
from an old Syriac version, of which the that it is scarcely possible to formulize
Armenian text is a translation' (Hippoly- it seriously, etc.' It is difficult to see
tus 11. p. 432). ' For this assumption,' how an honest man, as Bunsen unques-
he boldly adds, ' there is no ground tionably was, could have used this lan-
whatsoever. The Armenian translation guage, if he had read Petermann's pre-
represents throughout the text of the face and notes with any degree of care.
Greek Letters, including those which are The statement which I have italicised is
acknowledged to be false ; and its various directly contradicted by facts. So else-
readings show the thorough corruption where he writes in the same strain ;
of our Greek text. There is not the Hippolytus I. p. 357 sq. (note).
' shadow of a reason to assume that the Bunsen however has this excuse, that
1 Armenian translation was made from a he wrote before the full effects of Peter-
; Syriac text, and not, like all other Ar- mann's investigations had made them-
. menian translations of Greek fathers, selves felt. The case is different with a
from the Greek. But had it been so made, writer who a quarter of a century later
the argument for or against the seven shields himself under Bunsen's authority,
' (or rather twelve) Letters would remain and quotes his words apparently with
exactly where Professor Petermann found approval ; Supernatural Religion I. p<
it. His argument, resting on a gratui- xlvi sq. (6th ed. 1875).
''tous assumption, is so absolutely null,
'' 7—2

IOO EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Khayyath, ai;chiepiscopo Amadiensi, descriptus est in libro cui in-
scriptio, Syri Orientates seu Chaldaei Nestorianiet Romanorutn pontificum;
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 unscholarl/.
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 1), 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. 1. p. 606, and
(somewhat confusedly) also by S. E. Assemani Act. Mart. Orient, et
Occid. 11. 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. in. p. 319 sq. Cureton attempted to obtain
a transcript of the Acts of Ignatius in this volume, but did not succeed
(Clip. 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 de Rossi Inscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. 1. p. 5 sq.
(1857— 1861), I instituted further enquiries, and through the inter
vention of Prof. 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 <p6do-ai in c. 5 of the Acts.
This Syriac version of the Antiochene Acts has been edited anew by
Prof. Wright for the present work (11. p. 687 sq.). The various readings
of the three mss, designated A, B, C, 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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. IOT
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 is printed for the first time in this edition. No use has
hitherto been made of it.
Borg. 248. This ms is inadequately described in Zoega's Catalogus
Codicum Copticorum Manuscriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris
adservantur (Romae, 1810) p. 604, as follows: 'Primo loco occurrit
postrema pars epistolae primae S. Ignatii Martyris quae Philippis scripta
ad Heronem. Deinde pag. 6 prostat titulus &.goMOK\oc KeemcToAH
riTe TtrteTOYa.aJi rrruvTioc n.Ais.pTirpoc rteTOimois'Te epoq ae oeocj>opoc
ere TieTt^opei AiTmo-s-re ea.qco_ajc uja. rtp.ttc.\iirpnH. 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 Museo Nazionale at Naples, where I transcribed it.
The portions of the Ignatian Epistles contained in it are (1) Hero § 7
IIoAuKapTrcii irapeBkp.T\v vpdq to the end, followed by (2) Smyrnaans
from the beginning as far as § 6 ireivaWos rj Su^wvtos1. They are written
on two loose leaves, or four continuous pages marked e, c, 7, h.
The ms is a 4to with double columns, clearly written. The initial letters
are occasionally very rudely illuminated and the tb/s are generally
coloured. The marks over the rt 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, *., h, \?j -2k, must
have contained the earlier part of the Epistle to Hero, and can hardly
have contained anything else. The Epistle to the Smyrrweans 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 mss1
1 Moesinger (Suppl. Corp. Ign. p. 30) His error is not explained by anything in
speaks of the Epistle to 'the Antioch- the passage of Cureton (C.I. p. 362 sq.)
' enes' as existing in this Coptic version. to which he refers.

102 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
of other versions and recensions. The ms affords no clue for deter
mining how many of the Ignatian Epistles this version included.

LONG FORM.
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 Epistole (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
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 Augustanus, by which
it is commonly known), and is described in , the Catal. Cod. in Bibl
' Reipubl. August. Vindel. 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. 1 a — 2 b), contains (r) fol. 3 a — 199 a the irpoKanfx^o-is and the
eighteen KaT^'7o*ets toov <£«m£op.eV<ov of Cyril of Jerusalem, the author's
name however not being given; (2) fol. 199 a — 212 b, the five pv<m:
yu>yLKal KaTr/^TyVets commonly assigned likewise to Cyril of Jeru
salem, but here stated to be TwoVvou eVto-KoVou 'Iepoa-oAv'pcov (see
Toutte'e's Dissert, ii. c. 3, prefixed to his edition of Cyril); (3) fol.
213 a — 261a, the Ignatian Epistles, ending the volume. Fol. 212 b
ends with the words #Afyeis iirl tov vutov rjpwv, Cyril. Catech. Mystag. v.
17 (P- 33°); fo1- 213 a begins in the middle of a word -vdo-KaAov Se ™
Aoyio-pak o-ov k.t.X. Mar. Ign. 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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 103
the Episde 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. Bib/. August. Vindcl. 1. c, where it is pubhshed. In the
much later Cafa'. Bibl. Reg. Baiar. 1. c. it is ignored.
This ms gives the Ignatian Episties in the same order in which they
occur commonly in the Greek mss of this recension ; (1) Mary to
Ignatius; (2) Ignatius to Mary: (3) Trallians: (4) Magnesians: (5) Tar
sians (-wpos toils eV Tapo-c3) ; (6) Philippians (s-po's <I>iA«ns-r/o-iovs irept
/Saa-rtb-paTos) : (7) Philadelphians ; (8) Sniyrnaeans ; (9) Polycarp (s-pos
noAwcarKTov eVto-Kos-ov Ipvovr^) ; (10) Antiochenes: (n) Hero (s-pos
"Hp«uva Suucovov 'Ai-rtoxetas) ; (12) Ephesians: (13) Romans. The epistles
are generally numbered in the margin (though sometimes the number
is omitted) : but the first number & begins with Ignatius to Marv, the
preceding letter of Mary to Ignatius not being reckoned in. Two
lessons are indicated : (i) -rrj -. KvpiaKJ} tiZv dyitiw n/oreuuv, of which the
beginning (apx-i) is noted at Ephes. 2 irperrov ovv vaa<s io-rw on fol.
252 a, and the end (TeXos) at Ephes. 9 paAiora Tru-mZv on fol. 254 a;
(ii) ev rrj p-vijp.rj tov dyiov lyvaTiov, of which the beginning (opxv) ^ a*
Rom. 3 cyoj ypdtfxo on fol. 259 b, while the end is not marked, or at
least I have no record of it (see below, 11. p. 4^9).
This ms was very carelessly transcribed for the editio princeps.
Thus in Ign, Mar. 1 Paceus prints KpLrroo-i, Xr}p.-r}v, —apayyvd, ib. 2
rfTifutupemnv, KeAevBevra. av iyvovs (for avayvovs), iprprrrv, ib. 4 avaKAyJTio
(for aveyKAirna), ov j;er (for ovk iv), — poo"SoKop;evos utOos (for iTpooSoKwpevos
purOtk), eta, in all which cases the words are correctly written in the MS.
Not unnaturally editors have been misled by these phenomena. Thus
Zahn (Ign. et Polyc. Ep. p. xx) writes ' Paceum codicis scripturam satis
fideliter expressisse...ipsa vitiorcm. quibus ilia scatet, ratio ostendit.
Xe 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.
2. Vatiainus 859 [gj, collated by Dressel. who marks it [V], and
thus describes it; 'membraneus, foliorum quaternariorum maj. 288,
saec. xi, graeca ac docra manu scriptus'. . . ' Codex est optimae notae, scri-
bendi quidem ratio nostrorum Graecorum, idcirco ob itacismum vocales
ac diphthongos haud raro permutans. Inscriptiones rubrae. Xierses
file Ghelazensis, qui eum olim possidebat in calce epistolae Barnabae
' notulam sermone Armeniaco adscripsit Qui cum anno 1173 obierit,

104 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
facile apparet Angelum Maium, cum [consentiente ?] Jacobsono (Patres
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 TtVco Updpxv ipurrqo-avTi St' eyto-ToXiJs
Tts o' ttjs oxKptas oTkos k.t.A., the 9th letter of this pseudo-apostolic father.
This continues for some pages. On fol. 151 b col. 2 below the middle
is /cat ti)v p.ev KaT auriav, T17V Se KaO' wapftv, Tr)v Se KaTa p,e#e£iv, Kat oAXa
aAAws. «JS rj KaT avTa ovv irpaoTijros, iv 17 KaTaAveTat k.t.A. The first
part as far as «Ss 17 Kar aird belongs to the pseudo-Dionysius (p. 800,
ed. Corder.) : the remaining words from ovv 7rpadT>7Tos 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
tos 17 KaT aird (its right place) but after aAAa aAAws, so that the words
(iis 1) Kar aird 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 wanting1.,
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. 2 r 1 b, 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 Protevangelium jfacobi. ,
The ms was collated by Dressel, from whom I have taken the various
readings in the Ignatian Epistles.
3. Ottobonianus 348, also in the Vatican Library. This ms was
collated by Dressel, who describes it ' Chartaceus, foliorum quaterna-
riorum min. ineuntis saeculi 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-
1 Dressel (p. 230) quotes the authority (ijv for oc). 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 Trail. 3 the end of § 4.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 105
haps a direct copy. 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 tos •) Kaf aura ouv 7rpa6rr;Tos of Vatic. 859 becomes
<os 17 Kar dvrd ovv irpao'r^s in Ollob. 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 Epistle begins, takes offence at the
grammar and alters accordingly. I have not noticed any reading in
DresseFs collation of the Ignatian Epistles inconsistent with the sup
position that it was copied from Vatic. 859 : and, having myself
examined the vv. 11. of both mss in the Epistle of Polycarp, I am con
firmed 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 allied to it. The headings to the epistles are simpler
than in the older ms, being of the type tou avrov wpos payv^o-tous
eVicrToAij TptTr/. Dressel says of Ottob. 348 ' Adsunt in margine scholia,
adnotationes, correctiones ac conjecturae haud contemnendae'. He
has not remarked that these marginal 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 tou dyiov tepopctprupos lyvaTiov tou
Oeoepopov i-mo-ToXal in rubric : then irpos TpaAA^o-tous e7rtcrToAi7 SeuTepa,
With a side note AetVet 77 dpx>7 t^s wpos TpaXXrjo-tovs orta-roA^s /3 , rijs
Se 7rp<orns to wav, but the last line t^s Se TTpwrris to ttSv seems to be
by a different hand. The text begins about two-thirds down fol. 1 b.
4. Laurent. Plut. vii. Cod. 21, in the Lauren tian library at Florence,
described in Bandini Catal. MSS Graec. Bibl. Laurent. 1. 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
(1) The Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp (with the Epistle of Barnabas
attached to the latter) ; (2) Hippolytus de Consummation Mundi, de
Antichristo, and de Secundo Adventu. The ms is ascribed to the 15th
century, but seems to belong rather to the 16th.
The Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Barnabas in this ms appear
\' to have been derived (so far as I have observed) immediately from

106 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Ottob. 348. The title page presents exactly the same appearance, ex
cept that the words tt/s Se Trptor^s tov mxv are omitted ; the fragment of
the Trallians begins with the same words <os 1) KaT avrd ovv irpaoVijs
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
n,ote of Ottob. 348. The Epistle to Polycarp at the close has the
words dpijv. ij x"Pts j but Laur. vii. 2 r reads dpiyv 1) x^P'5 "cro)5 row 6eov
etr/ ped' vptav (see Bandini p. 270), the words tcras tov 6eov elrj peff
upwv being unintelligently copied from a conjecture (to-os) in the
margin of Ottob. 348, which was intended to supply the supposed
omission. 5. Paris. Graec. 937, formerly Colbert. 4443, described in the Catal.
MSS Bibl. Reg. 11. p. 183, where it is assigned to the 16th 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 however 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, 17 ydpi% "°~ms TC"> 6nov e"7 M6^' up<«v. In the only
portion for which I have examined both mss carefully — the Epistle of
Polycarp — the phenomena suggest that Paris. Graec. 937 was copied
directly from Laurent, 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 po'pos o-KoirelTai 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. Paris. Suppl. Graec. 341, a small 41.0 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
¦Kepi Karao-Keur/s dv6po>irov, 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
Christus Pattens, 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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 07
before the printed works. It may be inferred therefore that they were
written somewhere about the middle of the 16th 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 name1. This
Claude Joly, who has a certain position in the literary history of
France, was made precentor of Notre Dame a.d. 167 1 (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. Graec. 341, for on a fly leaf
it has the entry 'A la Bibliotheque de l'Eglise de Paris b.2j, 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 a-ytou tepop.apTupos tyvaTtou tou 6eoepopov eVtOToAat,
followed by the special title wpos TpaXXr/o-Lovs hrurroXrj Bevripa. As in
the mss previously described, the epistle itself begins in the lower part
of the second page, <us -q KaT auVct ouv irpaoTri^, the upper part being
left blank.
This fact indicates its general relationship, but its lineage may be
more closely determined. A comparison with Ottob. 348 seems to
show that it was derived mediately or immediately from this last-men
tioned ms. Thus Ottob. 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-

1 Zahn, by no fault of his own, has he gives vlov, whereas it should be vlov
been misled ' by the manner in which XpiGrov. Sometimes Cotelier himself is
Cotelier gives the variations. Thus p. incorrect ; but his faults are chiefly of
194 for Magn. n tt/v 'XovSalwv Zahn omission. On the whole however his
gives the v. 1. of our MS as Trjc twv 'Ion- collation is as full as we should expect
Salwv, whereas it should be twv 'lovdalwv from any critic of his age.
(om. Trpi), and m Magn. 12 'Iijgov XpiGrov

108 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
cidences however are even more numerous than appear from Cotelier's
collation. Thus in Rom. inscr. the correction of 77va)p,evois, TrewXrjpwpi-
vots, into jjviopevrjv, ¦n-eTrXrjpuipevrjv (the words however being written
with o for as 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 Ottob. 348 is not always very intelligently made. Thus in
Rom. 9 ttj oSai Trj Kara crdpKa Kara ttoXlv k.t.A., the words Trj Kara,
o-dpKa are omitted in the interpolator's text, but inserted in the marg.
of Ottob. 348 from the Metaphrast ; whereas the transcriber of our ms
has simply substituted koto1 o-dpKa for KaTa rro'Atv 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
Ottob. 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 vwoo-rrjo-am,
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 viroo-Tijo-avTi 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 Thuaneus. The difficulty seems not to have oc
curred to subsequent editors. Whiston, who in his edition of these
epistles (Primitive Christianity 1. 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 1 ; 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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 109
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 hneally 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 [gj, 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.
Magn. 9 vedVrjTa for Katvor^Ta, Trail. 9 koCXlo. for KapSta, Rom. 4 em-
o-reAAto for evTeAAopat, Ephes. 10 Aeyere for et7raTe. 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 p-iop-qo-qTai for piprjo-yTai, Rom. 2 8ieA0etv for
StaAu^vat, Philad. 8 avOevriKov for 0.61KTOV, TrpoKplverai for TrpoKiirai,
Smyrn. 3 o-rjpa for rpijpa, Polyc. 4 dird tou KvpLov for aVo tou koivou,
ib. 7 outov dyaTrr]o-rjT€ for oSvto dirapTiarp-e, Ephes. 16 iKKXrjo-iav for StSacr-
KaAtav. On this principle the Latin words in Polyc. 6 are all changed ;
Siao-aAeuf?ij being substituted for Seo-e'pTa>p evpedrj, Ta Se woAeptKa
for Ta Seirdo-tTa, Ta acUa for rd aKKeirra. So too 'A/3vep is substituted
for 'A/SeSSaSctv in Magn. 3, where the historical reference is unintel
ligible ; and in the same context the unusual word iKKpeprjs is changed
into eVet KpepijOeis. Again ; a very frequent motive of change is the

HO EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
desire to simplify the grammar, where the sentence is abrupt or ellip
tical : e. g. the insertion of 1} euxv lrP°s m -Polyc. 2, and of Se iK/3dXXere
in Ephes. 8 ; or the omission of os Kat in Magn. 4 ; or the substitution
of u/eyto Se for ij/iywv and of oiv for tovtwv Philad. 4, and again of awos
o' IlauAos for KaOm IlauAos 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
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 au0evTiKo'v for dOiKrov, and irpoKpiveraj. for
irpoKctTat, Philad. 6, where the Latin has principatus, 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 dOiKrov and ¦n-poWn!
like the other mss of the Long recension.
The eccentric readings of this ms therefore must 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
crimination. 8. Constantinopolitanus [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 Appendix to
S. Clement of Rome p. 224 sq. 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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. Ill
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.
The ms maintains the same character in the Ignatian letters which
has been noticed in the Epistles of Clement (Appendix p. 226 sq.).
Here, as there, it exhibits manifest traces of a critical revision, 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.
9. Vatic. Regius (Reginensis ?) 30 [gs], a Vatican ms collated by Dres
sel and called by him [R]. He thus describes it (p. lvii); 'Membraneus,
foliis octonariis, saecuh xi ineuntis. Insunt Opp. Dionysii Areopagitae
cum glossis haud indoctis, necnon ad Ioa?mem Apostolum spectantia
(1 — 160). Postea fragmentum Epistolae Ignatii ad Ephesios exhibetur
in sex foliis cum dimidio '. The fragment extends from the beginning
of the epistle to § 18 ttov Kav'xrjcrts tcuv Aeyo-. This epistle is numbered
o\, 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 Allatio erutae', and below is the number 428. Dressel
wrongly copies it 'ex codice Vaticano 428 a Leone Allatio 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. 1. 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
Allatius gives various readings from the famous Medicean ms (see above,
p. 73 sq.), and in reference to these Dressel describes him as 'haudraro
suas conjecturas pro libri scripti lectionibus tacite venditans'. How
just this accusation is, any one may see for himself by comparing these

112 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 -
et p.17 iirl twv TrpwTwv irpoyroirXdo-Tiov, inserting the worse than superfluous ¦-.
TTposTcov. 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 et prj im, and
below is written t<3v irpw- according to a common practice of giving
the catch words to carry the eye forward, as the next page begins with
twv TrpwToirXdo-Twv. Ussher must have had his text printed from a copy
of this edition; and the compositor has carelessly read on continuously
eVi tw irpw | twv irpwTOirXdcrTwv. Ussher indeed found out the mis
print, for in his table of errata irpwrwv is directed to be omitted ; but
Voss, not seeing this, prints eVt twv irpwTwv ArpwroirXdcrrrav after Ussher,
A happy blunder ; for it enables us to detect the imposture of
Allatius. Allatius, 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 Allatius j
reads ou tiJs £,wijs alwvlov, for on £wrjs alwviov. 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 ou rrji for on. He would have respected Greek usage more,
and have diverged less from ms authority, if he had read ou simply for
otl. But his solecism was perpetuated in later editions, till it reached
Ussher and Voss, and from one or other it was taken by Allatius.
Again in Tars. 9 this transcript reads dveTrir/T^Tot 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
aVeTrtaraToi and dve7rto-Tcm7Toi, both these words being found elsewhere,
and both perhaps possible in this context. Again in Philipp. 11, where
the editio princeps had ?7Keio-as, Morel boldly substituted efoio-as and is
followed by later editors ; accordingly e^o-as is found in this transcript,
though no ms has any reading at all resembling it. Again in Magn. 13
the correct reading is ct^tojrAoKou Kai TrveupaTiKou o-Te<pdvou tou ffpfflp"

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 113
Tept'ou vpwv, 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 irpeo-/3uTeptou has been corrupted into
¦n-pecrplvTepov, and ore<pdVou is in consequence changed into a proper
name ' Stephen.' In this connexion the epithet d$iowX6Kov is quite out
of place, and Morel substituted dgioviKov ' sua authoritate ', as Ussher
truly says, and in this he was followed by most later editors, though
not by Ussher or Voss. So a£tovtKou 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 alpjiTwv for orreppaVaiy, Trail. 10, was Morel's conjecture : dire'-
Sei£ev for dirrjXey^ev, Magn. 3, appeared first in an edition of Plantinus,
being suggested by djrr/Aet^ev a misprint of the editio princeps ; etA^'-
ipecrav was first substituted for etAKuow, Philad. 5, in the edition of
Plantinus, where the editio princeps has etA^vo-av ; ¦n-eirXrjpoepoprjp.evri
for ireirXT]pwp.evri, Smyrn. prsef., was an early editorial correction, founded
on irenX-qpopkvrj, 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 g„ 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. aVaordo-et for atT^'cret 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 made 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 twv irpwrwv irpwTOTrXdo-Twv Hero 4 and
d^LoviKov 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 'ne ex lon-
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
IGN. I, 8

114 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. Manuscr.
Bibl. Bodl. 1. 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 170 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,ms 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 Angl. et Hibem. (Oxon. 1697) no. 7099 'Ignatii1
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. Ign. 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 (septenr
enim tantum sunt) sed cum assumentis quidem diu post Eusebium,
imo et Gelasium, factis, epistolas hoc ordine repraesentans ; jrpos T/joA- j
A170-10US A. irpos MayFrycrtous B. 7rpos <E>tAaSeA<pets T. 7rpos A%pvpvalov% A,
wpos IIoAuKap7rov iiricrKOTrov %p,vpvq<i E. Trpo's 'Ecpeo-tous f. irpos 'Pw
piatous Z.'
This description entirely accords with the Bodleian ms.
In other passages Pearson refers to a ms which he calls Leicestremis
(Minor Theol. Works 11. p. 443, Epist. Ign. p. 15), and Smith also
mentions this ms on one occasion (Epist. Ign. p. 70). Elsewhere again
Pearson designates a certain ms as Anglicanus (V. I. p. 490, Ep. If
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.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. II 5
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 pvr)p.ovevei up<3v ( V. I.
p. 490); Polyc. 7 o-u'vtovov (Ep. Ign. p. 33); Magn. 10 virepOeo-Bc (Ep.
Ign. p. 44) ; Ephes. 1 2 7rapa8o0ets ye twv with a marginal reading 7repto8o's
eo-re tc3v (Ep. Ign. p. 38). 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, tow Kar dvSpa Smyrn. 5 by Pearson (Ep. Ign. p. 15) and
eVto-KoVou Polyc. 8 by Smith (Ep. Ign. p. 70). Hitherto therefore all the
facts conspire to identify the Anglicanus and Leicestrensis with each
other1, and with the Bodleian ms. But there is one statement which
seems inconsistent with this identification and which Churton (Fi/p, 58)
urges as fatal to it. In his treatise de Annis Primorum Romae Episco-
porum (Minor Theol. Works n. p. 443) Pearson adduces 'AvaKAjfTto 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 passage in Trail. 7, where our ms does write this name
\AvdKAr7T0s2. 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 (V. I. 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
1 Against the identification of Angli- as distinct from Pearson's MS.
canus with Leicestrensis Churton (1. c.) 2 Careful as he was, Pearson could
writes 'id quominus credam, obstat quod sometimes make great mistakes even in
duos codices distinguit Smithius Nott. his finished works. Thus in V.I. p. 517
i-p.'lo.' This, is a mistake.. Smith there he writes Tertullianus for Hieronymus,
. mentions Augustanus, but not Angli- while giving the reference and quoting
canus, in connexion with Leicestrensis. the words of the passage. See also my
f Lipsius (Syr. Text. d. Ign. p. 48) falls notes on Philad. 11 'AyaBoiroh (11. p. 280),
/ into the mistake of treating Leicestrensis and on Smyrn. \i"A\kt\v (ii. p. 325).
8—2

Tl6 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
isolated them from the rest, as alone genuine1. I supposed however that
they might have been copied from some older ms. But a further
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
transcription. This relation betrays itself in many ways. Thus in Ephes. inscr.
the scribe has imitated the contraction of i]vwpevip> as it appears in
Morel's type, though generally he writes the letters separately. Thus
again in Rom. 9 the first o of ptdVos in Morel's edition is faulty, so that
the word looks like p,tvos ; accordingly our scribe has written it ptVos'.
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 \oyl{~opai, ML fy 'Soylfapai;
ib. 7 aGtpa\l£eoBe ovv robs tolovtovs, ML irpos robs toiovtovs, ib. 3AviyH\ijTot, ML
'Avi.Khi)ros ; ib. 8 peWovras, ML piiWovGiv (in M the accent is on the contracted tt;
in L it is placed on the ou) ; ib. 10 oirepp.arwv, ML alparwv (in M the two last
syllables are contracted, so that the position of the accent is not obvious; L writes
alparwv) : Magn. 1 Kara. Bebv, ML Kara Beov ; ib. 3 irvevpi. koTiv, ML imvpa 0
Igtiv ; ib. Belw, ML Beov (the editio princeps misprinted it Sew, and hence M's
conj. Beov); ib. Kareppiirov, ML Karepelirov ; ib. 5 twv elpijpihwv, ML twv j/mjuAw;
ib. 8 direiBovvras, ML airiGrovvras (the ed. princ. misprinted it aTretroi/i'ras, and
hence M's conj.); ib. 9 Kal dpytais, ML us apylait ; ib. 13 a{ioirXoi?ou...<rTe0<ij>oi/
tou irpeGfivreplov ip.wv, ML &I;iovIkov, . zZrapdvov tou irpeGpvripov vpwv which is
based on a misconception (see p. 112 sq.) ; ib. 14 ^vwptevqs, M i}pwpevi]s, L i/pupmii;
Philad. inscr. GvyMiGavres, ML GvyK\r)Gavres (a misprint of the ed. princ); ii. 3
abroiis (pvrelav, ML auVds ipvTelav; ib. ii -r) dyairri twv aSe\<j>wv, ML iv dyiril rur
&8e\<t>wv (apparently a misprint of M in his 2nd ed., for it makes no sense ; it is
1 This is done, for instance, by Ve- scribe did not use the first edition of
delius in his edition of 1623, some years Morel (1558), but the second (1562). '"
before Ussher's discovery of the genuine the first edition ip/wpivrpi is unconnected,
Ignatian text. Vedelius divides the and p.ovas is clearly printed. So again in
epistles into two books 'quorum prior Philad. 5 the MS has et\Kveav with the
continet epistolas genuinas, alter sup- second edition, whereas in his first edition
posititias.' Morel read elXrj^eGav,
* These two instances show that the

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. I If
correct in his first) j ib. 4 t^s tCv vbpwv pe\irijs, ML t^s tou vbpov peXeVijs (the ed.
princ. printed incorrectly t^s twv vbpov jteXeYjjs, which M emended accordingly) ;
Smyrn. inscr. ireirK-ripwpivg, ML ireTrXijpo^opijpeVj; (the ed. princ. misprinted it
irevk-ripopitvQ, and M emended) ; ib. 6 otl fwijs alwvlov, ML ou tijs £wiji alwvlov
(where M's emendation introduces a solecism: see above, p. 112); Polyc. 2 to
eV<TUx«i', ML tou ivirvxeiv; ib. 8 eVi<r/coirg, ML e'Tno-KOTrou ; Ephes. 5 avaxeKpa-
pivovs, ML avaxpepapivovt (this conjecture of M was founded on the corrupt reading
of the Aug. MS ivaKeKpepapevovs reproduced in the ed. princ); ib. 9 o-woooitto-
pouvras, ML ffwoSotiropoui'TO (this is a mere misprint in M's 2nd ed. ; it is correct
in the 1st) } Rom. 5 k&v avrd Se iKovra k.t.X., ML Kai aura Se 4hv imvra k.t.X.
(the ed. princ. has Kai aura Si ixovra, after the Aug. Ms, and M supplied the missing
lav or av 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 which it exhibits, must fall to the ground.
It will thus be seen that all the Greek mss except four gt (Au-
gustanus), g, (Vatic. 859), g3 (Nydpruccianus), g4 (Constantinopolitanus),
with the addition perhaps of a fifth g5 (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 g2
comes next; while g3 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. lxxxv) 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. vn. p. 320,
Venet. 1770). 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 11. p. 850 sq.), he himself intimates that he derived his quotation
not from the epistles themselves, but from his Greek correspondent

ri8' EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Ephes. 1 for One
simus, on Prid: Non. Mai 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; (1) to
Mary of Cassobola, (2) Trallians, (3) Magnesians, (4) Tarsians, (5)
Philippians, (6) Philadelphians, (7) Smyrnjeans, (8) Polycarp, (9) Anti
ochenes, (10) Herd, (11) Ephesians, (12) Romans. To these is added
the Laus 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. 365 sq., 370). Others again
prefix the correspondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John
(see 11. p. 653 sq.). But neither has any necessary connexion with
this version. On the other hand the Epistle of Mary of Cassobola
fo 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 libraries of which no catalogues exist or are accessible.
1. Reginensis 81 (called Regius 81 by Dressel p. lvii), 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
Bibliotheca Patrum 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. This part comprises (1) 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 only gives
four (and these not quite correctly), omitting the third and most im
portant 'Quern lector sancti fore cognoscat juliani.' The headings'
and endings of the Ignatian' Epistles are very simple (e.g. Explicit
secunda, Incipit tertid). A former owner was one Loys Cartier. Dressel
collated this MS, and calls it Reg. It is apparently the most ancient
and best of the extant mss.
Ussher (In Polyc. Epist. Ign. Syll. Ann. p. ii) says, ' Cum intel;

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. lit)
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 Begin. 81. Thus they agree in such
readings as Ephes. 9 ' clarificabit ' for ' glorificabit ', Ephes. 21 'que
(or quae) misistis ' for ' quem 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 Regin. 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 agree1.
The next seven manuscripts are all Burgundian and seem to be
closely allied.
2. Trecensis 412, in the public library at Troyes, described briefly
and not very happily2 in the Catalogue General des Manuscrits des
Bibliotheques Publiques des Departe?nents 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; (1) The twelve Ignatian Epistles, 'Incipit
scriptum ignatii episcopi martyris discipuli johannis evangeliste 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 
sollempniter celebratur. Explicit, hucusque historiam passionis ejus
conscriptor ipsius.' This is followed by testimonies concerning Ignatius:
1 The above account of these MSS was criticism, ' Robert de Lincoln passe pour
written some time before Zahn's edition le traducteur latin des lettres de S.
appeared. I find that Zahn (p. xxvi sq.) Ignace, mais l'ecriture de ce manuscrit
'very confidently identifies the two, and me parait ant^rieure k Robert, qui est
probably his view is correct. mort en 1253.' The Latin version of the
2 The compiler of this catalogue is Middle recension is ascribed with great
guilty of two great errors in a very few probability to Robert of Lincoln (see
lines. (1) He says ' La premiere epitre above p. 76); but no one ever sup-
de S. Ignace est adressee a, la Sainte posed him to be the translator of the
Vierge.' The first letter is addressed to Long.
.Mary of Cassobola. (2) He hazards the

120 EPISTLES OF S. 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
Hero. ' Incipit laus hironis etc....prius faciebas. Expliciunt epistole
sancti martiris ignatii secundi antiochie episcopi sed et gesta passimm
eius et laus hironis discipuli et successoris eius.' (4) The Epistle of
Polycarp. ' Epistola policarpi martiris smimeorum episcopi discipuli
sancti johannis incipit. Policarpus et qui cum eo...amen. Explicit
epistola sancti policarpi episcopi et martiris.' This ms is ascribed to
the 1 2th century in the Catalogue: 'in folio sur beau velin', 'manu-
scrit de 145 feuillets en belle minuscule.' I have myself inspected it,
and collated it from 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. in. p. 162,
where it is assigned to the 12 th century. On the fly leaf is written
' Hunc solemnem librum dedit hide monasterio 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 cxplanatio sancti augustini
super epistolam ad galathas. Incipit scriptum ignatii episcopi et
martyris discipuli iohannis evangeliste. Ad mariatn etc' It contains
the same Ignatian matter; (1) The twelve Epistles, (2) The Martyr-
ology etc., (3) The Praise of Hero, (4) The Epistle of Polycarp. The
last however is followed by 'Passio sancti aygulfi abbatis sociorumqut
ejus,' which ends the volume.
Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers gives collations
from a ms belonging to the collection of Thuanus (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 Ruffinus' 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. 108) pointed out Whiston's mistake about the ms of
Thuanus. 4. Bruxellensis 5510. So numbered in the Catal. des MSS dt
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

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 121
mss (the catalogue gives it imperfectly), and coincides in all essential
respects. 5. Bruxcllcnsis 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
Bourgogne. 6. Bruxellensis 20132, not included in the printed catalogue, but
assigned in a manuscript catalogue to the second third of the 16th
century, and this is apparently about its date. It contains (1) The
twelve Ignatian Epistles ; (2) The Epistle of Polycarp ; (3) The correspond
ence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John. Then follows ' De vita
et moribus sancte 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 Manuscr. des Bibl. Publ. des Depariem. v (1879), a
folio ms of the 1 2th century on parchment. The Ignatian matter con
sists of (1) 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 (1) ' Eusebii Caesariensis Historia Eccl.,' (2) 'Tractatus ejusdem
adversus Sabellium,' (3) ' Incipit Eusebii Pamphili liber de incorporali et
invisibili,' (4) 'Incipit de bonis operibus ex epistola beati Pauli ad
Corinthios secunda,' (5) The twelve Ignatian Letters.
9. Oxon. Balliolensis 229, at Balliol College, Oxford, described in
Coxe's Catal. Cod. MSS qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxon. hodie asservan-
tur (Oxon. 1852) 1. p. 75 sq. as 'codex membranaceus in folio, ff. 171,
sec. xii exeuntis, binis columnis exaratus.' It is one of the books
bequeathed to the college by William Gray, Bp of Ely (t 1478). For
an account of Bp Gray's library see Mullinger University of Cambridge
P- 397- The Ignatian matter begins on fol. 103 a. It comprises (1)
The twelve Epistles, (2) The Laus Heronis, and is followed by the
Epistle of Polycarp. This ms was used by Ussher.

122 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS'.
ro. Palatinus 150, in the Vatican Library; collated by Dressel
who describes it (p. Ivii; comp. p. lix) 'membraneus, foliis quater-
nariis min., saeculi' xiv.' The Ignatian matter commences the volume,
and consists of the twelve Epistles, followed 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 Pythagorean. 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.
11. Laurentianus PL xxiii. Cod. 20, in the Medicean Library at
Florence, described in Bandini's Catal. Cod. Lat. Bibl. Laur. 1. p. 727
sq., ' 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 (1) The cone-
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.
1 2. Vindobonensis 1068, in the Imperial Library at Vienna, described"
in Denis Bibl. Cod. MSS. Theol. Bibl. Palat. Vindob. Latin. 11. p. 874
{where it is numbered cccxci), ' cod. membraneus sec. xiv.' It is
written in a very small neat hand, and contains among other works (1)
fol. 72 b, The Epistle of Polycarp, followed immediately by (2) Hierony
mus de Vir. III. 16, with the heading 'Ieronimus 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.
13. Oxon. Magdalenensis 78, 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
Joh. de Rodenberga scriptus.' It contains among other matter (1) fol.
213 a, The correspondence of Ignatius with the Virgin and S. John; (2)
fol. 214 a, The twelve Epistles introduced by ' Ignatii duodecim 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 ecclesiam.' Its date is approximately
fixed to the 15 th century by the fact that one of the treatises is the
Latin version of the Life of Gregory Nazianzen by Gregory, the Presbyter,

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 123
translated by Ambrosius Camaldulensis who died a.d. 1490 (see Ussher
Proleg. 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 throughout1.
Eleven of these mss (here numbered 2 — 12) or at least ten (for the
information respecting Carolopolitanus 266 is not precise) 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 endamno [variously corrupted] per
euphanium [variously written] lectorem navim ascensurum; again, ad
hironem diaconum ecclesiae antiochenae quern ei dominus ostendit sessurum
in sede ipsius ; again ad ephesios scripta de Smyrna de imitate. These
headings are given in Dressel's edition as they appear in Palat. 150, and
the other mss only differ in minor points.
Of the thirteen mss enumerated, I have derived my knowledge of
two [1, 10] from Dressel, and of two [7, 8] from the printed catalogue.
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 1. p. 227, no. 422 of the mss of
Monte Cassino is stated to contain Epistolae D. Ignatii ad Romanos ei
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 Romanos de Smyrna per Ephesios. Among the
mss at S. Gall again Haenel in his Catal. gives no. 454 Epistolae S.
Ignatii a notis posterioris aevi. Codex insignis. This ms also I have
seen. It is a fine copy of Adonis Martyrologium followed by other
works. Among these is the following Ignatian matter : (1) p. 343
sq. the Bollandist Martyrology, ' Gloriosa incipit passio sancti ignatii
episcopi. 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
r 1 In one place (p. 7), commenting on codex.' This must be a slip for Magda-
Ephes. 9, Ussher speaks of ' Mertonensis lenensis.

124 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS. '
Baronius (s. ann. 57, § 64) speaks, I know nothing. Ussher reg
this as a pleasant dream ('suaviter'somniavit'), inasmuch as the Buda
library had been plundered several years before by the Turks (Proleg,
p. cxxv). The few volumes of this once famous library which still remained
at Constantinople were sent back by the Sultan to Buda a few 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, the second volume
of Funk's Patres Apostolici was published; and his speculations re
specting 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 Theologische Qiiartalschrift 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 assump
tion. Of the thirteen mss which I have described above, only five are
enumerated by Funk, and apparently he is not aware of any others,
Yet I should be over sanguine, if I supposed that my list of thirteen 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 lie
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 (praef.
p. xxix) gives the following instances: Magn. 3 'A/3«88a8aV 'Ahab et
Dadan' (the proper names however being variously spelt); Phiki'l

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 1 25
t<3v KaKwv fioravwv oo-Ttvas 'a verbis malis quae' for 'ab herbis malis
quas'; Ephes. 6 oparucov 8e avSpa 'prospectorem autem verum' for
•virum'; Ephes. 10 dXp.vpd 'falsa' for 'salsa'; ib. 19 dorpa...xopos
iyivovTo 'sidera corusca facta sunt', where 'corusca' should be
'chorus'. Within this family, however, we might be tempted to dis
cover two sub-families; (1) those which have the simple headings
(Regin. 8i, 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 indica
tion of a later date here, as is commonly the case. In the heading to
Philippians for instance, 'De baptismo' must have been derived immedi
ately from the Greek irepl jSan-TtV/iaTo?, which is erroneous in itself and
probably originated in a marginal gloss (see 11. p. 772).
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.
pi) ovv dvaio-8r]Toi wpu-v rrj's xpy°~~ Non enim sentimus utilitatem
totijtos avTou. iav piprjo-r)TaL rjpa.1 ejus, nisi nos tentaverit. Secun-
Kadd ATpdo-tropev, ovk eti io-p.iv. dum autem quod agimus, jam non
Magn. 10. erimus, nisi ipse nos miseratus
fuerit.
Oavdrov KaTv^povrjcrav • piKpdv Mortem contempserunt, parum
yap direiv vjipewv Kal TrXrjywv' ov dicentes esse injurias et plagas et
•ajv Se, aAAa kol perd to eiriSafai alia nonnulla propter ipsum susti-
eavTov k.t.X. Smyrn. 3. nere. Nam et postquam ostendit
se, etc.
6 TrdvTa KaXwv klvwv eis rijv avrov ipse omnia evocans et movens
KaTao-Keuijv ov perayLvwo-Kwv iir\ in suam praeparationem, non re-
[t<3] too-ovt<p KaKw- i) yap av ov cognoscens; in tantum enim mala,
irdvTa rjv Trovijpos, dXX iiryo~6eTo erant non omnia; malignus autem
K.T.X. Philipp. 4. sentiebat etc.
So again we have such renderings as JIavXov...p.epiapTvpr]p.evov 'Pauli...
martyrium consummantis' (Ephes. 12), ou Ayo-crai vpd<; n t<3v votjpAtwv
tov 8ia/3o'\ov ' nolite vos vulnerare in aliqua contagione diaboli' (Ephes.

126 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
14; did this arise from a confusion with the Latin laedo, laesi, the word
being read Ayo-ere?), ouSevos Xoyov TroLovp-at twv oW(3v ' nulli iniquorum
istorum facio sermonem' (Tars. 1), Trapo£vo-p.ovs 'acredines' (Polyc. 2);
and the like. So too dvaipvqv is almost universally translated with an
entire disregard of the mood. In Ant. 12, Hero 8, it is rendered '.nutrivi';
in Trail. 13, Magn. 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 Ignatian translator reproduces Jerome's rendering. With these
instances of blundering before us, we may question whether the transla
tor really had any different reading before him, when we find him giving
'auxiliatrix' for Sia^oijTov (Ephes. 8), 'laus, laudabilis' for hwo-is, i]vmju.-
vtjs (Magn. 13, 14; comp. ib. 1). Other passages however seem to
show that he used a text which had many corruptions; e.g. 'adjutorium'
(floTjOcLav for 6p.oij8eiav) Polyc. 1, 'habui' («txov f°r "Sov) Ephes. 2, 'pia-.
citum voluntatis .ejus' (eiSo/ofo-et forrou SoKijo-ei) Trail. 9 (comp. ib. 10
'voluntarie complacens '), ' Christi dimicationem ' (xpio-ro/iav/ai' for
XpLo-Topa6iav) Philad. 8, 'festino' (o-7r£u'Sop.<u for o-ircVoo/uai) 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. n. pp. 730, 738, 748, 750, 758, 785, 826, 853, etc.).
The cases are very rare however, in which its value for textual purposes
is affected 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 Rom. inscr., where the
Latin alternatives are 'fide Christi' and 'lege Christi', and the Greek
XfiLo-Twvvpo'i and xpioroVo/Lios, 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 11. p. 717).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES.
TT 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. I.
Polycarp [c. a.d. no].
Epistula ad Philippenses i, 9, 13.
I. ltvve)(dpr)v vplv fieydXco? iv KvpCco rjpojv 'Itjctov
Xpicrrtv, Setjapivov; to, piptjpaTa Trj'; aAqOovs dydirrjs Kal
trponepxpaaLV, o5s iirifiaAev vp.lv, tous iveiA-qpivovs tois
ayioTrpeiricrLv Seoyiois, drivd icmv SiaSr^iaTa. twv akqdws
viro Oeou /cat tou Kvpiov yjpwv iKAeAeypivwv...
9. UapaKaAw ovv 7raVras vpds tttiQapyilv tco \6yca
ttJs oiKaiocrwTj? Kai dcrKelv tracrav viropov-jv, r\v Kal elSare
Kar ocjtOaApovs ov povov iv tois paKaplois 'lyvaTia) Kal
Zcacripa) Kal 'Pov<j>ty, dWd Kal iv ctXXois tois ii vpwv Kal
ev aural IlauXaj Kal tois \oi7rois aVooroXois' ireTreLcrpevovs
oti outoi irdvTes oyk eic kcnon eAp&MON, aXX* iv mcrret
Kal hiKaioo-vvrj , Kal oti, els tov d<f>eiX6pevov aurots tottov

128 • EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
etcri irapd tw Kvpiw, w Kal crvviijaOov. ov yap ton n?n
Hr^nHCAN a i con a, ctXXct tov virkp rjpwv drroOavovra Kal 5Y
17/ias vtto tov €>eov avacrTavTa.
13. 'EypdxpaTe pot, Kal u/xets Kat 'Iyranos Iva, idv
Tts direp^rjTat ets %vpCav, Kal Ta trap vpwv aTTOKop'urr]
ypdppaTa' oirtp iroirjaw, idv Xdf3w Kaipov evdeTov, me
iyw eire ov Trepiftw TrpecrfievcrovTa Kal ttepi vpwv. rd,
€7rto-ToXas 'iyvaTtou Tas irep<f>0eicras r/plv vtt ovtov, /cat
aXXas 6Vas cl^opcv trap' r)plv, eTripxjjapev vplv, Kadws cpera- ,
Xacr6e' atrtves vrroTeTaypevaL etcrt Trj imcrToXfj TavYn* ef
wv peydXa wc^eXr/drjvai SvvrjcrecrOe. irepte^ouo-t yap morif
Kal VTropovrjV Kal irdcrav olKoBoprjv ti)v ets tov Kvpiov
rjpwv avrjKOVcrav. Et de ipso Ignatio et de his qui cum eo sunt,
quod certius agnoveritis, significate.
For the notes on these passages see 11. pp. 906, 921 sq., 931 sq.
Besides these direct references to Ignatius and his writings, the
Epistle of Polycarp presents several coincidences. For his inability
(§ 3) KaraKoXovOrjo-ai Trj aoepia. tov paKapiov Kal iv86£ov IlauXow, comp.
Rom. 4 ; for the warning (§ 4) XeX-qOev avrdv ov'Sev k.t.X. comp. Ephes.
15 ; for the metaphor (§ 5) Ovo-iao-njpLov ®eov comp. Ephes. 5 with the
note (11. p. 44); for § 5 us ©eoO Kal Xpio-ToS Slclkovoi comp. Smyrn. 10
with the note (ir. p. 316); for § 5 vxoTao-o-o/x«Vous rots irpeo-j6W/x>«,
xai Siaakovols ws ®e<3 kol Xpio-rw, comp. Magn. 6, Trail. 3, Smyrn. 8 ; for
% 6 pa) dp.eXovvTa x7lPa's V dp4>avov comp. Smyrn. 6, Polyc.x 4 ; for § 6
01 eiayyeXio-a'/AEvoi 17'p.as *. t. X comp. Philad. 5, 9 (comp. Magn. 8, 9,
Smyrn. 7) ; for § 6 twv iv viroKpiarei epepovTwv to ovopa tov Kvpiov comp.
Ephes. 7; for § 8 81 rjpds..XiTavTavirip.eLvev comp. Polyc. 3 ; for§ growif
tjpwv diro8avdvTa Kal Si' ir/pas vtto tov ®eov dvavravTa comp. Rom. 6 ; for
§ 10 'firmi in fide, mansuetudine Domini alterutri praestolantes' comp.
Ephes. 10; for § 10 'vae autem per quem etc' comp. Trail. 8; for
§11 'ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis' comp. Trail. 8, Magn.u;
for § n '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, •M
before the writer had received intelligence of the martyr's fate.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 129
2.
Martyrdom of Polycarp [c. a.d. 156].
3. eauT<w eVecnracraTo to dr/pcov irpoo-fiiao-dpevos :
comp. Rom. 5 Kav aura Se [rd 6rjpia\ eKOvra pr) diXrj, iyw
"irpocrfZidcropai. 22. 0 paKapios UoXvKapiros ov yivovro iv Trj fiacriXeCa
Incrou X/diotou irpos Ta t^i^ evpeOrjvai rjpds : comp. Ephes.
12 xJavXov...d^iopaKapi.crTov ov yivoiro pot vtto to, 'tyvq
evpedrjvat,, otov ©eou iiri.TV)(w.
This Letter of the Smynvseans, containing the account of Polycarp's martyrdom
(which happened A. D. 155 or 156), was written not long after the event itself.

Lucian [a.d. 165 — 170].
De Morte Peregrini 11 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 ' (/xvpias Tpo7ras Tpatrdpevoi). 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 tov ev Supig. <5e0eWa. 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.]
1 1. oren-ep /cat Trjv OavpacrTrjv cro<f>Cav twv XPl0~~
'¦ Tiavwv i£epa0e irepl Tr)v TLaXaio-Tivqv Tots lepevcn Kat
' ypappaTevcriv ai/raii' £vyyevopevo<;. Kal tC yap; iv j3pa^(el
' TratSas aurovs dirdcfrrjve irpocfyrJTrfs Kal 6iacrdp)(rp; Kal (jvva-
ywyev<s /cat 7raVTa povos auTos wv Kal Ttov filfiXwv Tas
pev i£rjyeiTO Kal Stecra^ei, 7roXXds Se auTos fat tjvveypacjie,
,/cat cos deov aur6> e/cetvot rjyovvTO /cat vopoOirrj i^pwvro
IGN. I. 9

130 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
/cat Trpoo-TaTr/v iireypacpov tov piyav yovv iKelvov en
cre/Bovcn tov dvdpwwov tov iv Trj UaXaLcrT tvrj ctvacr/coXo-
•TLcrOevTa, oti Kaivrjv TauYr/v reXeTrjv elcrrjyayev es tov /8tov,
1 2. totc Br) Kal crvXXr](f)0el<s eVi tovtco 6 UpwTevs iveirecrev
ets to SecrpwTrjpuov, onep Kal aurd ov piKpov ovtw dq'uapa
TTepieTroCrjcre vpos tov efrjs ^Stov /cat Tr)v TepaTeiav ko.1
8o£oKoir£av, wv ipwv eTuy^avev. eVet S' oiv eSeSero, 01
X/3tcrTtavot crvpcpopav Tioiovpevoi to ttpdypa trdvTa e/ctvow
e^ap7rdcrat ireipwpevoi avrov. etr eVet touto 17V dSuvaroj',
r/ ye aXXrj depairela irdcra ov irapepyws, dXXa o~vv 0-7701/877
iyiyvero' koX ewOev pev evdvs r)v opdv Ttapa tw Becrpa)-
rrjpCw irepipevovTa ypaSta ^rjpas Ttvds /cat iratSta oprpavd,
ol Se ev TeXet auVojv /cat crvveKadevSov IvSov per avrov
Siacf)0eipovTe<; tous Becrpo<f>vXaKas' etra Set7rva irot/ctXa eio"£-
Kopi^eTO Kal Xdyot tepot auValv • iXiyovTO /cat d /SeXncrTOS;-';
Hepeyplvos — en yap touto e/caXetTO — /caivds Sco/cpdnjs wr
avTwv covojttd^eTO. 13. /cat /xi)v Ka/c tgjv ev 'Acrta 7ro\e<uij
ecrTiv cov tj/cov Ttves, tcov xpicrTt,avwv crTeXXovtwv and tov
koivou, fior/drjcrovTe? /cat {puvayopeuVovTes Kat irapapv&rj-
cropevoi tov avSpa. dprj^avov Se Tt to Ta^os e7riSei/cvwTai/
eVetSdv Tt tolovtov yevrjTau Sr/poaLov iv /Spa^ei yap, ct^ei-
Soucrt TidvTwv. Kal Sr) Kal tw Tlepeyptvw iroXXd tots, que
XprjpaTa Trap avrwv iirl Trpor^dcrei tojv Secrpwv Kal ttpoa-
oSov 01) piKpdv TavTTjv i-n-oirjcraTO' ireTreLKacn yap avrov,
ol KaKooaipoves to pev 6'Xov dddvaToi ecrecrOai Kat ^tcJcrecr-
#at tov del -^povov, trap' o koX Karafypovovcri tov 6avdrov
Kal CKo'vTes auVous eVtStSdao-tv ot 7roXXot' eVetTa Se d pop-
0en7s d TTpwTos evetcrev avrovs cos dSeXc/>ot vavres elev ah
XrjXwv, eVetSdv dffa£ irapafidvTes #eous ftev tous cHXXr)viK&k
aTTapvrjcrwvTai; tov Se dveo-KoXomcrpevov iKelvov erosion)"
auTwv TTpocrKvvwcri Kal Kara tous eKetvou vopovs jSwkN'
KaTa<j)povovcrLv ovv dirdyTwv e£ terns Kat /cotvd ^yowrai
dveu Ttvds aKptySous mo-Tews Ta to tauYa TrapaBetjdpevoi. f
Toivvv trapiXQi) Tts ets auTous yoT/s Kat Teyylrqs dv6po)tiM

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 131
Kat trpaypacn xprjo-dai Swdpevos, auTtKa pdXa 7rXoucrios
ev ^Spa^et eyeveTo tStcoTats dvd pwnois ey^avcov.
[He was released by the governor of Syria who, being a man of a
philosophic 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
free.] 16. egTjet ovv to SevTepov irXavrjcropevo's, tKCtvd ec^dSia
tous xpto-Ttavous e^cov, u^' cov 8opvcj>opovpevos ev anacrus
d<f>66vots rjv. Kal xpdvov /jtez/ TiVa outojs eySdcrKeTO, etra
irapavoprjcras Tt Kat Is ckcivous — wcpdrj yap u, ws olpai,
ecrdCwv twv diropprJTwv avTols — ouKert trpocriepevwv avrwv
atropovpevos k.t.X.
[He then went to Egypt, and became a Cynic]
18. iKeldev Se ovtw TrapecrKevacrpevos eirl 'iTaXtav
eTrXeucre, Kat dirofias ttjs vecis evdvs eXotSopetro irdcrt Kat
pdXicrTa tw jSacriXet, vpaoTaTov aurdv Kat rjpepwTaTov etScJs,
coo-Te dcrcpaXws eroXpa.
[After other wanderings, having failed in obtaining the notoriety
which he sought in any other 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 now calls himself Phoenix, in allusion to the story of this bird ;
he also repeats certain ancient oracles. His followers will doubtless
say that they have been cured of fevers (TETapTaiW) by his intervention
(Si' avTou) and will build an oracular temple and a shrine (xprjo-Trjpiov
Kal dbvTov) 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. He 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 (6WaTou KaTa<ppoveiv). Nevertheless he puts it off again
and again, hoping that some intervention may prevent the necessity of
uis fulfilling his promise. At length, after the Olympian games are over,
( q— 2

132 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
the great event comes off at Harpine, some twenty stades east of
Olympia. It takes place at night in the moonlight. Lucian goes
thither.] 36... Kat TrpocreXdovTes dXXos aXXa^ddev avrjxjjav to irvp
peyccTTov are diro SaScov Kat cp-pvydvwv 6 Se, Kat pot irdw
rjSr] irpocrexe tov vovv, drrodepevos Tr)v Trrjpav Kai to TptjSai-
vtov Kat to 'HpctKXetov eKetvo pdiraXov carry ev o66vtj
pviTwarj aKpvj3ws. etra rJTet Xt/SavtoTov, cos e7riy8d\ot hi
to irvp, Kat dvaSdvros Ttvds eVejSaXe Te Kat elirev e's
Trjv peo-rjpfipCav dirofiXeTrwv — Kat yap Kat tovto irpos
tt)v TpaywBiav rjv r] pecrr)pf3pia — Aatpoves pr/Tpwov /ca!
iraTpwoi 8e£acr0e pe eupevets. Tavra eurcov iirrjBrfcrev e's
to rrup, ov pr)v ewpdro ye, dXXd 7repi.eo-)(e0rj vno ttj,
<f>Xoyo<s TroXXrjs rjppevrjs.
[Many arrived too late. Lucian met them on his return.]
39 • • •drrecrT pecftov S' ovv tous ¦7toXXous auYcov Xeyo/v 17817
TereXecrOaL to epyov, ots pr) Kal tout' auVo 7reptcr7rouSao-T0^
rjv, Kav avrov tSetv tov tottov Kat Tt XeCxjjavov KaraXa/tjSa-
vetv tov Trvpos. evOa 8rj, co eralpe, pvpia vpdypara et^ov
diracri Stnyoupevos Kat dvaKptvoucrt Kat aKpt^Scos iKirvvda*
vopevots. et pev ovv tSotpt Ttva ^aptevTa, t|/tXd av ucrnp
crol Ta TrpayOevTa StTjyoupnv, 7rpds Se tous /SXd/cas tai
7rpds Tr)v aKpoacriv Ke^rjvoras irpaywBovv Tt 7rap epavrov,
cos eVetSi) dvrppOr) pev rj rrvpd, evif2aXe Se cf>epwv eavrw
d IIpcoTeus, cretcrpou trporepov peydXov yevopevov ovv p-
Krjdpw rrjs yrjs, yv\\i dvaTTTapevos ck pecnjs ttjs <joXoyos
ot^otTO e's tov ovpavov dvOpwrrivrj peydXrj rrj cfiavrj \eyt»V\
EXt7rov ydv, jSatvco S' es vOXup7rov.
[He subsequently overhears one of his audience repeat his own
story, and relate]
40...0JS peTa to Kavdrjvai Qedcrairo avrov ev Xevq
icrdrJTL piKpbv epirpocrdev Kal vvv d7roXtVot irepmaTOVirn
<patSpdv ev Trj eiTTacpwvw oToa kotIvco re io~Teppivov *ff
im. 7rdcrt irpocredrjKe tov yvna, Stopvupevos f\ rl-r)v ouri"

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 133

> \

ecopaKevat avatnapevov ck rns rrvpas, ov eyw piKpov ep-
Trpoo~6ev d<f>rJKa trereo-Qai KarayeXwvra tcov dvorjrwv Kal
jSXaKt/ccov tov rpoirov. 41. evvoet to Xoi7rdv ota etKos eir'
avrw yevrjcrecrdai, voias pev ov peXirras itricTTrjcrecrdai iirl
tov T07rov, Ttvas Se TCTTtyas ouk itrdcrecrOai, Ttvas Se Kopw-
vas ouk iiMrrrjcreo-dai Kaddvep iirl tov 'HcrtdSou rdtpov,
Kal rd TotauTa. etKovas pev yap ttapd re 'HXetcov auVcov
?rapd Te tcov dXXwv 'HXXrjvwv, ots Kat eVearaXKevat eXeyov,
amiKa pdXa otSa 7roXXds dvacrr-qcropevas. c/>ao"t Se 7rdo"ats
cr^eSdv Tats evSd£ots TrdXecriv e7Tto"ToXds Stairep^at auTov,
SiaOrjKas Ttvds Kat trapaivecreis Kat vopovs' Kai Ttvas eirt
toutco irpecr^SeuTaj tcov kraipwv e^etpoTov^cre veKpayyeXovs
Kal veprepoBpopovs irpocrayopevo-as.
[A little lower down Lucian says]
43. eKetva-.-TrdXat oiaffa evdvs aKovcras pov ore 77KOV
dtto Suptas Sirjyovpevov cos dird TpcodSos crvpTrXevcraipi
avrw K.T.X.
The self-immolation of Peregrinus took place according to the Chronicon of
Eusebius (ll. p. 170 sq., ed. Schone) 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 Celsus7 Wahres Wort p. 144 sq.,
Harnack in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie ». v. 'Lucian von Samosata' VIII. p. 775.
This satire of Lucian appears to have been written not very long after the event.
4-
Melito [c. a.d. 160 — 170].
The coincidences with this father will be seen in the notes on Ephes.
' 1 ("• P- 48). Polyc 3 (11. p. 343)- 5-
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. 1, see the notes on Ephes. 11 (11. p. 62),
Rom. 9 (11. p. 230), and comp. § 33 ixPVv yow tovs ycvvaiovs dBAr/rd?
ttoikiXov inro/teivavTas dywva Kal peydXios vucrycravTas diroXajStiv tov piyav
Trjs-a<pOapo-ia's ore^avov with Polyc. 3 pieydXov ia-rlv d0Xr]TOV K.T.X. There
are also other minor resemblances.

134 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
6.
Athenagoras [c. a.d. 1 7 7].
In Suppl. 1 is the strange expression tou Xo'you i^aKovarov petd.
iroXXiJs Kpavyrjs ycyovoVos. This may have been suggested by the well-
known words in Ephes. 19 Tpia pvcrnjpia Kpauyvjs.
7-
Theophilus of Antioch [c. a.d. 180].
Comment, in Evangelia i § 4 (p. 280, ed. Otto).
Quare non simplici virgine sed desponsata concipitur Christus?
Primum ut per generationem Joseph origo Mariae monstraretur; secundoj
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 natum.
This passage seems plainly to be suggested by Ephes. 19; but a twofold doubt
rests on the authenticity of this work which claims to have been written by Theophilus
of Antioch. ( 1 ) 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
taries, qui mihi cum superiofum voluminum elegantia et (pp&aei non videntur congrli-
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. \ii (Ad Algasiam) Op. 1. p. 866 sq.; Comtn.k
Matth. praef. Op. Vn. 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. § 110, p. 295 ed. Otto) is found almost word for word in S.
Ambrose (Comm. in Luc. iii. § i-, Op. 1. p. 1313)1 and the remarks on the body and
blood of Christ (i. § 153, p. 301) appear in Cyprian (Epist. lviii. § 5, p. 754, ed. Hartel).
See more on this subject in Otto's preface, p. viii. Zithn however (Ign. Epist, p.
329) supposes that these fathers borrowed from the extant Latin work, which he asserts
to be a translation from the Greek, and he promises to discuss the subject at some future
time. I wish to suspend judgment until I have seen his arguments; but as at present
advised I am constrained to believe that the passage before us is taken from Jerome
(Comm. in Malt, i, Op. vth p. 12), whose words will be quoted below in their proper
place. For a coincidence in the genuine extant work of Theophilus, see
the note on Trail. 6 (11. p. 168). Zahn also (p. 89) compares Smyrna
with ad Autol. i. 10 ou yap eio"iv t5eoi dXX' ei8a>Xa...Kai oai/xovia cucawipTO'
ykvoivTo 8' ovv tolovtol ol jroiowTts au'ra Kai 01 eX7ri£oVTes iir aunft, but
this is taken from Ps. cxv. 8, exxxiv. 1 5.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 35
8.
IRENAEUS [c. A.D. 175 — 190].
Adv. Haereses v* 28. 4.
Quemadmodum quidam de nostris dixit, propter martyrium in Deum
fcdjudicatus ad bestias, quoniam Frumentum sum Christi et per denies
bestiarum motor ut mundus panis inveniar (Rom. 4).
The original Greek is given by Eusebius (see below, p. 139).
This is the only direct quotation; but coincidences are not unfre-
quent and sometimes Striking. Thus the phrase welv d<p6apo-iav (Ephes.
17) occurs in Iren. iii. 11. 8 (see 11. p. 73) ; and the language respecting
the Docetics (Trail. 10, Smyrn. 2) is reproduced in Iren/iv. 33. 5 (see
11. p. 175). 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 ofis Sei. . . ckkXiWv with Iren.ii. 31. 3, iii. 4. 1 ; Ephes.
9 /3wravTEs to <oTa with Iren. iii. 4. 2 ; Ephes. 19 oOev iXvero k.t.X. with
Iren. ii. 20. 3 ' mortem destruxit ' etc ; Magn. 8 ipirveopevoi k.t.A with
Iren. iv. 20. 4 ; Trail. 6 ot Kai i<3 k.t.X. with Iren. i. 27. 4 (a remarkable
coincidence, see 11. p. 166). 9-
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.
io.
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas [c. a.d. 202].
The expression 'ut bestias lucraretur' (§ 14) is probably taken from
Rom. 5 o'vai/jwjv twv Br/ptwv k.t.A. 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
viraXeupOijvai with the note), and § 18 'Christi Dei' (comp. Trail. 7,
Smyrn. 6, 10, with the note on Ephes. 1 below, 11. p. 29 sq.).
1 1.
Tertullian [c. a.d. 193 — 216].
For parallels to the letters of Ignatius in this father see 11. pp. 48,
1 7 5> 349 sq. They are sufficiently close to render it highly probable
that directly or indirectly Tertullian was indebted to this early martyr.

1 36 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
12.
Origen [t a.d. 253].
(i) De Oratione 20 (1. p. 229, Delarue).
O-fAeN cpAiNOMeNON k&Aon ecrriv (Rom. 3), olovel BoKrjcru.
ov Kal ovk dXrjdws-
(ii) In Canticum Canticorum Prolog, (in. p. 30).
Denique memini aliquem sanctorum dixisse, Ignatium nomine, de
Christo, Mens autem amor crucifixus est, nee reprehendi eum pro hoc
dignum judico (Rom. 7).
This treatise is extant only in the version of Ruffinus.
(iii) Homilia vi in Lucam (m. p. 938).
KaXws iv pia twv pdprv- Unde eleganter in cuji»
pos rivos iTricrToXwv yeyparrrai' dam martyris epistola scriptum
rov 'lyvdriov Xeyw tw peTa rov reperi ; Ignatium dico, episco-
paKdpiovUerpovTrjs'AvTioxeias pum Antiochiae post Petrum
Sevrepov imo-Korrov, r6v iv roJ secundum> qui in perSecutiont*
Sitoy/x&j iv 'Vwari dripiois pavr)- .
' ., , J , „ Romae pugnavit ad bestias:
crapevov' <\<\i eA&6e ton apxonta
j - , . . Principem saeculi huius laluit
toy aioonoc toytoy h nAp9€NIA r J
A/UpiAC (Ephes. 19). virginitas 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 11. pp. 333, 337 ; and compare Hon. 1
in Levit. (11. p. 187, Delarue) 'Quae fuerint legis principia, qui etiam
in prophetis profectus accesserit, quae vero in evangeliis plenitiido per
fections habeatur ' with Philad. 9. 13-
Apostolical Constitutions [a.d. ?].
vii. 46 'Avrto^etas Se [exeipoTovrjdr) eVtcncojros] Euoow?
pev vif ipov Uerpov, 'lyvdrios Se u7ro LTauXou.
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>

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 137
337. Compare also Apost. Const, ii. 25 01 Travraiv Tas a'/tapTias /Jao-Ta-
£ovtcs with Polyc. 1.
The passages from the earlier books are for the most part substantially
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 Analecta Antenicaena 11. p. 35 sq.).
. M-
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 1 Antiochiae secundus episcopus constitutus
est Ignatius.
On the chronological bearing of this notice see below, 11. p. 469 sq. In Jerome's
revision it is attached not, as here, to the first year of Olymp. 212, but to the number
of the Olympiad itself.
Ann. Abrah. Trajan.
2114 1
Johannem apostolum usque ad Trajani tempora (vitam)
produxisse Irinaeus tradit. Post quem ejusdem auditores
cognoscebantur Papias Ierapolitanus et Polycarpus Smyrnae-
orum provinciae episcopus.
To this notice Jerome adds ' et Ignatius Antiochenus.' On this addition see
; above, 1. p. 29 sq., and below, 11. p. 472 sq. The notice in the Armenian comes
; after ,the year Abraham 2114 ; in Jerome it is attached to the year 2116.
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, n. p. 447, where
also its chronological bearing is discussed.
(ii) Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 22, 36 sq.
22. AXXa Kat twv err ' ' Avrio^eias EuoStou irpwrov
KaTacnavTos, SeuYepos ev rots Sr/Xovpevois 'lyvdrios eyvw-

138 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
pi^ero. A%vpewv opoiws Seurepos pera rov rov twTrjpcft
rjpwv dSeX<f>6v rrjs ev 'lepocroXvpois e/c/cX^crtas Kara rov-
tous rrjv Xeirovpyiav et^ev.
36. kieirpetre ye prjv Kara rovrovs iirl rrjs 'Acrias tw
dirocrroXwv 6piXr)Tr)<s UoXvKapTros, rrjs Kara Spvpvav eKHXrj-
crtas 7rpos tcov avToirrwv Kai virrjperwv tou Kvpiov rrjv em-
o-Koirr)v eyKe\[eipio~pevos. Kaff ov iyvwpit,ero JJaTrias trjs ev
'lepairoXei irapoiKias Kal auros erricrKoiros, [dvrjp rd irdvta on
pdXicrra Xoyiwraros Kal rrjs ypa<f>rjs eiBrjpwv,^ o re irapd
TrXetcrrots eicreVt vvv Bia/36rjro<; 'lyvdnos, rrjs Kar 'Avrio^eiav
Uirpov BiaBo^rjs SeuVepos Trjv errio'KOTrrjv /ce/cXnpa>peVos. ;
Xoyos S' e\ei tovtov diro Guptas e7rt. rrjv 'Ywpaiwv irohv
dvairepcpOevra drjpiwv yevecrdai /3opdv rrjs ets XptcrrcV pap-
ruptas eveKev /cat S17 rrjv BC 'Acrtas dvaKopiBrjv per em-
peXeo-rdrr]s cf>povpwv (pvXaKrjs rroiovpevos, Tas Kara it6Xiv a«
eireBrjpei irapoiKias Tats Stct Xoywv o'ptXtats re Kal irporpo-
irals eirippwvvvs, ev irpwrois pdXiara irpocpvXdrTecrdai rd,
alpecreis apri rare trpwrov [dvatpveiaas Kat] eirt7roXa£ou<ras
iraprjvei, irpovrperre re dirpl£ e^ecrdai rrjs twv dirocnohov
irapaBocrews, rjv virep dcrcpaXeias Kal eyypdcpws rjBr) pap-
rvpopevos Biarvirov&dal dvayKalov rjyelro. ovtw Brjra tv
"$pvpvrj yevopevos, evva 6 TioXvKapiros rjv, piav pev tj
Kara rrjv "H<j>ecrov knio-roXrjv eKKXrjcria ypdcpei, iroip&o,
avrrjs pvrjpovevwv 'Ovrjcripov, erepav Be rrj ev Mayvrpria
rrj irpos MatdVSpw, ev0a irdXiv etricrKoirov Aapa pvrjpf
ireiroir)Tai' Kal rrj ev TpdXXecri Be dXXrjv, 77s ap^ovra Tort
ovra UoXvfiiov icrropel. Trpos raurats /cat rrj 'Pwpalcov «•
/cX-ncrta ypdcpei, y /cat irapaKX-qcriv rrporeivei, w% pr) irapai-
Tqo-dpevoi rov paprvpiov rrjs iroOovpevrjs avrov aVoore/M/?
craiev eXmSos. i£ wv /cat ftpayyrara ets iiriBei^iv iw
elpripevwv irapaOecrdai a^iov. ypdcpei Br) ovv Kara Xe&v
'And Zypi'ac iwexpi 'Pcomhc 0HpioM&xco Aia thc ka'i BaAac-
cue, nyktoc kai HMep^c, eNAeAeMCNoc Agka AeonApAoic, i

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 39
eCTI CTpATICOTIKON TATMA, 0°\ Ka! £YepreTOYMeNOI XelP°YC
flNONTAI. 6N Ae ToTc &AIKHMACI AYTCON MAAAON MA9HT6Y0MAI,
AAA' OY HApA TOYTO AeAlKAICOMAI. ONAIMHN TCON OHpiCON TCON
6MOI eTOIMCON' A KAl 6YX0MAI CYNTOMa" MOI eYpeQHNAI, A KAI
koAakgycco cyntomcoc Me kata^atbTn, oyx cocnep tincon
AeiAAINOMENA OYX HT&NTO- KAN ATTA Ae AKONTA MH 6eAH,
feTCO npOCBlACOMAI. CYrTNCOMHN MOI exeTe. TI MOI CYMCpepei,
6TCO PNCOCKCO. NYN ApXOMAI MA0HTHC €?NAI. MHAeN M6 ZHAoJ-
CAI TCON OpATOoN KA*! AOpATCON, TnA 'IhCOY XpiCTOY CmlTT^M.
nYP KAl CTAYPOC, OHpi'cON T€ CYCTAC6IC, CKOpniCMOl OCTeCON,
CYTKOnAl meAcon, aAccmoi oAoy toy ccomatoc, KOAACEIC TOY
aiaBoAoy eic 6Me epxecScocAN, monon Fna 'Ihcoy XpicTof
eniTYX" (Rom. 5).
Kat Taura pev dirb trjs BrjXwdeicrrjs iroXews rats Kara-
Xe^^etcrats eK/cX^criats SteTU7rcocraTO. rjBrj S' eVe'/cetva t^s
Itpvpvris yevopevos, dirb TpcodSos tois Te iv <&iXaSeXc/>eia
au#ts Sid ypacprjs opiXel, koI rrj Itpvpvaiwv e/c/cX^crta, tStcos
re tw ravrrjs irpor/yovpevw IIo\u/cap7rC(V ov ota S17 aVo-
cttoXikov avBpa ev pdXa yvwpitjwv, rr)v Kar ' Kvnoyeiav
avrw iroipvrjv cos av yvrjcrios Kai dyadbs iroiprjv trapari-
^erat, rr)v irepl avrrjs cppovriBa Bid crirovBrjs e^eiv avrov
dijiwv. 6 B' auTos Itpvpvaiois ypdcf>wv ovk otS' oiroOev
prrrols crvyKexprjrai, rotaura nra 7rept tou Xptorou
SteftcoV 'Era) A6 KAI M6TA THN ANACTACIN €N CApKI AyTON oTAA
ka) mcTEYco 6'nta- ka) ot€ npdc toyc nep) TTeTpoN IAhAy-
8€N, 6(pH AYToTc, AaB6T£, ^H A AC[> hi C AT6 M6 KAI lAeTe, OTI
oyk eiMi Aaimonion accomaton' ka) €y9yc aytoy h'^anto,
ka) enfcTeYCAN (Smyrn. 3).
OtSe Be avrov to paprvpiov /cat 6 Elpr/valos, Kal twv
eiricrroXwv avrov pvrjpovevei Xeywv ovrws'
"fie eine tic tcon HMeTepcoN Aia thn npdc 0eoN MAp-
TYpiAN KATAKplOe'lC npOC GHpl'A, OTI £?TOC 6IMI 06OY, KAI Al'
OAONTCON GHpiCON AAH60MAI, TNA KA0ApfJC ApTOC €Yp69CO.

140 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
/cat 6 UoXvKapiros Be tovtwv avrwv pepvrjrai iv rfj
cpepopevrj avrov irpbs &iXnrirr)criov<s iiricrToXrj, cfracrKwv av-
rots prjpacri'
TTapakaAco oyn hantac ymac nei0Apxe?N k.t.A. (see n.
p. 921). Kat e£rjs iiricbepei'
'EppAyATe moi ka) fweTc kai 'Itnatioc, k.t.A. (seen. p. 931).
/cat Tot pev irepl tov 'lyvariov TotauVa. StaSe^erat 8e
per' auYoV rr/v 'AvTto^etas eirio-Koirrjv "Hpcos-
Eusebius again refers to the testimony of Irenaeus, H. E. v. 8. See above, p. 135.
37. 'ASuvdVou S' ovtos rjplv diravras i£ ovoparos dira-
piOpelcrdai, ocroi irore Kara rrjv irpwrr/v rwv airoo~Tokw
BiaBo^rjv iv rals Kara rr)v oiKovpevrjv eK/cXncrtats yeydVacn
iroipeves rj Kal evayyeXicrrai, rovrwv et/coVcos e£ ovoparo,
ypacf>fj povwv rrjv pvrjpr/v Kararedeipeda, wv ert /cat vvv
ets rjpas St' viropvrjpdrwv rrjs dirocrToXiKrjs BiBacrKaXiai'i]
irapdBocris <f>eperai' wcrirep ovv apeXei tov 'lyvariov iv ai?
KareXe^apev iiricrroXals, Kal rov KXrjpevros iv rrj dva-
poXoyr/pevrj irapd irdcriv, r/v e/c irpocrwirov rrjs 'Ywpaiwv
e/c/cX-ncrias rrj Kopivdiwv Biervirwo-aro.
38. EtpnTat Se /cat rd 'lyvariov Kal TLoXvKapirov.
(iii) Quaestiones ad Stephanum 1 (Op. iv. p. 881, Migne).
$r)crl Be irov 6 aytos dvrjp, 'lyvdrios ovopa avrw, rij,
' Kvrio^ewv e/c/cX^crtas Seurepos yeyovws perd rous am-
ordXous eVio~/co7ros» cos dpa /cat tov dp^yvra rov aiavo,
tovtov eXaOev r) irapOevia Maptas /cat r] rov awrrjpo'i 4
avrrjs yeVecrts" Xeyet Se ovrws'
Ka) eAA9e ton a'pxonta toy aiconoc toytoy h TTAp6eNi*
MApiAC, KAI 6 TOKCTOC AYTHC, OMOICOC KAI 0 9ANAT0C TOY
XpiCTOY- TpiA MYCThipiA KpAYTHC, ATINA €N HCYXIA ^^
enp»'x9H (Ephes. 19).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 141
16.
Cyril of Jerusalem [c. a.d. 347].
The resemblance of the passage quoted, n. p. 175, to Trail. 9, 10,
Smyrn. 2, 3, is striking. 17-
Athanasius [a.d. 359].
De Synodis Arimini et Seleuciae 47 (Op. 1. ii. p. 607, Patav. 1777).
'pyrdVios ovv, o perd tous oVootoXous ev 'Avrio^eia.
KaracrTaOeis iiricrKoiros, /cat pdprvs rov XptoTou yevo-
pevos, ypacpwv irepl tov Kvpiov eipr/Kev' ETc lATpdc Icti
CApKIKOC KA) nNCYMATIKOC, rENNHTOC Ka) AT6NNHT0C, 6N AN-
epconcp 0e6c, en 9anatco zcoh aAh9inh, ka) bk Mapi'ac ka)
eK 06OY (Ephes. 7). twcs Se /cat twv perd 'lyvariov BiBdcr-
koXoi /cat auTOt ypdcf>ovo-iv' °Ei> to dyevvrjTov 6 trarrjp,
/cat ets d e(p auTou utos yvrjcrios, yewr/pa dXr/Oivov, Xoyos
Kat o~ocf>ia rov irarpos. el pev ovv Kai irpos rovrovs ivav-
Ttws BiaKeipeda, eo-rw Kat 7rpos Tas cruvoSous rjplv r) pd^rp
el Be, rrjv iv Xpicrrcp iricrriv avrwv yivwcrKovres, ireireicrpeda
on Kal 6 paKaptos 'lyvdnos 6p6ws eyparjje, yevvr/rov auVov
Xeywv Bid rr)v crapKa' o yap XptcrTos crdp£ iyevero- dyev
vrjrov Be, on pr) twv iroirjpdrwv Kal yevvryrwv icrriv, aXX' utos
ck irarpos-
This treatise was written a.d. 359, as Montfaucon (p. 571) points out. Two chapters
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 which 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 (n. p. 90 sq.). The remarks of Cureton (C. I.
p. lxix sq. ) seem to me to be altogether confused and confusing.
18.
Syriac Martyrology [c. a.d. 350?]
The reference will be found below, 11. p. 41 7.
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.

142 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
19.
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. Mm.
Add. 12155 (see Wright's Catalogue^. 947). 20.
Basil of Caesarea [t a.d. 379].
Horn, in Sanctam Christi Generationetn 3 (Op. 11. p. 598, Gamier).
Etp'nTat Se tcoV 7raXaicoV Ttz^t Kat erepos Xoyos oti virep tov
AA9e?N TON ApXONTA TOY AI03NOC TOYTOY THN nAp9€Nl'AN THC
Mapi'ac r) tou 'Iwcrrpp iirevorjdr) pvrjcrreia  direfiovKO-
XrjOrj ovv Bid rrjs pvrjcrreias 6 iiTifiovXos rrjs irap6evia%'
rjBei yap KardXvcriv rrjs tStas dp)(rjs rr)v Bid crapms eVt^aV
veiav tov Kvpiov yevr)cropevr}v.
It might have been supposed that this reference to Ephes. 19 was
borrowed from Origen (see above, p. 136), to whom S. Basil is so largely
indebted elsewhere; but the words KardXvo-iv t^s iSias ap^s point to a
knowledge of the context of Ignatius which he could not have derived
from the passage of the Alexandrian father.
Gamier (Praef. 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.
21.
John the Monk [c. a.d. 380—390?].
Epistula ad Eutropium et Eusebium de Communione Vcritatis 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

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 43
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, again T 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 when I am not seen in the world (Rom. 3); and,
It 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 this man of God through what
I say, I honour him in silence, and approach to the saying which he
spake, If ye are silent from me, and leave me to die in sacrifice, I am to
myself the word of God ; but if not, I am to myself a voice....
'And this again, If 1 shall continue, lam 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 hirri 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

144 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 ; / am 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, like 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 ;
rVocp.l Cora .- it'm^l K'rsai.no j»aiy^t^ f^.J-3a_L
. KL»iaco.t r/i'n^lc^a rdw,i\i, i&ia j-.'icVi rCL&CUifiii&rV
.1^ pdsaocrjii *Mmaa . K^u^'.t* K'cVvjj.i.iai rVcV'iS^rf' .=>Au
coA\o.icu_a> ^a rdJL&a&^sa caA »_ooca_i r<A.i '. fn; °>*a
tViAsa rtf-ifV . O.US9 ^_ctnAut.A> yn\ m^jr^ ¦ VS3rV rfwiT.W.1
rVoen zaah\ '. __asj»A\ -»i-is^ ^».TJrV .rVoeorV rVcaJrV.1
.rede A rdlrf
p^Jrf tVocfj ^i.vm.1 .iznr? am AtVs r£»-*r<
ocri -uSilx-.io .r£JVM&ca ru nisr\\ s -) .i rd=a .rc_isa.cnja
•jjbj.-lrV ca-s.t .rx'coAr^'-a r£sn \ s. ^ss j3^_i-rV.i }ol j\
,-il.r^ £n >s.V»s as ^l kA."! .xsartf j=acV\o .rdjJtts
tV'iA.— rVocaJ ^».i t<A.i .^»v-*>&i^b r^l.icv ^»v_mAlWI
rdxicVv_jf_=) •. »»&\\ "m -t r^oaAr^s tVi-i^ rdiao."! cniifl-al*

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 45
A\o_=?ar<'.t .jk_ucv.2kiAic\ :.*usa .^ o._ocV\_x_eV-i TrA ocn_itV.i
.t<A ^»UtV .K'enAK'.l tVAusa .A rdJrV rVcvco ¦ pg*A\ mlb .13
.rfln .A KtJK' rVacb
This passage is taken by Cureton (see Ctf^r>. 4f«- P- 35') from the British Museum
MS, Add. 12170, 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 p. 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. 17169) is dated as early as A.D. 581 (see Wright's
Catalogue p. 451). Who then was this John?
In the MS Add. 17172, 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 Thebqis. But first an account respecting him, that
is, the blessed John, which was written by Palladius bishop of Jerusalem ' (it should
have been ' Helenopolis'). Then follows substantially the same narrative which is given
in Palladius Hist. Laus. u. 43 irgpi Ididvvov tou AvkotoKItov (see Cureton C. I. p. 351,
Wright's Catalogue p. 760). In the course of this narrative occurs the following state
ment; 'Also he informed the blessed emperor Theodosius beforehand respecting
things future, I mean respecting his being about to vanquish the rebel Maximus and
to return from Galatia [i.e. ' Gaul.'j 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
Eusebius. 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 froni whom he obtained much
'information (which he retails) respecting other monks of the Thebais. This identifica
tion is apparently accepted by Cureton (C. I. p. 351 sq.).
5 But Palladius in a later chapter (c. 61) gives an account of another John, likewise
a monk of Thebais. He too might be called a seer, for he received revelations (iiroKa-
vVrareTai avrif) respecting the state of the monasteries, which proved true. This
fohn 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
)f the same kind as those of our 'John the Monk.' They are addressed to monks, and
hey deal with the same topics (e.g. iireidixvr\aKev airb tCiv aladiyrQiv eh r-r)v vbi\aiv
.vayupeiv k.t.X.; comp. Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 432 'debet visibilia... omnia con-
emnere'). Our John therefore should more probably be identified with this person
pan with John of Lycopolis. If so, he was a contemporary of John of Lycopolis, of
.vagrius of Pontus, and of other famous monks of the Thebaid ; and his date as an
thor would probably be about A.D. 380 — 390. He may also have been the same,
IG. I. IO

146 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
as Zahn suggests (/. v. A. p. 222), to whom Ephrem Syrus writes, Op. Grate.
p. i86sq. (comp. Proleg. p. 49) irpos 'ludwrp povifovra (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. 1.
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. I. 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. Orient, in.
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 (Hist. Laus. 43, p. n 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 &.va.Tel\u (Rom. 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 (tVolijJ»)
cities,' and contends that it must be rendered 'famous cities,' like Lucian's &5if«i
irokeaiv (see above, p. 133)- 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 rpiipai rivds, xviii. 23 xpirov Tivd; see also Payne Smith Thes. Syr. p. I55°)>
so that the argument cannot be pressed. On the other hand the expression 'sowings
few things into your ears' seems to be suggested by EpheS. 9 ouk elaaare azelpew <»
ir/jmt, piffavret rk wra k.t.X., a passage which is not found in the Curetonian letters.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 147

Hieronymus [c. a.d. 390 — 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
Romanos ; 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 resurrect ionem in
came eum vidi, 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 slatim tetigerunt eum et crediderttnt.
Dignum autem videtur, quia tanti viri fecimus mentionem, et de
epistula ejus quam ad Romanos scribit pauca ponere ; De Syria usque
ad Romam pugno ad bestias, in mari et in terra, node et die, ligatus cum
decem leopardis, hoc est, militibus qui me custodiunt ; quibus et cum bene-
feceris, pejores flunt. Iniquitas autem eorum mea doctrina est ; sed non
iddrco 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 nolucrint, ego vim faciam, ut devorer.
Ignoscite mihi, filioli; quid mihi prosit, ego scio. Nunc incipio esse disci-
pulus, nihil de his quae videntur desiderans, ut Jesum Christum inveniam.
Ignis, crux, bestiae, confraclio ossium, membrorumque divisio, et totius cor
poris contritio, et tormenta diaboli in me veniant ; tantmn ut Christo fruar.
Cumque jam 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. Reliquiae corporis ejus Antiochiae
, jacent extra portam Daphniticam in coemeterio.
(ii) Adv. Helvidium 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-
10 — 2

148 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
dotum Byzantium, Valentinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae
volumina conscripserunt ?
(iii) Comment, in Matthaeum i. § 1, 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 celaretur dia-
bolo, dum eum putat non de virgine sed de uxore generatum.
(iv) Adv. Pelagianos iii. 2, Op. 11. p. 783.
Ignatius, vir apostolicus et martyr, scribit audacter; Elegit Dominus
apostolos, qui super omnes homines peccatores erant.
It is obvious from these passages that Jerome had no personal acquaintance with
the writings of Ignatius. The first passage ( Vir. III. 16) is taken almost entirely from
Eusebius (see above p. 138). He only adds two particulars to the account of the his- -
torian. (1) He is able to point out the source of the apocryphal quotation in Smyrn.
3, of which Eusebius was ignorant (ouk oto" SiroBev), 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. 376 sq., 429 sq.). Ontheother
hand he is so ignorant of the facts, that whereas Eusebius mentions two letters, one to
the Smyrnfeans and the other to Polycarp, Jerome blundering over ISlws (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 Illustribtis is A. D. 392.
The second 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, n, 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. § 1), belonging to the year 398, he pro
bably borrowed the fact, which he mentions, from Origen as quoted above (p. ij'li
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, Of

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 149
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. 137. 23-
S. Chrysostom [c. a.d. 390].
(i) Homilia in S. Ignatium, Op. 11. p. 592 (ed. Montfaucon).
ETKOMION EIS TON AriON IEPOMAPTYPA ITNATION TON
©EO$OPON APXIEniSKOnON TENOMENON ANTIOXEIA2 THS
METAAHS, EIS POMHN AIIENEX0ENTA KAI AYTO0I MAPTY-
PHSANTA KAKEIOEN AYOIS EIS ANTIOXEIAN KOMIS0ENTA . . .
. . . Ylpcarpi yovv 77/xas Kopr) KopiBrj via Kal direipoyapo<i
ij paKapia pdprv<; LTeXayia perd iroXXrjs rrj<s evfppoo-vvrj<;
eloriacre' crrjpepov irdXiv rrjv e/ceivns eoprr/v o paKapio<s
ovtos Kal yewalo<s pdprvi 'lyvariov BieBe^aro. Bidcpopa
; rd irpocrwira, dXXd pia rj rpdiretp. ' evrjXXaypeva rd iraXaicr-
para, aXX' eis o crrecpavos' troiKiXa ra aywvicrpara, aAAa
to auTo fipafielov ....
cO pev ovv Kaipbs rjpa<s rjBr/ irpbs rrjv Birjyrjcriv tcov tov
paKapiov tovtov Karopdwpdrwv KaXel' 6 Xoyicrpos Be
3 Tapdrrerai Kal 0opvj3elrai, ovk e\wv ri irpwrov, ri Bevrepov
eiirelv, ri rpirov' roaovrov irepippel irdvrodev 77/xas iyKwpiwv
irXrjdos' Kal ravrbv irdo~)(opev, olov av el Tts ets Xeipwva
elcreXdwv, Kal iroXXrjv pev rrjv poBwviav iScuV, iroXv Be to
iov, Kal to Kpivov too-ovtov, Kal erepa Be rjpivd avdr/
; iroiKiXa re Kal Bidcpopa, diroprjcreie ri irpwrov iBrj, ri Bevre
pov, e/caorov tcuV opwpevwv 7rpos eavTo KaXovvros Tas oipei?.
Kai yap Kal rjpels eis tov irvevpariKov tovtov Xeipwva twv
lyvariov Karopdwpdrwv elcreXdovres /cat ov%i avdrj rjpiva
aXX avrov tov irvevpaTo<s tov Kapirbv iroiKiXov re Kai
Bidcpopov iv ttj tovtov *fiv)(rj Qewpevoi, OopvfiovpeOa
Kai Biairopovpev, ovk e^ovTes irov irpwrov rov Xoyicrpov
airepeicropev, e/caorov twv opwpevwv dirb twv irXrjcriov
avdeXKovros Kal irpbs rrjv Trjs 01/ceias evTrpeireias Bewpiav

150 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
iiricnrwpevov rrjv tijs \pv)(rj<; oi//«>. crKOtreire yap' irpoecrrrf
rrjs irap' rjplv e/c/c\7jcrias yevvaiw? Kai pera Tocrai/Tr/s a/cpi-
^Seias peff ocrrjs o' Xpicrrbs (SovXerai' ov yap peyicrrov
opov Kal Kavova rrys iiricrKoirrj<; ecfyrjcrev eirai e/cewos, tovtov
owtos Bid twv epywv iireBei^aro. Kai yap rov Xpicrrov
Xeyovros a/coucras oti '0 hoimhn 6 kaAoc thn yyxhn aytoy
ti9hcin ynep tcon rtpoBATtoN, cieTa 7racrns dvBpeias avrrjv
iireBwKev virep rwv irpofidrwv. crvveyevero tois a7rocrTOAois
yvrjcriws, Kai rcov irvevpariKwv vaparwv airrjXavo-ev. oirowv
ovv etvai ei/cos rov crvvrpacpevra e/ceivois /cai iravra^ov crvy- 10
yevopevov, Kal piyrwv Kal diropprjrwv auTois KOivwvrjcravTa,
Kal TocrauTijs eivai So^avTa avTOis dp%rj<s a£iov ; iiriomj
irdXiv Kaipb<s dvBpeiav irri(f(]Twv Kal \fiv)^r)v rwv irapovrav
virepopwcrav dirdvrwv Kal tw Beicp Xjiovcrav epwn Kal id
pr) pXeiropeva twv opwpevwv irponpwcrav' Kal perd roaav- 15
ttjs evKoXias rr)v crdpKa diredero, peff ocrrjs av tis Ipdnov
diroBvcrairo. ri ovv irporepov eiirwpev ; rwv dirocrToXw
rrjv BiBacrKaXiav, rjv irreBei^aro Bid irdvrwv ; rj rrj? irap-
oucr7js t,wrj<; rrjv virepoxjfiav ; rj rrjv aKpifieiav T17S apen],
peO 17s rrjv irpocrracriav rrj<s e/c/cXijo~ias WKOvoprjcreV, nva 2°
irporepov dvvpvrjcropev ; rbv pdprvpa, rj rbv iiricrKoirov, ij
rov diroaroXov ; rpiirXovv yap aricj>avov r) tov irvevpaTOS
irXiijacra \dpi<; ovrw rrjv dyiav iKeivrjv dveBrjcre Ke^>aKi]v,
paXXov Be iroXXairXovv rwv yap crrecpdvwv eKacrrov ei
tis awTous perd a/cpi/3eias dvairrv^eiev, evprjcrei Kal krepov,ii
rjplv fiXacrrdvovras o-rerpdvovs-
Kai el fiovXecrOe, irporepov iirl rbv ttjs iTncrKoirrji eiraivov
eXdwpev. ov BoKel eis outos eivai crrecpavos povosl j>fa
ovv avrov dvairrv^wpev rw Xoyw, /cai oxjjecrde /cat Bvo km
rpels Kal irXeiovs i£ avrov riKropevovs rjplv. ov yap povov, 3°
oti Too-avrr/s ap^^s a^ios elvai eSo^e, da.vpdt,w rbv avhp9
iyw, aXX on Kal irapd twv dyiwv iKeivwv rrjv dpxW T0'vr'lv
ive)(eipicrdr], Kal ai tcoV paKapiwv dirocrToXwv X"/065 T^S
iepas iKeivrjs rjxjjavro KecpaXrjs. ovBe yap piKpbv tovto as

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. I 5 I
iyKwpiov Xoyov ovk iireiBr) irXeiw rrjv dvwdev eireairdcraTo
)(apiv, ovB' on BaxjtiXecrTepav iir avrov iiroirjcrav iXdelv
Tr)v rov irvevparos ivepyeiav povov, aXX' on Kal iracrav avrw
rrjv iv avdpwiroi<; ipaprvprjcrav dperrjv. to Be nw<s iyw Xeyw.
Titco ypdcpwv 6 IlauXos iroTe" orav Be LTavXov ei7rci), ou
tovtov povov Xeyco, aXXd /cat Uerpov Kal 'laKwfiov Kai
'Iwdwr/v Kal irdvra avrwv rbv -)(op6v Kaddrrep yap iv
Xvpa pia Bidcpopoi pev at vevpal pia Be rj dppovia, ovrw
Kal iv tc3 X°PV ™v diroo-roXwv k.t.X  dappwv roivvrv
eiiroipi av, on iracrav avrrjv perd d/cpi/Seias o p,a/cdpios
'pyrcmos direpdijaro iv rrj eavrov ^pv^rj' /cai dveiriXr)TrTO<;
rjv nal aVey/cXrjTos /cai ovre avddBrp; ovre dpyiXos ovre
irdpoivo<i ovre irXrJKrrj<s, aXX' dcia^osj d<piXdpyvpo<;, Si/caios,
ocrios, ey/cparrys, dvre^opevo? rov Kara rrjv BiBa^rjv iricrrov
Xoyov, vr)<pdXio<;, crwcp'pwv, /cocrcuos, /cai tci aXXa a7rep o
IlauXos dirryrqcre. /cai tis toutcui' dirdSeifis, ^>rjcriv ', avroi
ol ravra eiprjKores avrov i^eiporovrjcrav' Kal ovk av 01
perd TOcravTrj<s d/cpi/3eias irapaivovvre<s erepois rrjv Boki-
pao-iav iroielo-dai tcoV peXXovrwv iirl rbv dpovov ttjs ap^rj?
dvafiaiveiv Tavnjs, auToi irapepyw<; tovto iiroirio-av av.
aXX' el pr) iracrav elBov rrjv dperrjv ravrr/v iv rrj ^iv^rj rov
pdprvpo<s tqvtqv irecpvTevpevrjv, ovk dv avrw ravrrjv ive^ei-
piaav rr/v dp^rjv  eiSes irws Si7rXous rjplv 6 arecpavos
ecjidvi) ttjs eVicr/coTrijs rews, /cai Xapirporepav iiroirjcre rrjv
o-PXW to rwv ¦^eiporovrjcrdvTwv avrov d£iwpa, iracrav airo-
Bei^iv dperrjs avrw paprvpovcrav ;
HovXecrOe Kal erepov vplv e/c/caXui/wu crrecpavov drr avrov
tovtov p\ao~Tdvovra ; dvaXoyicrwpeda rbv Kaipbv Kad ov
rrp> OLpfflv ive)(eipio-drj ravrrpi' ov yap icrriv icrov e/c/cXrj-
o criav otKovoprjcrai vvv, /cai Tore k.t.X  wcrirep ovv
KvfiepvrJTrjv Qavpatppev, ovy^ orav r)o-v^at>ovcrr]<; ttjs 6a-
XaTTTjs /cai ef ovpiwv tjjs vrjbs cpepopevrjs Bwr/Ofj rovs
ipirXeovra<i Biacrwcrai, dXX' OTav paivopevov rov ireXayovs,
Biavicrrapevwv tcw Kvpdrwv, avrwv rwv evBov iirifiarwv

152 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
crTacna£dvTcov, iroXXov -^eipwvos ecrwdev e£wdev rov? ip-
irXeovra'S iroXiopKovvros, Svvrjdrj Karevdvvai to cncac/>os perd
dcrcpaXeias dirdcrrj^' ovtw Kal tous totc rrjv iKKXrjo-iav
iy^eipiadevras iKTrXrjrTecrdai \pr) Kal davpdtfiiv iroXXaj
irXeov tcov vvv oiKovopovvrwv avrrjv, ore iroXvs o iroXepos 5
elgwdev ecrwdev, ore diraXwrepov en to cbvrov ttjs mcrrem '¦•
rjv Kal iroXXrjs Beopevov eVt/xeXeias, oVe Kaddirep apriroKov
/3pe'c/>os to ttjs e/c/cXijcrias irXrjdos ttoXXtjs e^prp^e ttjs
7rpovoias /cai ao^wrdrrjs tivos ttjs /xeXXoucnjs auTo ridrj-
veicrdai *pv)(rj<;  10
EiVco Kal reraprov crrecpavov e'/c ttjs iiricrKoirrjs rjplv
dvicrvovTa ravrrj<s. tis ovv icrriv ovros', to rrp> irarpiBa auroi'
iiriTpairrjvai rrjv rjperepav. iiriirovov pev yap Kai emmv
dvBpwv Kal rrevrrJKOvra irpocrrrjvai povov' to Be iro\w
iyyeipicrdrjvai Tocravrrjv, Kal Brjpov eis eiKOcri iKreivopevoV 15
pvpidBas, irocrrjs dperrjs o'iei /cai crotpias diroBeigiv eivat. ... .
Kai dXXcos Be ttoXus rjv ttjs -rrdXecos TauTTjs tco %ew Xoyos,
cos Kai Sid tcov epywv avrwv iBrjXwcre. tov yovv T'ijs
oiKOvpevris iirio-rdrrjv dirdcrrj? Uerpov, w Tas /cXets ever
¦^eipicre tcov ovpdvwv, w irdvra dyeiv Kal cpepeiv cWrpeTfe, 20
rroXvv ivravda yjpovov ivBiarplxjjai iKeXevcrev. outws awfti
ttjs oiKouaevrjs dirdcrr)<; rj iroXis dvrippoiro'S rj rjperepa.
'~EiireiBrj Be ipvrjcrdrjv Uerpov, Kal trepirrov ii; avrov
crrec/>avov eXBov irXeKopevov' outos Se ecrri, to per eneivov
tovtov BiaBetjacrdai rrjv dp^rjv. wcrirep yap av Tts, hu)ovt>
itjaipwv peyav iK depeXiwv, erepov dvrippoirov e/ceirou
o~irovBdt,ei irdvrws dvreicrayayelv, el prj peXXoi iracrav
aaXeveiv rrjv oiKoBoprjv Kal cradporepav iroielv' ovra ot)
Kai Uerpov peXXovro<; ivrevdev diroBr)pelv, erepov dvTippoirov
Uerpov BiBdcTKaXov rj rov irvevparo<; dvreicrrjyaye xa/"Sl 3° '
cootc prj Trjv rjBrj yevopevrjv oiKoBoprjv rrj tou BiaBe^opevov
evreXeia craQporepav yevecrdai.
Uevre pev ovv o-recpdvovs dirr)pidpr)crdpeda, airo tov
peye0ovs rrj? dpxiijs, a7ro ttjs dfias rwv KexeiporovrjKoroiv,

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 153
diro ttjs tov Kaipov SvcncoXias, aTrd tou perpov ttjs TrdXecos,
aTTo ttjs dpeTTjs rov irapaBovros avrw Trjv iiricrKoirrjv.
toutous aTTavras irXe^avra<; ivrjv Kal £ktov elirelv, Kal
ifiBopov, Kat 7rXetous tovtwv' dXX' iva prj, rbv airavra
; xpdvov ets tov Trept ttjs iiricrKOTrrjq dvaXwcravres Xoyov,
eKtrecrwpev twv irepl rov pdprvpos Birjyrjpdrwv, <£epe Xoiirbv
iirl rbv adXov eVetvov iwpev. . . .
Ou touto Se eKaKoupyTjcrev d Sid/3oXos povov, dXXd Kal
erepov ovk eXarrov tovtov' ov yap iv rals TrdXecrtv, wv
3 irpdeicmjKeicrav, 7j<£iei o-cpdrrecrdai tous iiricrKoirovs, dXX'
eis ttjv dXXorpiav dywv dvrjpei- iiroiei Be tovto, opov
pev iprjpovs tcov iirirrjBeiwv Xa/3etv cnrevScov, opov Be
dcrdeveoTepovs ipydcrecrdai tco po^dw ttjs oBoiiropias iX-
iri^wv' o Br) Kal iirl rov paKapiov tovtov ireiroirjKev' dirb
5 yap ttjs rjperepas iroXews eis ttjv 'Pco/xtjv avrov iKaXecrev,
juaKpoTepous avrw ridels tous SiauXous tov Bpopov, Kat
rw prJKei ttjs dSov Kat tco irXrjdei tcov rjpepwv to cj>povrfpa
KaTafidXXeiv avrov irpocrBoKwV ovk eiScos oti crvvepiropov
e^cov 'Itjctouv Kat crvvairoBrjpov ttjs TocrauTTjs dSonroptas
o tcr^upoTepos paXXov iyivero Kal ttjs /act' auTou Bvvdpews
oucttjs TrXetova wapel^e rrjv dir6Bei£iv Kal Tas CKKXTjcrias
crvveKporei p,et£dvcos. at yap KaTa ttjv dSov 7rdXeis cruv-
Tpej(oucrai irdvrodev r)Xei<pov rbv ddXrjTiqv /cai p,eTa ttoXXcov
i^eirepirov tcov ecpoBiwv, ev^ais Kat irpecr/3eiai<; avrw crvva-
ywvitppevai' Kal aural Se ov ttjv Tv\ovcrav irapdKXrjcriv
iXdpfiavov perd irpodvpias TocrauTTjs iirl ddvarov rpe^ovra
opcocrat rbv pdprvpa, peff octtjs cikos tjv tov iirl /3acriXeta
KaXovpevov rd iv ovpavw' Kal Bid rwv epywv ipdvdavov
avrwv, Bid ttjs tov yevvaiov irpodvpias iKeivov Kal cfyaiBpo-
i ttjtos, oti ov ddvaros rjv icfi' ov errpeyev, dXX' d-rroBiqpia
Tts Kat perdcrracris Kal irpbs rbv ovpavbv dvd/3acrts. Kal
TauTa StSdcrKcov KaTa iracrav iroXiv dirrjei Bid rwv Xoywv,
Bid tcov irpaypdrwv avrwv. Kal oirep iirl rwv 'lovBaiwv
crvve^rj, ore tov IlavXov STj'cravTes /cat eis ttjv 'Pco/xtjv

154 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
dTTOcrTetXavTes ivopitpv pev iirl davarov irepireiv, eirepirov
Be tois eKei KaroiKovcriv 'iovSaiots SiSdcncaXov, tovto Br) /cat
iirl 'lyvariov yeyove perd irepiovcria<s Tivds. ovBe yap tois
ttjv 'Pco/xtjv otKoucri povois, aXXa Kat Tais ev tco peo~w Keipe-
vats 7rdXecriv dirdcrais StSdcrKaXos dirrjei davpdcrios, ireidatv
Karacbpovelv ttjs irapovcrrjs t,wrjs Kal pr/Bev rjyelcrdai rd
/3Xeiropeva Kal twv peXXovrwv ipav Kal irpos tov ovpavov
fiXeireiv Kal trpos pr/Bev tcov ev tco irapovn fiiw Beivmv
iir icrrpeipecr 6 ai. ravra yap Kal Ta tovtwv irXeiova Sia
rwv epywv avrovs TTaiSeucov coSeue, Kadairep t/Xios tis e|
dvaroXrjs dvicr^wv Kal irpbs rrjv Bvcriv rpe^wv, paXXov Se
Kal toutou cpaiBporepos. ovtos pev yap avwdev erpe^ev,
aladrjTov dywv <pws, 'lyvdnos Be Karwdev dvreXapire, vor/rov
cf>ws StSacrKaXtas Tais i//u^ats evicts. KaKetvos pev eis to.
ttjs Sucrecos diriwv peprj Kpvirrerai Kal vvKra evdews eirdyei, i
outos Be ets Ta ttjs Sucrecos direXdwv peprj <f>ai8poTepoy
iKeldev dvereiXe, Kal tous KaTa ttjv dSdv airavras evepye-
rrjcras Ta peyicrra. iireiBr) Be ttjs TrdXecos iirefSrj, KaKeivt\v
cpiXocrocpelv iiraiBevcre. Bid yap tovto Kal 6 ©eos crvve^d-
prjcrev c'kci tov /3tov auTov KaTaXucrai, wcrre ttjv tovtov re: 2
XeuTTjv StSao-KaXtov yevecrdai evcre/3etas tois ttjv 'Pco/xtjv
otKOUcriv airacriv. vpels pev yap ttj tou ©eou -^dpiri oi58e-
/xtds iBeecrde Xoiirbv diroBei£ews, eppi£co/xevot Kara Ttjv
rricrnv' ot Se ttjv 'Pco/xtjv oikovvtcs, aTe iroXXrjs rore acre-
/3etas oucttjs eKei, ttXciovos e^prj^ov /3oTj#eias- Sid tovto /cai 2;
lPeVpos Kal IlauXos Kal per ckcivous outos eKei 7Tcutcs
idvdrjcrav . . . iva ttjs dvacrTacrecos tou crTavpwdevros Xpiarov
Bid tcov epywv irapdcr^wvrai rrjv diroBei^iv .... iirei irws
av e^ot Xoyov . . . pr) povov Uerpov Kal UavXov, dXXa /cat
'lyvaTiov tov ouSe ewpaKora avrov ovBe diroXeXavKora avrov 3°
ttjs cruvoucrtas TocrauTTjv uirep avTov irpodvpiav eViSeijaarof
cos Kal avrrjv St' aurdv eViSouvat ttjv xjjv^rjv ;
Iv ovv Taura epyco pddwcriv 01 ttjv 'Pco/xtjv oweovvres o-imv-
res, cruve^copTjcrev d ®eds c'kci TeXetco&jvat tov dyiov. xai on

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 155
avTTj ecrrlv tj atria, e£ avTov tou rpoirov ttjs TeXevTTjs touto
TTtoTcocro/xat. ov yap e£w Tet^wv ev /3apddpw, ovBe iv StKacr-
rrjpiw, ovBe iv ycovta tivI ttjv KaTaSiKd£ovo~av iBe^aro xjjrjcpov,
aXX iv pecrca tco dedrpw, ttjs ttoXccos avco KadeCopevrjs
airdo-rjs, rbv rov paprvpiov Tpoirov virepeive, drjpiwv iir
avrbv dtpedevrwv iv virb Tats dtrdvrwv oxjtecri to rpoiraiov
OTTjcras KaTa tov Sta/3dXou, tous #eaTas dmxvTas ^TjXcoTas
7roiTjcrTj twv dywvicrpdrwv tcov eauTov, ovk dirodvrjcrKwv
povov ovrw yevvaiws, dXXd Kal ped' rjBovrjs dirodvrjcrKwv.
1 ov yap cos £cotjs diropprjyvvcrdai peXXwv, dXX' cos eVl
£cotjv KaXovpevos fieXriw Kal irvevpariKwrepav, ovtws dcr/xe-
vcos ecopa Ta dr/pia. irodev tovto StjXov ; aTTO tcov pr/pd-
twv, wv dirodvrjcrKeiv peXXwv ecpdeytjaro. aKovcras ydp
on ovtos avTov ttjs npwpias d rpoiros pevei, 'Eyco tcov
; GupicoN eKet'NcoN onai'mhn, eXeye. roiovroi yap ol ipwvres'
direp av irdcr^cocriv v?rep tcov ipwpevwv, peff rjBovrjs Sexovrtu,
Kal Tore Bokovctiv ipcpopelcrdai ttjs iiridvpias, orav iroXXw
)(dXeirwTepa rj Ta yivd/xeva. direp ouv Kal iirl toutou crvve-
^atvev. ov yap tco davdrw povov dXXd Kal rrj irpodvpia
> ^ijXcocrai tovs dirocrToXovs ecrirevBe' Kal aKOvwv on pacrn-
Xdevres eVceivoi perd \y.pas dve^wpovv, ifiovXrjdrj Kal avrbs
prj ttj TeXevnj povov dXXd Kal ttj xaP^ /xi/XTjcracr^at tous
SioacrKaXous ' Std tovto tcon 0Hpi'coN, eXeyev, onai'mhn. koi
iroXXw tovtwv rjpepwrepa rd cnopara iv6pit,ev etvat ttjs
; tov rvpdvvov yXcoTTTjs, Kal pdXa cikotcos' eKetvTj pev yap
irpos rrjv ye'evvav eKaXet, Ta Se tovtwv ord/xaTa irpbs /Sacri-
Xetav itapeirepirev.
'ETretSTj Totvvv KareXvcrev eKei ttjv t,wrjv, paXXov Be,
iireiBr) irpbs rbv ovpavbv dvefir), iiravrjei aTetpavirris Xoiirov.
> /cat yap Kal touto ttjs tov ®eov yeyovev o'iKovopias, to
irdXiv avrbv irpos rjpas iiravayayelv, Kai rals iroXecri
Biavelpai rbv pdprvpa. iKeivrj pev yap avrov crrdtpv to
aipa iBeijaro, vpels Be tw Xeixpdvw reriprjcrde' dirrfXavcrare
rrjs iiricrKoirrjs vpels, dirrjXavcrav iKelvoi tov paprvpiov.

156 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
etSov dywvitppevov Kal viKwvra Kal crrecpavovpevov iKelvoi,
e^ere Sitjvckcos avrov vpels' oXiyov vpwv avrov xpovov
direcrrrjcrev 6 ©eos, Kal perd irXeiovos vplv So£tjs avrov
e\apicraro. Kal Kadairep oi Baveitppevoi x/317jactTa ^era,
tokcov d?ToStSdacrtv a7rep av Xd/3coorv, ovrw Kal 6 ©eos rbv
ripiov tovtov drjcravpov trap' vpwv oXiyov yprjcrdpevos
Xpbvov, Kal ttj 7rdXei Set^as iKeivrj, perd irXeiovos vplv
avrbv diroBeBwKe rrjs Xapirporrjros. i^eTrepxfjare yap iiri-
crKoirov, Kal iBe£acrde pdprvpa' i^eirepxj/are per' evxfiv,
Kal iBe£acrde perd arecpdvwv Kal ov^ vpels Be povov,
aXXa Kai iracrai ai ev pecrw 7rdXets. 7rcos ydp auras oleade
BiaKelcrdai, bpwaras iiravayopevov to Xeixpavov ; irocrrjv mp-
irovcrdai rjBovrjv ; irocrov dydXXecrdai ; irocrais evcjyrjpiai,
iravrodev /SdXXetv tov cnerpavir-qv ; Kadairep yap dQhrprjv
yevvalov rovs avraywvicrrds KarairaXaicravra diravras, Kal
pera Xapirpds igeXdovra B6$rjs dirb rov crKapparos, evdew
Se)(opevoi ot dearal ovS' iirifirjvai rrjs yrjs dcpiacri, c/>opa§Tjv
dirdyovres oiKaBe Kal pvpiois /3dXXovres iyKwpiois' ovtoi
Stj Kat tov ay tov Tore iKelvov dirb rrjs 'Pco/xtjs at irdAeis
epjs StaSe^d/xevai Kal iv' wpwv cpepovcrai pexpi ttjs 2c
ttoXccos ravrrjs irapeirepirov, e'yKco/xtd£oucrai tov crre^avirijv, '
avvpvovcrai rbv dywvoderrjv, KarayeXwcrai rov Sta/3dXov,
oti eis to ivavriov avrw irepierpdirrj to crocbicrpa, /cai oirep
evopicre Kara rov pdprvpos iroielv, tovto virep avrov yeyove.
Kai rore pev ras iroXeis dirdcras iKeivas covTjcre Kal dvrip- -.
dwcrev' i£ iKeivov Be Kal /xe^pi ttjs irapovcrrjs rrjv vperepav
rrXovri^ei iroXiv. ko.1 Kadairep drjcravpbs StTjve/CTjs naff
eKacrrrjv dvrXovpevos rrjv rjpepav, Kal ovk iiriXeinwv, airav-
ras tous perexpvras eviropwrepovs iroiel' ovrw Br) Kal 6 pam-
pios ovros 'lyvdnos tous TTpds avrbv ip^ppevovs evAoytSv, 3
irapprjcrias, yevvaiov (ppovrjparos, Kal iroXXrjs dvBpeias irXijpav,
oiKaBe airoirepirei. pr) roivvv crrjpepov povov dXXd Kal Kau
eKacrrrjv rjpepav irpos avrbv /3aSt£cop,ev, ' irvevpariKovs #
avrov Bpeiropevoi Kapirovs- ecrri ydp, ecrri, rbv perd mVrcws

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 157
evrav#a trapayivopevov peydXa Kapirwcracrdai dyadd- ovBe
yap ra crcouara povov aXXa Kal avral ai drJKai rwv dyiwv
irvevpariKrjs etcrt ireirXrjpwpevai ^dptros. • . . Std irapaKaXw
iravras vpas, eire ev advpia. tis Icttiv etre ev vdcrots
k.t.X  evrau#a irapayiveordw, Kal irdvra eKelva diro-
drjcreTai Kal perd iroXXrjs iiravrjtjei rrjs rjBovrjs, Kovcporepov
to cruveiSds epyacrdpevos dirb rrjs dewpias /xovtjs • . . iXdcov
yap evravda Kal rbv dyiov iScov tovtov aKtvrjTa e£ei rd
KaXa .... ware airacri ^pTj'cri/xos d drjcravpos, iirirrjBelov
• to Karaywyiov, rots p.ev eirTaiKOcriv Iva diraXXaywcri tcov
ireipacrpwv, rots Se euTj/xepoucrtv iva /3e/3aia aurots peivrj
ra KaXa  aTrep airavra Xoyt£d/xevoi irdcrrjs repxpews,
irdcrrjs rjBovrjs, ttjv evravda irporipwcnv Biarpifirjv, Xv
opov Kal evcppaivopevoi Kal KepBaivovres, Kal eKei crvcrtajvoi
rots dytois toutois Kal bpoBianoi yevecrdai Bvvrjdwpev
K.T.X. 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., II. pp. 378sq., 385, 4i6sq., 430.
The one quotation (Rom. 5 ovaifir/v TW d-qpitov) 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. 151, 1. 8) recals Ephes. 4, Philad. 1, while that of pilot
ing the ship of the Church (p. 151, 1. 31) reminds us of Polyc. 2, and
that of anointing the athlete (p. 153, 1. 23) appears in Ephes. 3. Again
the mention of the delegacies which attended the saint (p. 153, 1. 22)
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. 154, 1. 25) 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. 154, 1. 10), is expressed in language closely re
sembling the martyr's own (Rom. 2 ets Sixrij' a7ro dvaToXrjs fieTaireixxj/d-
/ievos' KaXov to Swat a7ro Korrfiov irpos ®toV, Iva ets avrov dvaTeiXoi). Again

158 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
the mention of his lover's passion (epcos) for Christ (p. 155, 1. 15; comp.
p. 150, 1. 14, t<3 c5et(d t,iov<rav epwTi) seems to be suggested by Rom. 7
6 ep.os epa>s eo-ravpcorcu, as wrongly interpreted by Origen (see the note 11.
p. 222 sq). Again the reference to the martyr's admonition to the
Romans (p. 154, 1. 6) /xijSei' -qyelaOai t<x /3Xe7rop.eva (comp. p. 150, 1. 15
to /xi) /ikeirofieva twv oprnfievtov irpoTifitorrav) is explained by Rom. 3 ou'o'ti'
rpaivojxevov koKov (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. 150, 1. 8) has
a parallel in Ephes. 11, though the application is different; and the
desire of Ignatius to tread in the footsteps of the Apostles as mentioned
by Chrysostom (p. 155, 1. 19) is illustrated by his own language in
Ephes. 12, Philad. 5. With all these coincidences, I am constrained to
believe with Pearson (V. I. p. 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.).
(ii) Horn, de Anathemate 3, Op. 1. p. 693.
BovXecr#e padelv old Tts icpdeytjaro, aytds Tts irpo
rjpwv, ttjs SiaSo^Tjs twv airoo'ToXwv yevopevos, os kox
paprvpiov rj^iwro, Set/cvvs tovtov tov Xoyov to (popriKov,
toiovtw e\pr)craTO viroBeiypan', "On TpdnoN d rrepiOeic 6&ytw
AAoYppAA BaciAikhn, iAicothc TYrX*N00N> AYTOC T6 KAI 01 ATTti)
CYNCprHCANTfC COC TYpANNOI ANAlpOYNTAI' OYTCOC, CC^TJ, 01 TH
AeCTTOTIKH ATTOCpACei )(pHCAM6NOI, Ka'| ANA06MA THC eKKAH-
ci'ac TTOIHCANTeC AN9pconoN, eic HANTeAH 6'Ae9pON AnATOYCIN
6AYT0YC, THN All'AN TOY YIOY A0 Apn AZO N T£C.
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 el ydp 6 ^mriKeHni1
e'ireyeipo/i.evos k.t.X. (found only in the Long Recension; see II. p. 809), and Montfaucon
acquiesces. In this case Chrysostom would afford the earliest testimony to the Long
Recension. But Chrysostom's quotation differs widely in its language from this
Ignatian passage, and his description of the author will suit any bishop of any chureh
during the three centuries which elapsed from the Apostolic age to his own.
(iii) Horn, xi in Epist. ad Ephesios 4, Op. xi. p. 86.
'Avrjp Be rts dytos etire' Tt Sokovv elvai roXpijpov,
irXrjv dXX' opws i(pdey£aro: ri Be tovto iariv' OfiE

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 159
MApTYpiOY ATlMA TAYTHN AYNACeAl eSAAeiCpeiN THN AMApTIAN
ecfrrjo-ev k.t.X.
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. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i. p. 176 t$ Se £KKki)<rlav 6eo0 OKavSaklaavri
oiSe p-aprvplov aJ/ia Kara top Beorpopov 'lyvariov apicel eh (rvyx<t>pi](siv : comp. ib. p. 747).
This is probably a pure assumption. There is something like the sentiment however
in Hero 2.
(iv) Horn, de Legislatore 4, Op. vi. p. 410.
Ata tovto yevvatds tis tcov dp^aicov, 'Iyvdrtos Se tjv
ovopa avrw' ovros, tepcocruvrj Kal paprvpiw Biairpexpas,
iirio-reXXwv Tivl tepei eXeye' MhAen ancy tncomhc coy
riNecOco, MHAe cy an€Y tncomhc Geof ti npATTe (Polyc. 4).
This treatise, though its genuineness is defended by Pearson (V. I. pp. 73, 244sq.),
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.
(v) Horn, de Pseudoprophetis, Op. viii. ii. p. 79.
IIou EudSios. rj evwBia rrjs iKKXrjcrias, Kal tcov dyiwv
dirocrroAwv StdSo^os Kal piprjrrjs ', irov 'lyvdnos, rb tov
®eov OIKTJTTJptOV ;
This treatise also is manifestly spurious; see Montfaucon, p. 72. In the sentence
immediately following the writer refers to Dionysius the Areopagite.
24.
Cyrillonas [a.d. 396].
Metrical Hymns of this Syrian writer are preserved in a MS (Add. 14591) in the
British Museum, belonging apparently to the end of the 6th century (Wright's Cata
logue p. 669). 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 Ausgewahlte Gedichte der Syrischen A~irchenvater etc. (Kempten, 1872) and in
part also into Latin by the same in his Conspectus Rei Syrorum Literariae (1871)
p. 34 sq. On this author see Bickell Ausgewahlte Gedichte etc. p. 9 sq.
In the passage ' Meridies qui plenus 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 Ephes. 19.

160 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
25.
Ruffinus [a.d, 402 — 406].
His tor ia Ecclesiastica iii. 36.
Quibus temporibus apud Asiam supererat adhuc et florebat ex apo
stolorum discipulis Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum ecclesiae episcopus, et
Papias similiter apud Hierapolim sacerdotium gerens. Sed et in nostra
quoque tempora famae celebritate vulgatus Ignatius apud Antiochiam
post Petrum secunda successione episcopatum sortitus est. Quem
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-
gelicis 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 scriptas 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 marique depugno, die etc
node connexus et colligatus decem leopardis, militibus dico ad custodian
datis, qui ex beneficiis nostris saeviores fiunt. Sed ego nequitiis eorum
magis erudior; nee tamen in hoc justificatus sum. O salutares bestias quae
praeparantur mihi. Quando venient? quando emittenturl quando eis
frui licebit camibus meis ? quas et ego opto acriores parari et invitabo ai
devorationem mei et deprecabor ne forte, ut in nonnullis fecerunt, timeant
contingere corpus meum. Quin imo et si eontabuntur, ego vim faciam, ego
me ingeram. Date, quaeso, veniam, ego novi quid expediat mihi. Nunc
incipio esse discipulus Christi. Facessat invidia vel humani affectus vel
nequitiae spiritalis, ut Jesum Christum merear adipisci. Ignes, cruets,
bestiae, dispersiones ossium, discerptionesque membrorum, ac totius corporis
poenae, et omnia in me unum supplicia diaboli arte quaesila cumulentur,
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

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. l6l
commendat. Ad Smyrnaeos sane scribens, utitur verbis quibusdam,
unde assumptis nescimus, quibus haec de salvatore proloquitur: Ego
autem post resurrectionem quoque in carne eum scio fuisse et credo. Nam
cum venisset ad Petrum ceterosque, ait eis; Accedite et videte quia non sum
daemonium incorporeum. Qui et contingentes 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 molor et subigor, ut panis mundus efficiar Christo. Sed et Poly
carpus horum memoriam facit in epistula quam ad Philippenses scribit
per haec verba ; Deprecor, inquit, omnes vos obedientiae operam dare et
meditari patientiam, quam vidistis in Ignatio et Rufo et Zosimo, beatis
viris, praecipue autem in Paulo 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 passionum ejus participes extiterunt, nee dilexerunt praesens
saeculum, sed eum solum qui pro ipsis et pro nobis mortuus est et resurrexit.
Et post pauca subjungit; Scripsistis mihi et vos et Ignatius, ut si quis
vadit ad partes Syriae deferat literas ad vos. Quod faciam, cum tempus
invenero. Mittam vobis et Ignatii epistulas et alias, si quae sunt, quae ad
nos transmissae sunt, ex quibus utilitatem maximam capiatis. Continent
enim de fide et patientia instructionem perfectam secundum Domini prae-
ceptum. 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. 138) ; but it is given here for its adventitious interest, as a main source
of the references to Ignatius in later Latin writers.
26.
Theodoret [a.d. 446].
(i) Epist. 68, Op. iv. p. 1 1 60 (ed. Schulze).
Tavra Se rjplv irapeBocrav ov povov 01 diroarroXoi Kai
irpocfyrjrai, dXXd Kal 01 rd tovtwv rjpprjvevKores crvyypdp-
para, 'lyvdnos, TLvcrrddios, 'Adavdcrios, BacrtXetos, Tpr/yo-
pios, 'iwdvvrjs, Kal ot dXXot ttjs o'iKovpevrjS <pwo-rrjpes' Kai
Tpd tovtwv 01 ev NiKata cruveXTjXut^dTes ayiot rrarepes.
(ii) Epist. 145, Op. iv. p. 1026.
EuoTa0ios Kal MeXeVtos Kal $Xa/3iavds ttjs dvaroXrjs
IG. I. n

1 62 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
ot cpwcrrrjpes, Kal 'Ec/>pal/x tj tov nvevparos Xupa, d to
Supcov e#vos dpBwv dcnj/xepai tois ttjs xa/HT0S vapacri,
Kal 'Iwdvvrjs Kal 'Attikos, ot ttjs aXrjdeias peyaXotp'covoi
KTjpuKes" Kal ot rovrwv irpea/3vrepoi, 'lyvanos Kai IIoXu-
KapTros Kal EtpTjvaios Kal 'Iouotivos Kal IttttoXutos, wv ol
irXeiovs ovk dp^iepewv irpoXdpirovcri povov, aXXa Kat tcov
paprvpwv BiaKocrpovcri \opov.
(iii) Epist. 151, Op. iv. p. 1312.
TauTTjv vplv rrjv BiBacrKaXiav ot deloi trpocp'rjrai upon-
rjveyKaV ravrrjv 6 tcov aytcov arrocrToXwv ^opds' ravrijv
01 Kara ttjv ecoav Kal ttjv ecrirepav BiaTrpexjjavres dyioi'
'lyvanos eKelvos b iroXvdpvXXrjTos, 6 Bid rrjs rov peydkov
Uerpov Be^ids rrjv dp^tepcocruvTjv Be£dpevos, Kal virep njs
eis Xptcrrdv d/xoXoytas drjpwv yevopevos dypiwv fiopd.
(iv) Dialogus 1, Immutabilis, Op. iv. p. 49.
'ETTiSetfco Se crot tov iravevtprjpov ttjs eKKXTjcrtas StSdcr-
koXov Kal to iKeivov rrepl rrjs deias ivavdpwrrrjcrems <j>po-
vtjpa, iva yvcos Ttva 7repl ttjs Xrjcpdeicrrjs iB6£ao~e cp'vo'eo),.
aKTjKoas Se irdvrws 'lyvariov iKelvov, ds Sid ttjs tou peydhv
Uerpov Be^ids rrjs dp^iepcocruvrjs ttjv \\dpiv ISe'^aro mi
ttjv iKKXrjcriav 'Avno^ewv idvvas rbv tov paprvpiov ore-
cpavov dveBrjcraTO ....
Tou dyiov 'lyvariov iiriaKoirov 'Avrto^eias Kal pdprvpo,,
c'k ttjs Trpds cPcop,atous [}• Sp-vpvatovs] iirio-ToXrjs.
TTenAHpocpopHMeNOYC aAhGcoc eic ton Ky'pion hmcon, o"nta
6K TSNOYC AAYeiA KATA CApKA, Y'ON OeOy KATA GeOTHTA KAI
AfNAMIN, rtTeMNHMeNON aAhGcoc EK TTApGeNOY, BeBATTTICM6N0N
fnd 'Icoannoy, Tna rrAHpcoGH tiaca Aikaiocynh fn *Yt0?'
aAhGcoc eni TTonti'oy TTiAatoy kai 'HpcoAoy T6TpApx°Y K*eH'
ACOM6N0N YTTep HMCON CApKI (Smyrn. 1).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 63
Tou avrov, CK TTJS aVTTJS e7TtCTT0XTJS.
Ti r^p cbcpeAeT, eTnep me enAiNeT tic, ton Ae KypidN moy
BAaCCDHMeT, MH OMOAOTCON AYTON CApKOCpdpON ; 6 Ae TOYTO MH
AercoN TeAei'coc ayton AnHpNHTAi cbc NeKpocpopoN (Smyrn. 5).
Tou aurou, CK TTJS aUTTJS eVtcrToXTjs.
Ei TAP TO) AOK6IN TATTA enpA^GH fnd TOT KYpiOY HMCON,
kata) tco AokeTn AeAeMAi. ti Ae kai emayton ekAoton AeAcoka
to) Ganatco, npoc nyp, npoc ma^a^an, npdc GHpiA; aAA' d
ernrc maxai'pac, errYC Oeof- monon en tco onomati 'Ihcoy
XpicTOy, eic to CYMnAGe?N aytco. nANTA YnoMeNco, aytoy Me ,
IimAynamoyntoc toy tcAbi'oy ANGpconoY, on tinec ATNOOYNTec
ApNOYNTAi (Smyrn. 4).
Tov avTov, ck ttjs 7rpds 'Ec/>ecriovs eTTioToXTjs.
'0 rAp 06OC HMCON 'IHCOYC XplCTOC GKYOCpOpnGH Ynd
Mapi'ac kat' oikonomi'an OeoYj eK cnepMAToc men AayeiA ck
nNeyMATOc Ae Ap'oYi dc etennhGh kai eBAnTi'cGH, Fna to
Gnhton HMCON KAGApicGH (Ephes. 18).
Tov avrov, ck rrjs avrrjs eiricrToXrjs.
E\ TI oi KAT ANApA KOINH nANTCC EN TH X*Pm &* ONOMA-
toc cYNepxecGe en mia ni'cTei kai eni 'Ihcoy XpicTo), kata
CApKA EK r^NOYC AaYEIA, TCO Y'<p T0I ANGpcbnOY KAI Yl<£ TOY
QeoY (Ephes. 20).
Tov avrov, Ik ttjs avrrjs CTrtcrToXTjs-
Eic lATpOC ECTI CApKIKOC KAI nNeYMATIKOC, reNNHTOC ei
atennhtoy, eN ANGpconco Qe6c, en Ganatco zcoh aAhGinh, kai
EK MApiAC KAI 6K OeOY, npCOTON nAGHTOC KAI TOT6 AnAGHC,
'Ihcoyc XpicToc d KVpioc hmcon (Ephes. 7).
Tou aurou, Ik ttjs irpos TpaXXtdvovs eiricrToXTjs.
Kco0coGht6 oyn, otan X^P10 'Ihc°t XpiCTof ymTn (v. 1.
'hmTn) AaAh TIC, toy ck |-enoyc AayeiA, TOY 6K MApiAC, de
aAhGcoc ereNNHGH, ecpAre Te kai emeN, aAhGcoc eAicoxGh eni
II — 2

1 64 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
TTONTIOY TTlAATOY, IcTAYpCOGH KAI AnEGANE, BAenONTCON TCON
enirei'coN KAI InoYpANicoN kai kataxGoni'con (Trail. 9).
(v) Dialogus 2, Inconfusus, Op. iv. p. 127.
Tov dyiov 'lyvariov eiricrKairov ' Avno^eias Kal pap-
rvpos, eK rrjs irpos Xpvpvaiovs eTTio-roXrjs-
EroJ TAp KAI META THN ANACTACIN EN CApKI AyTON o'Aa
kai nicTe-fco onta- ka'i ote npdc toyc nepi TTeTpoN HA6eN,
irpH ayto?c, AaBete, ^hAacphcate me, ka'i fAeTe oti oyk eiiwi
Aaimonion accomaton" ka'i eyGyc AYTOY HVfANTO ka'i ETTICTeY-
can (Smyrn. 3).
Tou aurou, ck ttjs avTTjs eTTiOToXTjs-
MeTA Ae THN ANACTACIN KAI CYNECDATE KAI CYNEnlEN *f-
ToTc, COC CApKIKCOC KAI nNEYMATIKCOC HNCOMENOC T(I) nATpi (#.).
(vi) Dialogus 3, Impatibilis, Op. iv. p. 231.
Tov dyiov 'lyvariov eiricrKoiTOV ' Avno^eias /cai pap-
tv pos, eK rrjs irpos %pvpvaiovs eiricrToXrjs.
EfXApiCTIAC KAI npOCCpopAC OYK AnoAeXONTAI, AlA TO MH
OMOAOrefN THN eYXApiCTIAN CApKA eTnAI TOY CCOTHpOC HMUN
'Ihcoy XpicTOY th'n "fnep tcon amapticLn hmcon nAGoYCAN, hn
th xPHctothti 6 nATHp HreipeN (Smyrn. 6).
The year given (A. D. 446) is the date of the Dialogues.
27.
John of Antioch [a.d. 435].
Epistula ad Proclum, 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  etapud alios decem millia, ut non singulos
percurramus, consona decerptis his capitulis invenimus.
28.
Socrates [c. a.d. 440].
Historia Ecclesiastica vi. 8.
Acktcov Se Kal bdev ttjv dpyrjv eXa/3ev rj Kara TONS

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 165
dvn<pwvovs vpvovs iv rjj iKKXrjcria crvvrjdeia. 'lyvanos,
'Avrto^etas ttjs Svpias rpiros dirb rov aTrocrroXov Uerpov
iiricTKOiros, os Kal tois dTTOcrroXois avrois crvvBieTpixpev,
birracriav eTSev dyyeXwv Bid twv avncpwvwv vpvwv rrjv
dyiav TpidSa vpvovvrwv, koX tov rpoirov tov bpdparos
rrj iv ' Avno\eia iKKXrjcria irapeBwKev' bdev Kal ev trdcrais
rals iKKArjcriais avrrj r/ irapdSocris SteSd#Tj.
29.
TlMOTHEUS OF ALEXANDRIA [a.D. 457].
(i) Adv. Diphysitas.
'.rV.lcafioo rdAoncn^rV JttO i\ \ \.rV rf\ iqJ^s
. .^Aygiip jcnoAv.nr'.t ocn <<Lxu cV\cu ^niAx.i r^sa.l^. # *
nrlirrd_=n.i rV&u>cmx.dio rr*i i *ihT o . vf n N^ jljk" t-rA
r^A »__r^ .rdJ_»\_uA\jai t^lAo riA_»v-*>^-ib ii^IltO
Ar^ . -cnoiuK' K'oAk'.'i.i rduuLXLSS.i ca=a.i=> ^^ajaojcal
r<\ jUrdX r^&i&O.l . .n°nm ,n°>5T>.l . Av.rC' r<Lu.f ^AcrA
. r^sciuo re'^cv \ •gx.co cti.cVur?' aA& i*\^ rV.icn . i&uj&i
^nrrn T»1 ixijcK.273.1 73.VSO tVuAs ^AcD
. rdiSJacnH A\cA* ^Art^K' p9 caL.1 .ia> coL.i
^.ax* T*^. »_enAi<' .tVr*l*n rCvMixJsa.i 7»XS3 AvA
ru .r^v*»Aea Aurf'i.Au retards .*cnoAur^ .1^ .rtLuux^a
-encxAuK' rVitO-ai.i i<ArV . w/aii°>.i an rV.in s tVocn
.11 1-1^3.1 -.jcAsA rrilK' an°> *ao K'Av-i.i. ^coLA rdJK'
rd\ »^_oAutVs ocn .^j*" . ndJrV A«r£=a t^cqAk' ."> ' »
._cA*A»

1 66 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
. K'Av.Hojk.x iA\so
vAsatV.i orV . tVVh it *m .^.c\x> A^si AiosaK'.i .A .a^
..o>\ t«i Ocnl rdlpc* r<*s.-i ociA . rd^.irV.1 cni&OAD Aj«.
re'.Acca .>d ^__AiA^S3.i ocas txiirV rds^ ocas .Ausa
_i_l_iaia^.A\ rcA . . ,i.iir>^ .A CLoaax. . ,i\v ^euflj *»,i
re'ocni.i r^^.3.1 ocnA . AuvsoK'.i »^to-Ji reA (.rdlu) .»
retlocn-n KiA-atV . cnl .^gjajlA* rc*A rctsai^. re'caArc'.i
AcnA .1^ .^ajsorc* rdiAi tVicncu.i .ucveltjcxx. . jlUcA.vi.A\
KLlj99.1sa.l .A Afin&rC* . rc'.Jre' rC*Gcn rilx-iia retire AtrV
.cnl r-ctin cnx_SOn ,t ,nf «^r^ .-*cnAf^.i cnxu.i rC*O0Di^
^L.%» .1^ ..i*gis je«jJO retire* retain re*J»J Geo A&AtttU
¦:• »A ^_jji»5 jlLk1
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 things and the glory of angels and principa
lities, visible and invisible, unless they believe in the blood of Christ that
it is of God, there is judgment even for them. He who can receive it, let
him receive it. let not place puff up any one ; for all this is faith and
charity, than which 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 persua
sion, but the Christian is of greatness when he is hated by the world.
I write to all the churches, and charge all men that by my own will liv
for God, if it be that ye hinder \me~\ not (Rom. 3, 4).
And after a few [words].
It is better for me to die for the sake of Jesus Christ than to reign over
the ends of the earth. I seek Him who died for us; I desire Him who roseon
our account. The birth is appointed for me. Leave me alone, my brethren.
Do not hinder me from life : do not desire that I should die. Do not gtvi
the world to him who desireth to be God's, neither entice me by any thH
material. Leave me to receive the pure light. When I go thither, Ishallii

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 167
a man. Permit ye me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God. If
any one possess himself in himself, let him understand what I desire,
and suffer with me, knowing those things which encompass me (Rom. 6).
(ii) Testimonia Patrum.
^39 rC .lenfloo rd&OaAa&rc' .00 oAy.i^K' KLoo^i
.KUxo&rc* AtcA.i rc*A\i^t^
K'ico-aOJL OAarC .rdx.oi.1 o.jv.k' tVrai 1 *¦ » cx^re*
,i^C\_X_» i*^ .^craAre' . pdlAv_i>.O.T» ^T^ar^AvJM.l ^.Acn.i
. K'cnApc'.i re'A\Oj't=.V=as . *ts-.v2a ^n ^ncVrc* fV >» t -w
.iLAttV.t ocn .rdx..'ic\i3.i relwai po .t»o.i.i Kl^-it ps
rdJOATrdl coAuAgO . rd^.-U kIi-oxm rdiJ3al.i .."vsix.0
.'coL.i tV.tAo-sso "nj-i-^ai pe*A\cAoA\_s .nflicn rdsaj^-i
*eV"i tVA\lA\ .KL»i=a.i cnAiosa -S^rc* . rc"Aioca:is ^>.i ens
. oo^Auaore* rc"cnlrV.i rdncV t -n.t ^AjpC* . r^Au^jas
¦ UaoOitVTO^rclsa A\cA.i rc'Aii^r*' f=n cnL.i .-Uk. cnL.i
^.c\x> :us cnAu r*\ \^ ocn jcnoAurc* rVcnAtV am
. rdisaoAea ooLi K'Axlsa ^cooAure'.i ocn . cnis fVuiTrq
ocnl i&x. )o^siSa3.i ocn . ji%i r^sAvx. ^sa rc^oon ru
. cni.ix..i
.cnL>.t .1^ cnJui
.-cnlrVs rdxwi rVoenre* n=*JU=a.l-=a:i j! ojaa^rc*
Of the blessed Ignatius, bishop and martyr, from the Epistle to
the Ephesians.
Where is the wise ? Where is the disputer ? Where is the boasting of
those who are called knowing 1 For our 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.
And there deceived the ruler of this world the virginity of Mary, and her
child-birth, and in like manner also the death of the Lord; three mysteries
of the shout, which were done in the silence of God (Ephes. 18, 19).

1 68 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Of the same, from the Epistle to the Magnesians.
There is one God, who manifested Himself 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 my God (Rom. 6).
Timotheus, surnamed jElurus, 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 Mem. Eccl. xv. p. 782 etc. , Le Quien Orient
Christ. II. p. 412 sq., Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vn. 1. p. 277. The fact of Ms
writing against the fathers of Chalcedon is mentioned by Evagrius H. E. ii. 10.
Brit. Mus. Add. 12156, among other tracts relating to the Council of Chalcedon,
contains these works :
(i) 'Against the Diphysites' by Timotheus. On fol. 1 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, Magnesians).
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.
30.
Gelasius of Rome [tA.D. 496].
Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (Bibl. Patr. v. iii. p. 671, De la Bigne).
Ignatii episcopi et martyris Antiocheni, ex epistola ad Ephesios;
Unus Medicus est, carnalis et spiritualis, f actus et non fadus, in homine
Deus, in morte vita aeterna, ex Maria et ex Deo, primum passibilis et tunc
impassibilis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus (Ephes. 7). Et post pauca,
Singuli, inquit, viri communiter omnes ex gratia ex nomine convenite in
unam fidem et in uno 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, ». v. Gelasius. Foroui
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.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 169
31-
Dionysius the Areopagite [c. a.d. 500].
De Divinis Nominibus iv. 12 (1. p. 565, ed. Corder.).
Kairot e8o£e ricrt tcov Kad' rjpas lepoXbywv Kal 6eio-
repov eivat to tov epwros ovopa rov ttjs dyd-ir^s" ypdcpei
Be /cat d 0etos 'lyvanos, '0 emoc epcoc ecTAfpcoTAi (Rom. 7).
32-
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. 12167; see Wright's Catalogue pp. 533, 768, 771. On this writer see
Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. p. 10 sq. The dates given above are the limits of his
episcopate. 33-
Severus of Antioch [c. a.d. 513 — 518]. D^«
AAA.
(i) Cramer's Catena in Epist. Cathol. p. 67 (on 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20).
2EYHPOY  'Iyvdnos Se d deocpopos Kal pdprvs ovrw
<prjo~i' rrcoc hmbTc AyNHcdMe9A zhcai X^P10 atto?, of kai
TfpOCbHTAI MA8HTAI ONTeC, TCO TTNeY'MATI 00C AlAACKAAON
AYTON TTpOCeAOKCON' KAI AlA TOYTO ON AlKAl'cOC AN6M6N0N,
TTApcbN HTeipeN AYTOYC CK NCKpCON (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, n. 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.

170 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
(ii) Adv. Joannem Grammaticum.
aLV3 rc'.icnfloo reLx^cvil^irc'.i rdAanttri'Src* ,r»<vu9i\re'.'i
.rdczjo'i mol.i rc*«i\j*
•:• ^cnAr^.i m t mi K'-iiSa.T.so re'ocnre'.i _A ounu^nf
. ; i *w.tn T»cVus ^»lcn ^2» *. rds'TuPC* rc*»j>,-s ^»l rei*a,AuLS3
. -.cralrc'.i cnxu.i rc'ocnre' rc\i-xJ5ilc\\.T _A ftdo5r^ . rdVAm
. jtoOAinala cWol.i rC,A\i\rc' ^n cnJU.i .i& cnL.i
rf.i~3\ fSi A^l.i oml .cVurc' rdaaica Auocn rdiiiva
ocnl . rdi. vmcVvso retl ocnl . relist re*A.i ocnl . rdaja
retl Ocnl . rclix_x_\A«i rctl Ocnl . reluvucVsa ^JKl^si.i ,
^j'vl^ai oml . rc*-x.o~x» »^J-\ *w.i omA . rdx.CUCjj
•:• .j-nm ^^iiJLa
. rcLuaa&rc' mala re'mi^rc' *sa cnJU.i ,i& cnL.i
nfacL tV.Tisl . re'cnlre'.i mss .is »^_oc*is cnl Autre* »
. .^ocVulsax. cVurc*i»=a\> if"'^
^^O-lcTJ OTClA.i rC*OTV^rC ^JSa onA_».i o-^ cnL.i
rclAanftii0>rC< .aeVv. .i*k ,^_oi S.(ttcV< ^g.i SaJLA.l OA^.
.t<'mi\t.1 rdacha_sa m&o.is kLtit no . rc'orArc' taoip
oot .• K'nara jk.cxx>.i cnm.zJ9ix.OT ^iAJSa»oaJ=>].i »JVJ«
retsoloz-so .•rc'ocn ^cnoAurc' rdsrc* .T»^ rctsoli. 73M.I
. re*Avi\>rc'.i cola a^ coun cnSu.i .1^ caL.l
\ \^i . 0.xa« rc*,»«T*w j^cxxs . rcL.cn! re* i«\^ rLihi
oocn ^iMAlcVea cnLa.i — *Ai#%-i.\ «g^ . aAiicVrfa rV.iw
. ^cru&crtcKjM rdl.i ^Airc* ^^Ottu&OTOTA.i reHa-re* .rd»oi

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 171
a.ai* .-us cnl ocn retl^i ocn -.cnocrure* re*mlre* .t».i
.'ctjou-so .»cnoov»re*.i ocn .cnL.i r^i_= ocn '¦«*>«¦ * *t
¦:• cni.ix.1 ocnl i&x. -n.v=>3 Aas.i ocn . Ji2ki rdncHx. .sa.i
rctl.t cn_.cV\_.r<' rc'icn . ji °i .. reLoAv-T. »J33.i *._».i ..en
peL*i.i») reA.l vyre*o . xLcW retsre* pa &uretA\sacHj3a
ji.lt rdocVvx-s • (-»x-=n .retiocn ore* »*cn.i re*.T»re* K'chLsa
retlo re*cVv_»mAre* cocYxo.i .1 \» K,-_=jcV\cV\.t oAo . i n.»cV\.i.i
. ctiA cVurc* rc*mouLj9a re*.icn .v^.t ocn . rc'cVu.v •so.tacK-sa
. rctxsis rc'ocn ^AxW^sa Aure'i.is.a cH*retl&Lu&\2J9a reA
.re*&uus»9a&UL3a .Asa ^i«\\» .i& .rclsreA y\x. -pxjsn A-ydo
. aretiA'il^ AuA.i K'cV\v\t<' pa .cnL.i .i& cnL.i
•.^..oAiirc* tJ.i.-a.s.crur-S>3 refAQnttu^reA.i iA^ •jcVusarc*
ol.i :-A ^^oAvire* ^vmcHjsq .rt*M ¦ t*w ^.oxA.i vyre*
¦1w>BiT*a j>.Oje> vv»rc* retire* . ^^oAure* >»»>» rctxixis vyrc*
.cnOTOSas ^^ocVurc* ^.iijsa.cruso .1^.1 .Ausa .^AviApa.i ocn
. ^oai^Ax ^_OOTC\sno\.i «»co pa
. re*OTi\re*.l cnisa .v» ciaisa cnL.i .is. cnL.i
ojen :cnlre* retl.i ^_oco*iure*.i »jLXire*.i retiA^re* ^.iirc*
.V& :jcm rc'cVioi i-itTT -i.i ^vsore* : rcf.i.'gi »cn-sa reA ^.1
i*»re* rctisaA retire* .rc*A\oii-itTm fc_om-*cH_»rc* ^_a_icn
.re*Aiouu >i- j.ctuLcVk'.i retire* reA^sao *js refusal .retire*
rc*irc* mA retire* A^jusa .retire* mrctso ,_».i-»a j-^n
^jtL-i .'re*cKz*s re*Au^cisn pa AiAcn cxnoi^. .re*>vsal
jf-lrt* mA 70-2A9 »^r^3 ocn .- re*A»©J»a »-i *>\.l re*ipetA
1 . cVirctsa re*.Tufim
. reUl'iosuo Atol.i re*A\i\re* pj cnL.i .1^ cnL.i
i retiAcn.i om .'re*cnlre* retukix-sa ^.eixA retire* .m-it-w

172 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
^^oAure* ^iv-so^s -V^. «^o*Au»..ioAuL.re* .>*fi »^ftA
.x..-im ocn vyre* .rc*A<ii vya»..itsq reA re*A\OJJ9i>cflLa
i<y-i-< .-retiji i T-ga ^>o_x_ .^vsa.i maA^s »^oAui<
. retuuxjsa.i cnsa.is rctso-us ^_oAvire* ^iiusao . .uaiaa
i^o"^ pa ^cnoAure* re*iix_s ^_ipa.i .»_oa1 re*i»u.o
rctLjASO re*JUa~a re*cnAre*.i ^.i re*i_s .i«i ti .1*033
xsa_^.Aire*.i .re*AvloA\s pa rc*ii, t s aLA\re*.i .rVcoir/s
.re*A\OJreL% cnl& cn_usa reA_saAtAu A \~a t^*,cu r93
rel&iA^ jSfl».ioicnG joa^i^ jaoaify<\ ^o.i_n AurCvii
.< t« ^AurV re*iretA.l ca_u»a:i .1 Sn~\-t »a&L» ¦si.n^K'
rc*Atre* Aoja-X-l.i AApa . Aure*cnlrc* ^_A\sa!^ erur_u p
.^re* .»»cncujsaj'cnsaa -.cnt\x..ixA re*Ai=ai_a .-us ^»w\\\ .
.cnL.i rc*A\.Vk..i re*i^a .ujls rctsasa^s »^re*o rtViocms
Aure*i>ix.o ..oi&Au.i AApa .«^Av\Apa jt*» <jctAa. ii*\,»Acn
. cnl ocn >ujore* Aurc*i»ix. Are- Ai
Of 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. 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 times, Sim
who is without times, Him invisible, Him who for our sakes became visible,
Him impalpable, Him without suffering, Him who for our sahs hcoM
subject to suffering, Him who for our sakes endured in every manner
(Polyc. 3).
Of the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians.
When ye were inflamed in the blood of God, ye perfectly accotnt
a deed of like kind (Ephes. i).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 173
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 ministry 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 in Jesus Christ : on this account, they
were also persecuted, who by His grace were inspired with the Spirit, so
that they who were not persuaded might be persuaded, that there is one
God who revealed Himself through 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 convertibly,
but truly, and in every thing pleased the Father when He fulfilled the
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 men who are without God, that is, do not believe, they say
that in supposition He suffered, when they themselves are in supposition,
I, why am I bound 1 Why then do I also pray that I may contend with
beasts 1 In vain then do I die. I belie therefore the Lord. Flee therefore
from evil branches which engender fruits that bear death, which if a man
taste he dies immediately (Trail. 10, n).
Of the same, from the Epistle to the Smyrneans.
I praise Jesus Christ God, who has thus made you wise. For I knew
that ye were perfect in faith immovable, as if ye were nailed to the cross of
our Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and ye are confirmed in love
in the blood of Christ; and it is confirmed lo 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

174 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
power of God, who was born in truth of the Virgin, who was baptized of John,
in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him. Truly before
Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch He was nailed for us in the flesh, of
which fruit we 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, in 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 con
tains a collection of testimonies from the fathers. They are on fol. 200 a, b. The
Greek title of the work is Ko.rb. rod 'Itodwov tov VpafifiariKov rod Kaiaapius
(Fabric. 1. 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).
(iii) Abbrev. adv. Joann. Grammaticum.
pa . pC.Tcn.noa ret&A^ire'.i ret&eima&L&rc* jaoQi^t^irCi
. retisaocni A10A.1 r^Act^re*
. jcn_lre*[.i] rctxul retLiSa.vda re*ocnrc*.i -A jao&re*
AtoA.i re*A\i\rc* pa .[l. rc*Aul'i»»re*] rc*A\iure* iAis cnLs
.re*jLtt&rf
re*c\x. re'.i-i'A . re'mAre'.i cnsa.ia ^^oAuamAAucre* .l**
• [l- »_oAi»\5ax.] ^__aAv_ire* ^woa. Aure'iisa'^ retoaJ^
Of 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).
Of the same, after some other [words], from the Epistle to the
Ephesians.
When ye were inflamed in the blood of God, ye perfectly accomplished 0,
deed of like kind (Ephes. 1).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 175
Brit. Mus. Add. 14629. This MS, which is described by Wright (Catalogue p.
754), commences with the concluding portion (iii. 39 — 42) of an abridgement of the
last-mentioned work, the treatise against Joannes Grammaticus. It is ascribed by
Cureton (C. /. p. 357) to the 7th or 8th century, and by Wright (1. c.) to the
8th or oth. 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 1) 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.
(iv) Homiliae Cathedrales.
(a) Horn. 37.
. j»o-»io^i_\^ j»o^soAok'A\ Avo .flpai\»crT-i retsi As.
. soo, \\\\*rif retx».m re*.icnfi».i re*Auss ^».i VMrc*A«re*
i i \^ reA .re*.icn_so a*t-MA\re* ^_ocnij.s^s reti_&cn
relsaL-.i retaojp caa reA&re*o . rc*Avoj»ic\is oocn p^»io>
JtooA^rtti^rc* re*cnlreA .Tin\-> ^».i .i& .oocn ^»iiAore* reticn
-si.v. tn \ _»cn re*i ¦ 'Vr. .oocn ^-.i-iarc* .oocn ^ 1 t \^
¦ rc*.»iT*aas ^jJ.i ~n \o .rf"n \ s pa [marg. .vaa^'saA]
:re*AtoA~. Aus.i cnA_».i reticn re*AusA ^&re* 're*.icnAApa
.«_ciaA pu pEUkSn rctx».iBi ^^oenL.i rcLii-a.0.1 A\oA
rctiaAsnl .ia. . rc*A0bas p» tin«M ^_a_lcn.i retsAcinlo
ii°> J. c\_j_S3.t.i ^_a_icn .'^jcno.i 1 "-h \b\ .vs p^ini *a
. oco.i retlcL^re* AvAaa cncVo^is
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 seats, neither were they bound by the pleasures of this world.
Since then they emulated the God-clad Ignatius, they said, It 'is good to set
from the world and to rise in Christ (Rom. 2). For this reason we have
assembled you in this his house, the house of prayer, for the commemo-

176 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
ration of these saints ; and we have proceeded in the discourse to their
praises, honouring the teacher through his disciples, who well imitated his
pastorate which was full of his sufferings.
(b) Horn. 65.
poocvsa . j»o-»io_\_.i-\cv jacuL m -1 re*jr_».i_£ Av
Are* : en rx\ \ cxx. jikrcA AAn To.vsa retLsa »_Ji*5»rV -.i
.JUoA^rell^re' re*mlreA .t.;-i\ Ai.
: j»aA9re*_i\»rc' re*mAreA .T;*>\ Are* rdiys ens » cna
re*Auss : psa.io yxtx> re*Auxuoi rc*A«oix. re*.icn retx.cn.1 am
re'eru, 1 on \ncr\-S3 re*AiiAi_*-£a-so :rc*AioA^. Av 1 -».i cnJu.i
pa .'Aurctsaj«l re*_li^.<\flo.i ..  ocnusa . rC.-vv* ^mo.vsuAi.i
. j»oAyret i\*re* cn=aAii.re* .*j^x> )om .^jwAuL.i plcn.i -en
. .tn <Vaa Aure* wT'M'a pre* rc*-i=aoi.i retAxA-s.i i*^ acn
."vsoreti reti^m.i reti&»re* Ata*\A\JS3.i rcliioj.i ocn .v.v
retx^aoi pi^-s-a i*-\, > \ ^re* t . rel&icn pa jk..ioAuL»
Aure* retia.cn.i ^>.i casa •:• reAto^Ausno re*UL»:w.i re*icui
re*Aeaui.i re*:u&sareA Au&ore* re'AAto-*^ m_s ooA nr*oco
.smlAuua jejjJ r<*i*»T*a -°A«.i ^cn.l rc*Ai\isO .'re*Auoa\rV
.•re*oco vssore* re*om .sAvA retasaoiA .1^ Art*.i ocb .•K'oeo
.•A«w ^__oA\rdl re*viL» rctSLire* Oslo re*A\Oj_iio rf'icu.l
re*ocn Aure* .vs. re*.icno .are*oAuLre* rV mit ra a. or A .lCuwa
.-re*eria=aAt Are*.i -era .rc'ocn ^ouiAusa.i ocnl o.^ pi ou
/A vmk1 o_i^A pa .'re*ocn .nvyjao Are* rC.icn Aip>
rc*A\Qj-ii aa -a .to-wLa ^».i oA .^sre* A\oA vA rfJu
.aoOiLtwrelaA Aca-wAAvrc* Avrano re*mlrc* pa.i job :pet»ai
•. jaooj^reti^re* A\oA re'Atoa«sa.vsa Atocn : j»cx.icvi<i^0
. r^itYiiiretAs ,re*ii_x. ,°>L»>.i re*t-»it retsao.n 1 ArCriirf

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 177
rt*cnAre* .re*OTOtoi&.i rc*Avo_=aLr_s .rdrijo . retia^rcts
ocn rc*cnAre*.i rCAAsal : oocn pAsao oocn ^li i*.-^
jtuo .i'Si » .a\\^re*o :i_aa_sA\re* Auretl&LuAucsa rcA.i
re*Auulosauso rCAtoi-^retlflo.i OA-. re*Au'io.^.t .1** i

Win

reA reAjoAtAusao ¦•retj.jsn w *g3.i u.cn rc*AuXkioAp30O-io
. retxu.i H-*^ oocn paa&sa . re*Atomlre* Atoxus AureVnlre*
vyre* Auretai_s.i_=a pre* •. retx-oxw reA ocns Ax^ reA
retfiaaO^A re*cna=a .1^ .'retxjjo re*ocnl retxii-ssao re*i_fiarv=a
pa JiocuA7reti-*^»re'o •:• rCtViApu.io p^aOoA.i re*A»o_sa.i
retx_u.i rComrc* reil_iJ=a:u2a.l *iA ft .On <\rc* •.rc'ocn VsarC*
¦:¦ -»mlre*.i
AurC^iT °> re*ioaA 0A.1 .r£*icn .arc* .v.ijsiA ja.it t
p.iaAcsa.i plen re*A»io_iA reAre* \)ea_^-»re* re*-»saoi pi-n
¦Lvu^.t to .i_=a ^__opox£» p-.ioiL=ao pa'ii ^Aco rCAuiio.is
re-AAi Av f&u.ub.i ^Aco vv»rc* : p^rc* vv»rc*.i .'.s^in reA
.•reta.rj.tLja a rCAuAvretsa ^a-iisao pio\A\sao retsao'i As-o
: cnl pua.i ocn "**• "» )jj3Js rctv.^oo.x.0 ^c\_iA\ AvoaA
-co pa.i /retA^La vsare* re*.im Alpa . j»aceio.2i reUici.
.jv.-vi "p*n ^ju'Aa.3 pkcn.i
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
'' IG. I. 12

178 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
lighted up and blazing, Ignem*. 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 may 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, From within he saith to
me, Come thou to my Father (Rom. 7). Not only then in the similarity1
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 suffering of my God (Rom. 6).

* ' It js right to know also here that the Romans do not call fire simply .
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-
•cording to a compact and sign prearranged, which the Greeks call n-u/wos: for
this reason the teacher [i.e. Severus] says, Because he foreknew things future!
(c) Horn. 84.
.jaaOaic\*^i\>J3oc\\oAore'At Ai^o jjoftiLfln -1 retsi L.
rCAioA^ Av_a_s.i re* Aut s ^v- vyre* **.i i_S3«'oV
.J»oA?rc*_i^rC re*.imn» rc*mlre*A juA.1
rCcnlreA .Tin! Atftsaas re*-*sajr_ Aiol ^_ocnift» ca^saa
.•¦it •arc'Ausao piA^sa A2A.1 re*ia©jt_so : JaOoJ^t^^
1 This is Cureton's rendering ; and if priated to Basil as to Gregory. W
it be correct, the reference is apparently rendering however requires a slight einen-
to the words deorpopos, 6eo\6yos, though dation in the Syriac text as printed by
the latter was not so specially appro- Cureton from the MS, riAlO!*!"**3

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 179
rt"i w 1 pa ialo .r.i..v=a ^ft*.^ reA.i re*Ai_uoi >jk.o
•. p\cn.i re*AuftuAt ia^A jsl.sd . rc*ijaass Are*o ^_oca»Aure*
Are* .rCcnAreA .Tin \ re*iijr_ss vv»re*:t ocn.l cnL.i retLsa
retire* .»vrr*o .• retire* ixa>rc*.i A\sa oA . vsore* retire* i±^
ret^retLio.i rC*AtoiAtrcAa .-rCAuti -in T. plml oA&AuaxSol
retAlo Au& re*Aux»v-»At_saA .•rc*Aift_i-at»i.i ^Acn retsacvoo
rC.i 1 *m \cV> Are* cuui pa re*cn rV.icn p^a .rr'AvjA.v_jiA*_s>a
rCcolre* pa.i retia^re* .-p ^JjitirWt ii*^ rCAtreta^JM .-AurV
¦:• p» ^*T>jaaM rCoem reA
olo rr*i°>\*ao rctaui p Aure* rdwLdi .1* Altera p»
Atol .-ii\frAu .i_sare" retA^k'orets ocp.i retia^rc* . rsLs_iis
re*.irn_flo.i cnA_n A«i_s vy»rc* : rc*_i_sa_x..i re*Aift-^A_sa
i rc*oml cola, Aa reA rCmlre* pa.i retA^-re* .• JtoftA^retl^re*
.^i -any yi\\.\ re*A«_uftax.A« rcl*ret&.i OcoA . p» ^.iifiew . ajsare
;• 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 heayen 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
jjtn the flesh. Take for me, as a proof of these things, the words of him
who as in reality had put on God; For I say, not because I am bound and
[mm able to understand the heavenly things, and the places of angels, and the
tations of principalities, visible, to wit, and invisible, from this am I
PSlready a- disciple; for many things are lacking to us, so that we may not
^e lacking of God (Trail. 5).
Let us therefore, since Christ is our head and master, and not man,
1 He says in the Gospels, be prepared for the kingdom of Heaven : like
te saying of the martyr Ignatius, So that we may not be altogether lacking
God, to whom praise is meet for ever and ever. Amen. 12 — 2

180 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Brit. Mus. Add. 12159, containing a Syriac version, mutilated in parts, of the
Epithronian or Enthroniastic Sermons (\6jol i-ndpovioi or iv6povi.ao-Ti.Kol) of Severus,
so called because they were delivered by him from the patriarchal chair (A.D. 513 —
gr8). On the nature of this work see Fabric. Bibl. Grcec. 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 Horn. 1—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, 1. pp. 24 sq., 48, and below, n. p.
419 sq. The extracts relating to Ignatius are given and translated by Cureton (C. I,
pp. 215 sq., 247 sq.).

(v) Episfulae Severi et Juliani.
cn-so . rc*M it *ga cn_s rc'ocn i.:sia»..i ocn .an\p^»rc* Arc*
cn_s>Aurj»a rC.icn pao .-jdoAo^s .&re*.i vyre* rfocn Alsajo
.retiA.cn r£*fl<&rcA ii^rCocn aJii .re*cnlreA .thl\ rCooo
rc*AiEuA\2*. re*A\ftaA»a v KtoAA^Aea re*A\a»..T» reA : ¦naAgl\rc'
. rc'ocn re*fta»Av»i retzire* is rCcnlrC .ia. .Atom reAajiiw
. Aiocn reAcut. pa rd»iftx. . rctsalax. reA.i reVii.i rCAtscu»l
•jp.T-saia. relation pa .Aiocn re*ii_sa*^ rc*cnAre* .vp -(»
rc'ocn .iA\_s».Av-=a.i AApa .rc'ocn .^\AtA\-=a re*.vw vpi*
- re* At 0.5a .1 rejil
.sAva. la. '. re*.icnflDO rCmlreA .Tn\ .mi^i^rc* pj Arc*
rc'ocn -moAurCi acoa retjjuT.'aai . -&A.:?a rejjac&retl relflffl
retz-iji rettiOi t iAus pa : 1 <*» as ^».i cum rctteuui
«»cn_s .al^ sa. . rc*Avi»A retx.ftT.i* reA rc'ocn . rcAttaaW
retx.ft.auM reA Are* \ pvA_a-s rCmlre* rc'ocn jenoAufV.1
: ¦ttii\i\»rc* .retia.cn p* ipare* . pylas rc*om j»o«*rV .
rtflo rc*.n-\s . rdijjoio retii tn -> reUsorc* jenoAuK *¦"

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 181
.rCi.ii. rctJiM rCA\ftJsas .re*mlre* rdat-lre* Aus ^vs
reA ^k.T>cno .reLcftacM -n.moA .re*mlre* pao ^ui-»> pao
. «^_ipa re*mT*w ^.cxx. .ii£jc.ftxu
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 was dissipated, the ancient kingdom was destroyed, when God
¦was manifested [as] man for the renewal of life without end: and that
which was perfect with God took a beginning. From hence every thing was
moved at once, because the destruction of death was 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 physician, carnal and 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
Halicamassus on the Corruptibility 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. II. p. 46). The extracts from Ignatius are
U contained in * reply of Severus (fol. 32 a), and are given and translated by Cureton
(C. /. pp. 218, 249).
(vi) Refutationes Capitulorum Juliani.
;rC.icn_a> rCcnArcA .Till ,iw ,\,i l\-.rc* r<dar_».i_o.i
Atol.i rCAvi^re* pa rc*i%i\lrc*.i ret&xajaa£.rc*:i retx.io
-reti.oxu >a.iaoA rf mT*a .•cnoAurc'.i ,°> \ -a.i . reLiia&re*
. retjLO t v> reA ^x.cno . j nn-i ->
y.tiis. .re*JUuaio retii-fia-s retxAorC ^moAu«re* .i_»
"et-iii rCAvo *ti -1 .re*cnAre* retxj rC Aus . rc*.n*av reAo

1 82 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
£*:wcno retz.ftSM ^o»nftl . re*mlre* pao ^a*i-Sa pa .rCii'v.
. __jpa ret,M.iff.ra .a^ftb . rcix.ftxu rA
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 spiritual, made and not made,
amongst men God, in death true life, from Mary and from God, first pas
sible and then impassible, 'Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephes. 7).
Brit. Mus. Add. 14529 (Cureton C. I. pp. 218, 249). On fol. 26a 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 Karh, toi*
irpoo-8-qKwv 'lovkiavov aiyypa/j./j.a among the works of Severus (Fabric. X. p. 618).
The Ignatian extract (Ephes. 7) appears on fol. 37b. It is the same as in the previous
work, and in the same words (except Kal ck Maptas for Ik Maplas). Cureton (p. 358)
ascribes the MS to 'the end of the 6th or the 7th century,' Wright to 'the 7th or 8th
century.' (vii) Contra Codicillos Alexandri.
:rc*.imJ*>o rCcnlreA .Till re*jj.* -i.i ocn pa j»Qi\i ^re*
: rdiiure* jc_3pc* Aua. ore* re*VM rC.iWfaAusa reA reVirfa ocfl
>iw rC.icno :cnjL&) A^pa i-saretio rctsaiAu ArC.i vunc*
VjaarC.i ^cn-s ftl "U^ retire* Are* : re*Aia>iajsa rCAus-ik
•pjkto \c\ re*Auii -n r\ Aa.Aift>re*.i retire* '.j* % t'mo tOi*
rc*Aux>v«*AiJa :rc*Aui_x»i rC.ift^o : re*Aua\re*Asa rc*AuSo.T
re*.i_&^aAAt re*cn re*.icn pa "• re"AuJUvJ?A\J5a 'iuo aoii
¦:• iiorc* retia.cn .sAia, reUfla^ ^pa — i plcnl ,ia, ,-AurV
rC.icnllpa . ©jjj r^wiT.-a ^.o_z_xs . reienlre* i*^ niA
A \ia .cncVa.sL-A^ pa ^ . tf o. <A» •** a_a. iftA.iiAiie'o
..cnoAure* rCcnlrc* ,ts*.i . rcLiflcua^Aisa reA ^ ftCaia\Aj.1
iAiso •:• cnis Ktuiaz.ra .s»»c\x_. .Tis cnl ocn rA^ji <*«
1 A ->*a.xta without o. * B reA ooAkO.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 183
.onu»a illpo retjjj.i ..»ia t y 'pjjJrc* rdia^re* •:• rCAuifta*.!
"oocn ^^ocaaAure* ~»coa.i_LsaAA» .i_a. rc*-i_a-a Arc*.i ocn
rC.icallpJo .ml oocn pMtt_=a relifAsal.i vyrc* . jjois
pa_i_nrc* r5*A\re* .ta. ..cnA oocn ^»iA\_a-=a Auretireta.1 ocn
•:• rc*Ausa Aus pa .^ftire*
But Ignatius, who was in truth God-clad and martyr, who saw the
ineffable 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 — For
I too, not because I am bound and am able to understand heavenly things,
and the setting of the angelic places, and the princely hosts, things visible
also and invisible, because of this, lo, am I a disciple; [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, who hath revealed Himself through Jesus Christ
His Son. And a little after [he says] : How can we live apart from
Him, whom the prophets too, since they were His disciples in spirit, were
expecting as a teacher ? And because of this, He whom they were justly
awaiting, when He came, raised them up from the dead.
Brit. Mus. Add. 14533. An account of the Ignatian quotations which this MS
contains is given by Land Anecd. Syr. I. p. 32 sq., 11. 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 Kara KwSikOiAwj' ' A\e£6.v5pov o-WT6.yjw.ra (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. Mus. Add. 12155, fol. 56 b (see Wright's Catalogue pp. 929, 969).
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. 12155, to the 8th
century (p. 92 1). 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, A^d- 12I55> 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.'1 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
1 B . « t' . s B om. oocn .

184 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 he an
extract from the later father who cited Ignatius, and not from Ignatius himself (p. 35).
Merx however (Zeitschr. fur 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. Mus. Add,
14601, 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. fur 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. Graec. X. p. 619 (ed. Harles).
(viii) Hymnus in Ignatium.

piAu rctAQ n tn <\r< jaoftApcti \-"*/ retx_».vn A v.i
rC*Ausm\T -).i om . ^__erAre* re*»i-=a cuocn . rda.OjLlpC'a
.^ftArct^Ore's rc*A\i=i£Q-sO : -»v-w cVrC* ntxXso Aa*. rc*iCU.l
A*.
retire* rets^o .rfta^irets retsairV.i AuA»rc* rc*iftl.i i»rV
>*cn rCifti.i retsi retlii* A Auftw . cHriw 0.1a. pa Are*
rc*cnlreA T;i\ .a>ft^i^-»reA .ia. •. re*Aucnlre*o rc*Auvp
  cVucUi
AtftAa Ocn .•re'ii ix -1 re*.imaao ret3a^_** rdii-i hvznxnrt
.rc*A\ret=al .scnisajsaa rc'ocn .4x*ftu vA>.i retx-u.l re*i»o.i
rC*Au>OJU.Au .ia, .Aurc*i»cni k'vjo 'rCAujioxA rCAu-.-uao
 rCAtvV-
:\ia.re* iflass.i rdji Atsns-w vOu.i re*AuA\retsa3 rCAipi*
rc'ocn atu&o .-retsa.iAiJsa re*Aunoi_& v\AtaAiasa-9 .ta.o
:j»oloreta or? jaaoi-^reta vyrc* ©Ai . r^J-Sai'cnJsa A.fli
 rstlrc* sia
re*,u>i\ 'i. \j\^ .^ft-lcia . reti.ia'oA »_ftaA retire" }o_*iAc»
' Add. 1S&Z6 has re-Aui^scuxA.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 85
cnAtftl^ uoa ocn . r^ -n w*a rc'va^ ^s retire* -*.^v,^

.i^iXSQO i^nm t. retsA .A px. -p** i *v ~l • rj^»i_sa
.re*Atftusa>cn.i rct=a_i_S(u» retiilp .ini.10
On the holy Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch. [To the tune
of] He is the Lord our God.
Thou who didst show Thyself in the flame of fire on the bush, and
in [the preaching of] the Gospel didst say, I came to cast fire in (upon)
tlu earth, and 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 T define (order)
for you orders; [for] 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 opBoboi os is rendered by rc*-MSC\2. -»»i A\ , it appears that rC*Au>ft±lX.Al
reot^alAl = dp6oSo£ia.
Brit. Mus. Add. 17134 has been already described (p. 91), as containing Hymns of
Severus translated by Paul of Callinicus, among which is one (fol. 48 a) in honour
of Ignatius. It is also found in another MS, Add. i88r6 (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, 11. p. 686. 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
1 with black ink, the latter with red paint These latter are marked in the transcript
heregiven 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
1 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. 11. p. 505) gives an extract containing the quotation from the epistle to
1 the Romans from a Vatican MS. The text was transcribed and the hymn translated
for me by Prof. W. Wright.

1 86 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
34-
Anonymous Syriac Writers [after a.d. 500].
The Syriac quotations which follow are very 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 are 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) Demonstrationes Patrum [Anon. Syr. J.
rcjAft i \ irc*.i ret&ftiLfia&&re* joftn \^ 1 ^»rc* retx_*.ia.i (a)
. r^Aa».i_sa reti&l.il& Aiol.i rCAvi^rc* pa . rc*.ica»o
. reAvis*. Ji.iao.i re*jUreA Acu.i om . . ^urc* ^__fts^A» ru
¦:• A\ii reA re*mlre*.i rfAtaAa
ao^s rCAxi^re* pa . .aoai&arc'Ai Jttftjlp^rc* retx>.ifl.i (/')
.reliflorcts.i rc*A».ia» At A
rcta\reAsa.i re*Au>ft=LX.A«o rdiij^aJLo ,re*>\l Jr_lrc* rA
^__fti_2a*mi reArc* : retx.vwAu.ta reAo rctX»V-»Aea <i*\**
^^ocnA .Arc* . .*cnoA\_»re* rc*cnAre*.i rr* m i t •w.I cnJa.U
.Aure* rf^»S
¦ re*icvi'\rg' Aiol.i re*A\i^re* pa cnL.i .soAt
rc*nns . re*_L»oio ref-iifn s r^tiaorc' ocn ii^ ocn .v»
.FC*v»ve- reU*» re*A»asas .rCcnlrc* r£ar_irets .rCiuaa-rA
reA ^btno retx.ft-ac-*> ^a.uaoA .rc*enArc* pao Jpi** r"
..^"Usa kLmlxxjso ,a»cus» i^w

a

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 187
rCtia,Qi\ Arc*.i retAQncWi^re* .r»o_jApL.\_.re* retx_»:t_n.i (c)
. retiiiosaaj A\ftl.i cnA\i\K* pa . rc*.im»o
fc__Oca.Aurc*.1 retzls retauAs pa »^_ftaA retire* i en via
.IftjAs rtfl.l .relz-Uls.i pio iftiA re*A>ftSa.io .'rCAtftlu
•"£»p?"< «-J^ *<A'^ "•^.ftire* .___©A=iaA\.i »__ft*A Jm reA
©A^ 10 » \ -> reAre* .^_ocn_s fc__a_sta.^^A\ rctlArc*
re*.icn Aa*. ...en rc*nfti s 1 am . .^_ftsoAu.i ,  <ywA»\\ •*)
. re*i»»iT ^a ^.oju .\^iit. ^.1
(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 cleaveth to him that rendeth the
church doth not inherit the kingdom of God (Philad. 3).
(b) Of the holy Ignatius Theophorus, from the epistle which he wrote
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, unless they believe in the blood of
Christ who is God, there is judgment even for them (Smyrn. 6).
Again of the same, from the Epistle to the Ephesians.
For there is one physician, carnal and spiritual, made and not made,
in man God, in death true life, from Mary and from God, first passible
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord (Ephes. 7).
(c) Of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from his
Epistle to the Smyrneans.
I warn you of evil men, who are beasts and possess only the form of
men, that not only is it not right that you should receive them, but if it be
possible ye should not even meet them, but only pray for them, that they may
repent, which is difficult, but Jesus Christ hath the power over this
(Smyrn. 4).
Brit. Mus. Add. 12 155, '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. (1) Philad. 3, on fol. 111 a (Wright p.
037). This must have been taken from the Syriac Version, for it closely resembles S^

1 88 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
e.g. in rendering rsylixsvri &Ko\ovffei by 'adhaeret ei qui scindit ecclesiam.' (2) Smyrn,
6, on fol. 168 b (Wright p. 946). This is obviously taken from the quotation of
Timotheus (see above p. 166), with which it agrees almost verbatim. (3) Ephes. 7,
also on fol. 168b. This strongly resembles the quotation in Severus; but, as the
translation is strictly literal, the coincidence is not conclusive. (4) Smyrn. 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. 182 sq.
(ii) Adv. Nestorianos [Anon. Syr.J.
re*_*a.ftj^-lre*.i reta.i*i^p. jaoaAp-V^cC retiscA^ soAc\ (a)
retia.cn ocn ^re*o . rf* »i\t. j»oilpw iAus piAt.i rCocna
reArc* . .ao oApi^ re* . rf* \ttt<\nf AtftA.i rc*Atv\rcts isarc*
^aiijsa.i cnAtoloAxs /reticn retsala^.i cniaa.ireA cnAuA
.«_ipo.i craAicoa ^rc*o re*Axosa.is ens .co.iLo
re*ocn.i retxa.ftx^Jre'.i reta.i»ilp jx>q t\,\j{< retau.io.i (b)
. re*i •sa ocn 1 AiftA.i rCAti-^re* pa .rf* w ¦ \ V. iAv_a ^j'iAi.i
.soAto . -ictArC.i -»cnoicu.i rCocn re* rdiisa.usa.i A ojao&pc'
rCAAnoAt ^cnoAurC.i ocn .• yvi i\ A j.«c\i rC.i^a> .varc*
re* 1 i j \ o reti niftfaA ^.1 p .- pi_sa_»cn-aa reA.i pL»rA .;AA.i
n*m\"T..i rCi^salAx j»cu \i \-»rc* retx».i_o i*-^. vajK* (c)
.icLi=a rr*MiT*aii\ retlcnaA jn.il .1 pa.i . rdx..vo
(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 :
But 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 imitator of the sufferings of my God (Rom. 6).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 89
And again he said,
My spirit boweth down to thy cross, which is an offence to those
who do not believe, but to us for salvation and for eternal life
(Ephes. 18).
(c) For the holy Ignatius, the disciple of the holy Apostles, said ;
He who honoureth the priest honour eth 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
*-¦ 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 SA). Rom. 6 is too short to admit of any inference.
Ephes. 18 is closely connected with the Syriac Version, for it renders Treplxprifia tov
crroujooO by adorat crucem; but on the other hand it has one or two striking divergences,
e.g. tjiuv with the Greek for 6/uv 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 i ripQv Mo-kottov farb 6eo0
ri.po.Tai. (iii) Plerophoria [Anon. Syr.J.
rej-a.O-vAprc'.i KiAO.nJM i°>rc* j»0-Ap_S!<;.pc' retti.tn
A cuao_&rc* . re* 1 *g3Q*i eVoA.i re*Ati^re* pa .rc*.icn_o»o
. Al».i rc*mlre*.i retZM.i rCocpre* rr*ii*w.ysa.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. 12154 a volume of miscellaneous contents, which Wright
(Catal. p. 976) ascribes to the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th 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-
(iv) Catena Patrum [Anon. Syr.J.
; pa .rc*.icaa»o rctSanfniftrC.i retaui so Q i\i\rc* retau w .1
. .toft&iApi fAcn A\oAl rCoxi^rC*

1 90 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
.^_aaJcuA.ia.i eia- .reta\a>.i retixiaxjia pzi're*.i Aiaii
. lLA\re* rc*A»a.*^^ms Js.cuu.1 .pi^are* pa »^_oml_2a .ia.
^cnoAure* reA.i retiTMre* ^».i ^Acn . ,i\ \g-rc* rCAtft^^coao
retsre* rCmlre* -.cnoAure* ocn[.i] p* ret*T*»rc* .rCrjoa^.i cnia
.^cnoAure* rct2a.i-i*x. retz_ii_s.i *.^>.i reti'i-Mrc* . Aa. Aa*s
.•jartLh reA re*im -> retlcn.i ^».i retl'iurf
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 imagina
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 not
rise again (Tars. 2).
Brit. Mus. Add. 17191, 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
10th 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, § 1 'At6 Hvplas p.txPL 'PwMfs 6ripio/j.ax&, 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 thenumber^ and assigns to the 6th century; see also
my notes on Clem. Rom. ii. § 1. This same fragment from the Epistle to the
Tarsians is given also in Brit. 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. 17191. The only variations of Add. 17214 are
that it reads Av^JurC* for the first word and inserts pa before rctVT W1XSI.
This quotation has no very decisive coincidence with the Syriac version (as represented
by the Armenian), but may have been derived thence.
(v) Excerpta Patrum [Anon. Syr.J.
. rcApa_A^-J orC pucu.i cn.u-saAAt reiiiai j»ftn\i%-»K'
pa ^cnoAurCi ocnl .w*.u it-ga .a»ftx_A retire* .*>*iTja
rCLua - rCmlre*.i pi re*is .i^p-s .1*0.1 Au-s.l r^a»l»
.>*ijsa oAus pa AurCi»i_x. .iLAireM .re*enAre*a retLwO
ret2uavs .srvoAirc'o .xw Aurc*i»i_x.o .puft» pa xs?^*

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 191
A\ol rc*A\re*o .re*Au_=a Aus pa ^uo .pMrdi.i ^_Ay\lpa
cxx-o^ ^^oml ipare*o .pcua asooilp. Aus.i ^__ai"cn
oAure* .ia, : ,^_ocn5aj». _»Aucre*o Aa.re*o .retire* retare*.i ovmo

retx».io .^^oenjsas*. .\;\.»o [or vvoiso] vyniso ii^_Si_s
peSsarC pi>cx».i cn^raalAt retau.ua [sic] rircUi jaaftxLretl^re*
^__i«a AnT.a ocn retAA^ oAure* ocno .oAurc*.i >»cna.\ ¦s,
fc^oocnAio K^ftp^J&cnAtAt reA «^_re\l vsarCo -.ona.vl'rets
•:• re*enlre*.i rCAtftaA^al ^_ftV,N.A> reA retacn rf.\ \ vyre*
.retia.OjAp.rets rC*i *a.ia rct^O-n .cvn.^rc* rCocn """i \ *
jasCuLrcti*\re* re*cn rCAvlAti reticn iAiso .^aao.icnore*cniA\so
rC.QT \ retsa.iik. .pusaAx rduai. vyrc* reLuaoiaa. Ai». rCocn
j»Ojpe*_»iA9 .in** re".i*»_=>a .jaoair^jAp cnA«ftaA=a.i ^x.b\
ptz.A\s ^s rc'AiOjjj pa Aa.re*A»re*o .j_saail .jcnaAsorc'o
re*Auars .reLiicu.i re*'<iflaa»x.A\o reVetsa ^.sire* Auzs ^>Ture*
,nT °>Aea -:• ^__i=ai cnAuA\retsa iAvs re*-ifiQ2t..iua rCretsa.i
pis cnAioA^ .rCcnlreA .Ti-i\ ^oftA^retA^re* ocn pi
.p^are*
Ignatius Nurono, the disciple of John the Evangelist. I glorify
Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of the house of David according to the
flesh, but the Son of God according to nature and the power of God;
who was truly born of the Virgin Mary, 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 from the dead, and came to those who
were with 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. 1, 2, 3).1 The holy Ignatius . . . .2 They say
of the holy one that he was the disciple of John. And he was the child
1 Neither vyalsO nor v\01SO gives any sense. Probably we should read
rets rC* }a^ -V*' tt .*»01SO, and in the spirit mingled with the Father.
2 The meaning of the letters —rCi* in this heading is not apparent.

192 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
whom our Lord took up in his arms and said, Except ye turn yourselves
and become 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 in after the advent of our Lord. Ignatius is interpreted
to mean God-clad. May his prayer be with us, Amen.
Bodl. Marsh 101 fol. 16 : see the Catal. Cod. MSS Bodl. Syr. p. 461, no. 14s.
The extract from Smyrn. 1 — 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. 418. Here also a
further error is committed. A letter has fallen out, and thus the 10th 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. Wissensch
Theol. 1867, x. p. 91 sq. He supposes that there were three Syriac versions of these
epistles. (1) 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 ; Mere
does not say anything of the Epistle from Mary to Ignatius). To this belonged the
fragments, Hero r (see 11. p. 686), and Tars. 2 (see above, p. i89sq.). And from it the
Armenian translator got the additional epistles. In his Meletemata 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 Anecdota Syriaca, containing some
hitherto unpublished fragments (see above p. 182 sq.), he was convinced that these
also belonged to his third version (Zeitschr. fur Wiss. Theol. 1. a). 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

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 193
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 Severus 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 Magn. 8. (i) The first of these extends only to
nine words, imrp^ari fiat. pupviiTTp) etvai tov iri,0ovs tov 9eo0 fxov. It is twice quoted
in Timotheus and three times in Severus : see pp. 165 sq., 169 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 rendering 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
hriTpiirav and yiujnrnis, 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
lu/tatBat, pup.ijriiv ylvea$ai, 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 pointsof 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 \A70s atSios ovk dirb o-iyrjs vpoeXOuv, whereas
the text of Severus omitted &tdws ovk. This difference is reproduced in the Syriac.
Merx indeed would insert a negative in Severus by reading pa retl for pan,
, but there are evidences of a much wider diffusion of the reading adopted by Severus
(see the notes on Magn. 8), and even after this violent change the word d'tStos 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. 183 sq.) 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 Severus, 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.
\ IG. I. 13

194 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. 1 74 sq.) the theory
of Merx to the same effect. ] 35-
Ephraem of Antioch [t c. a.d. 545].
(i) Epist. ad AZenobium, Photii Bibliotheca 228 (p. 246).
"Orrep ovv eiprfrai, /card to Tp'vrov Ke<$>dXaiov en re w
evayyeXiKwv cpwvwv Kal etc twv dirocrToXiKwv, Kal Br) /cai k
twv paKapiwv iraTepwv rjpwv, '\yvaTiov tov ®eocj)6pov koI
'IovXiou Kal 'Adavacriov Kal Tpr/yopiwv Kal BacriXetov,
BieXeyxei tous Bvo~cre/3eis, o5s rj tojv dpdpwv xprjcris (n-ams
yap ovtoi tovtois exprjcravTo) ovSepiav Toprjv rj Biaipecnv
iirivoel Trjs evwcrews-
(ii) De Sacris Antiochiae Legibus, Ib. 229 (p. 258).
Kai o Oeocpopos Be 'lyvaTios, Itpvpvaiois eVioreXW,
opoiws Ke^pr/Tai ra dpOpw' Kal 6 'Vwprjs 'lovXios iv rrj irpo<s
Aokiov eTricrToXrj cp'rjcriv' "Hcne dvdOepa ecrrw iras 0 nv
eK Mapta9 avdpwirov ov% opoXoywv eivai evcrapKov %eov,
Ephraem is here represented as quoting Ignatius in illustration of the use of tie
definite article in the expressions 0 Geds and 0 dvSpoiiros, when applied to our Lord.
The reference therefore is probably to Smyrn. 1 'I-no-ovv Xpiarbv tov Geo)' roV ow«
aorplaavTo. k.t.X. (see the note, 11. p. 289). Another possible, but less probable,
reference would be Smyrn. 4 tov reXelov dvBpwirov. 36.
Jovius the Monk [c. a.d. 530].
Oeconomica Tractatio vii. 31, Photii Bibliotheca 222 (p. 195)-
&r)crl yap 6 deocpopos 'lyvaTios, Tpia Xadelv tov apxovra
tou aiwvos tovtov, Trjv irapdeviav Ma/auxs, Trjv crvXhj^v to»
Kvpiov, Kal Trjv crTavpwcriv (Ephes. 19).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 195
37-
John Malalas [c. a.d. 570?].
(i) Chronogr. x. p. 252 (ed. Bonn.).
'Ev tw Be dvievai avTov [tov Tier pav~\ ev Trj 'Pwprj, Biep-
¦)(opevov avrov Bi 'AvTio)(eias Trjs peydXr/s o~vve/3rj TeXevrrjcrai
EuoSov tov iiricrKOTrov Kal TTarpidp^rjv 'Avrto^etas* Kal eXafie
to ayrjpa Trjs eTrio-Koirrjs 'AvTio^eias rrjs peydXrjs lyvaTios,
tov ayiov Uerpov tov dirocrToXov yeipoTovrjcravTOS.
(ii) Ib. xi. p. 276. Quoted above, p. 63.
For the probable date of this writer, and for his untrustworthiness, see below, 11.
P- 435 sq. 38.
Gregory of Tours [c. a.d. 577].
Hisforia Francorum i. 25.
Tertius post Neronem persecutionem in Christianos Trajanus movet
sub quo... Ignatius Antiochensis episcopus Romam ductus bestiis depu-
tatur. 39-
Evagrius [c. a.d. 594].
Historia Ecclesiustica i. 16.
The passage is quoted at length below, ri. p. 386, where also it is
¦ discussed.
40.
Stephanus Gobarus [c. a.d. 575 — 600?].
Photii Bibliotheca 232 (p. 291).
'lyvanos pevToi 6 ©eof^opos Kal KXrjprjs 6 Itrpwparevs
Kal Ei5o-e/Jios o UapcpiXov Kal ©eoScopr/TOS 6 Kvpov Trjv pev
NueoXai/rcov KaTayivcocrKovcriv alpecriv, tov Se NwcoAaov prj
tov toiovtov eivai dirocpaCvovTai.
The reference is to Ps- Trail. 11 ; comp. Ps- Philad. 6, This is the earliest distinct
eference to the spurious or interpolated epistles.
On this writer, who seems to have lived in the latter part of the 6th century, see
Walch Hist. d. Ketzer viii. p. 883. The latest writer whom he quotes is Severus of
Vntioch.
I3—2

196 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
41.
Anastasius T of Antioch [f a.d. 598 or 599].
De Recti's Veritatis Dogmatibus.
(i) Mopcprjv BovXov rjpcpiecrpevov, iva Xddy ©e6s wv tov
apxpvra tou aicovos tovtov (Ephes. 19).
This extract was taken by Pearson from a MS in the Library of Trinity College,
Cambridge ( Vind. Ign. p. 81, ed. Churton). I have made enquiries of the Librarian,
who has searched for this Ms in vain.
(ii) 'IyvaTiou tou Oeorpopov Kal paprvpos eK. Trjs em-
crToXrjs vpos tous ev Tdpcrw.
Ei folp hAcic oti OeoY Yioc hn, epNcocxec oti, TeccAp^-
KONTA HMepAC AN6NA66C TTOIMCAC TO CpGApTON CCOMA, KAI 8IC
TO AIHNCK6C HA-VNATO TOYTO TTOIHCAI' AlA TI OYN H6INA; °NA
Aei'lH oti aAhGcoc ANeAABe ccoma OMOionASec ANepcbrroic' Aia
men r&p toy npcoTOY I'AeileN oti OeoC, Aia Ae toy AeYTepoy
OTI ka! ANGpCOTTOC (Philipp. 9).
This extract is given in Mai Script. Vet. Nov. 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. Graec. x. p. 595 sq., ed. Harles; Lequien Orims
Christ. 11. p. 736. For a further reference in this Anastasius to the Ignatian letters
see the next extract:
42.
Gregory the Great [a.d. 594 or 595]-
Epist. v. 39, ad Anastasium Antiochenum, Op. vn. p. 520 (Vend. 1 77°)-

Amen Gratia. Quae videlicet verba de scriptis vestris ao
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 nullus nostrum habeat privatum.
The words, 'A/tijx- ^ xapis, appear now only in Ps-Polyc. 8 and Ps-Ephes. i\ ; b»t
there are reasons for thinking that they may at one time have been found in the text
of the genuine Ignatius (see II. p. 850). 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. 117 sq.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 197
43-
Leontius of Byzantium [after a.d. 610].
De Sectis Actio iii. 1 (Galland. Bibl. Vet. Patr. xn. p. 633).
EyevovTo Be ev tois XP^V0L^ to^ ^tto rrjs yevvrjcrews rov
Xpicrrov pe\pi Trjs fiacriXeias KwvcrTavrivov BiBdcrKaXoi Kal
trafepes oiBe' 'lyvanos 6 (deocpopos, Elprjvaios, 'Iovcttivos
<l>iX6cro<pos Kal pdprvs, KXrjprjs Kal 'IttttoXvtos eVicncoTTOi
'VwprjSy Aiovvcrios 6 'Apeorrayirrjs, MedoBios eiricrKOTros
Jlarapwv, Tprjyopios 6 davparovpyos, Uerpos 6 'AXe£av-
Bpeias etrio-KOiTos Kal pdprvs. tovtovs aVavras ai per'
avrovs yevopevai alpecreis Be\ovrai.
On this writer see Fabricius Bibl. Graec. viii. p. 309 sq. (ed. Harles).
44
Antiochus the Monk [c. a.d. 620].
Homiliae (Patrol. Graec. lxxxix. p. 142 1 sq., ed. Migne).
(1) Horn. 1, p. 1432.
O TeXetos tticttos XiBos vaov ®eov vrrdp^ei rjroipacrpevos
els oiKoBoprjv ®eov trarpds, dvacpepopevos eis rd v\\>rj Bid rrjs
prj)(avrjs 'irjcrov Xpicrrov, o ecrri aravpos, cr^o'ivw xpcopevos
rw irvevpari' rj Be iricrris dvdpwirov dywyevs icrriv, rj Be
ayairrj dSos rj dvaipepovcra els rov ®eov. Kal 6 toiovtos
yiverai Oeocpopos, rjyovv xpicrrocp'opos, Kal vaos ®eov Kal
ayioBpopos, /cat Ta irdvra KeKocrprjpevos ev rais ivroXais
lr]o~ov Xpicrrov' Kal dpxrj £wrjs rj Sta iricrrews Kai dydirrjs
ds [1. rjs\ ovBev rtpoKeKpnai (Ephes. 9, 14, Magn. 1).
(2) lb., p. 1436.
Aaftovres ovv ®eov yvwcriv Bid rrjs iricrrews, prj dyvorjcrw-
pev Ttjv Bodeicrav rjplv X^P^' virkp rjs rreirovdev dXrjdws 6
Kvpios. Sid touto yap Kal pvpov eXafiev iirl rrjs KecpaXrjs 6
^Kupios, iva mser) rrj eKKXr/cria dcpOapcriav. ptjBels ovv dXei-
jcpeo-va) BvcrwBiav dViorias rov dpxovros tov aicuvos (Ephes. 17).

198 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
(3) Horn. 21, p. 1500.
Meya ovv icrriv iv dyveia peveiv eis rr\v riprjv ny;
crapms tou Kvpiov iv a/cau^Ticria' eav yap /cau^o-^rai,
cwrcoAeTO (Polyc. 5).
(4) Horn. 22, p. 1501.
"Apeivov ovv icrriv criwrrdv Kai eivai rj XaXovvras pr/
eXvai. KaXbv to SiSaV/ceiv, eav 6 Xeywv rroirj. eis ovv 6 SiSao--
Kakos' cos ei7rev, Kai iyevero" Kal a criywv Be TrenoirjKcv,
afia rov irarpos icrriv. o Xoyov Irjcrov Xpicrrov KeKTrjpevo,
dXrjOws Bvvarai /cai tijs rjcrvxicts auTou d/coueiv, iva y rekew 1
iva Si' wv XaXei, rrpdcrcrrj, /cai Si' cov criya, yivwo~KrjT<u,
ovBev yap Xavddvei rov Kvpiov, dXXd Kal rd Kpvirrd rjpav
iyyvs avrov elcriv (Ephesi 15).
(5> &om. 29, p. 1532.
KaXov ovv icrriv dtroO'icrBai ttjv KaKtjv tppijv rt\v
iraXaiwdetcrav Kal ivo£vo~ao~av k.t.X. (Magn. 10).
(6) Horn. 57, p. 1605.
OvBelsyap Tricrriv eirayyeXXopevos dpaprdvei, ovBedyatf
excov picrei. cbavepov yap to BevBpov diro tov Kapirov yiverai,
o ovv eirayyeXXopevos Xpicrrov eXvai, Si' wv rtpdcrcrei, o^ftf
creTai (Ephes, 14).
(7) Horn. 80, p. 1673.
Eua7rdSe/cTov ®ew rrjs evcScrews rrjs eKKXrjcrias j>povnt,av
rjs ovBev dpeivov iv dv&pwnois' Kal to Travras fiacrrdlav, w
Kal rjpds 6 Kupios, Kal itdvrwv dvex&rOai iv dydnrj. oti ov
Xprj evXoyca Brjdev it pocpdcrei, 'iva prj eiirw Kal Xiav d\oy<}i
dnocrirav eauTous rov crwparos rrjs e/c/cX?icrias Kal i8ia'£eWi
aXX e7ri to auTo pia npocrevxrj, pia Berjcris, els vow, p*
IXttis ev dydtrrj, iv rrj xaP$ Tfj dpwpw, o icrriv 'lij<rorK
Xpicrros, ov ovBev dvprjBecrrepov. irdvres ovv dcWo/40'
crvvrpexeiv cos em ev QvcriacrTrjpiov, pia ibvxv koLv iv iroWiS
tois peXecriv, pia yvwprj evl deXrjpari, cos ev crwpa w%'"''
tcs (Polyc. 1, Magn. 7).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 1 99
(8) Horn. 85, p. 1693.
\%v ovv evBvcrai rrjv nicrriv rrjv icr^upav. crrwpev ovv
eBpaloi, cos aKpwv, rvmopevoi. peydXov ddXrjTov icrriv Be-
pecrdai Kal viKav. pdXicrra Be ©eou eveKev ndvra vnopevw-
pev, iva Kai auras rjpds vnopeivr/. crnovBaloi yevwpeda, tous
Kaipovs Karapddwpev, tov vnep xpovov npocrBoKovvres, tov
dyjpovov, rov doparov, Si' rjpds Be dparov, tov dxjjrjXdcp'rjTov,
81' rjpds Be xjrrjXacp'rjdevTa, tov dnaOrj, Si' rjpds Be naOovra,
rov iv paKpoOvpia, ndvra Si' rjpds vnopeivavra (Polyc. 3).
(9) Horn. 92, p. 1713.
To avpirdcrxeiv aXXiyXois Kal cruvaXyeiv crvvrpex^v re
Kal crvyKOTriav evdpecrrov icrriv tco ©ecu. Kai ydp XPeo3~
arovpev tovto npdrreiv, cos SouXoi Kai vdpeBpoi Kal vn-
tjperai tou ®eov Xoyov' iva evapecrrwpev co ecrrparevOrjpev,
dtp' ov Kal Ta 6\\swvia Kopicr6pe6a...dywvicrwpeda ovv iva
rj itiotis rjpwv Kal rj dydnrj Kal rj vnopovrj cos nepiKecpaXaia
Kal cos Sdpu Kai 7ravo7rXia rjplv ecrrwcrav, paKpoOvpovvres
per dXXrjXwv Kal ev npaorr/ri Bidyovres, cos Kai o' ©eos peB
1 rjpwv (Polyc. 6).
(10) Horn. 106, p. i7S6-
To crvoXd^eiv 177 dSiaXei7TTCt> npoarevxfj dvayKaiov Kal
iirarpeXes rjplv uVa/>xet {Polyc. 1).
(11) Horn, in, p. 1780.
. 'HjteXeias Biopdwcris yivecrOw trap' avrov, c'kSikciv avrov
rbv T07rov ev ndcrrj enipeXeia nvevpariKrtj, cppovrit^w rrjs evw-
crecos tcov peXwv, rjs ouSev apeivov, rtdvrwv dve^ecrf5ai ev dydnrj,
irdvras fiacrrd^eiv, cos Kal avrov 6 Kupios. npocrevxicrOw vnep
irdvrwv dBiaXeinrws, alrelv crvvecriv nvevpariKrjv els to BiaKpi-
veiv avrbv Ta crvpcpepovra, ypr/yopelv, pepipvav nepi navrwv,
rd eXaTTco/iaTa navrwv Kal Tas vo'crous fiacrrdtfiiv, cos reXeios
'idXrjrrjs' onov yap nXeiwv K07ros, noXii Kal to KepBos- tous
'KaXoiis padrjras idv <f>iXfj, X^/51? a^T<? ovk ecrriv, aXXa paXXov
Trous dnkiOecrrepovs ev npctorryri vnordcrcreiv. ov nav rpavpa

200 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
rrj avrfj ipnXdcrrpw ^e/aa7reueTai. tous napo^vcrpovs ev
fipoxais Bel naveiv. ecrrw cppovipos iv nacriv cos 01 octets Kal
d/cepaios cos ai nepicrrepai' iva Ta pev cp"aivopeva avrwv eis
npocrwnov KoXaKevrj, rd Be dopara alrfj cf>avepw0rjvai aim'
iva prjBevos Xeiirrjrai dXX' iv navrl xapi°~lJLaTl rrepicrcrevn,-
6 Kaipbs ydp dnairel avrov, cos KvjUepvrjrrjv npbs tous dvepovs
Kai Tas rpiKvpias Kai tjdXas rwv nvevparwv rrjs nopveias
crrrjvai yevvaiws, Kal dBijyeiv tovs x^LrLa^°i1'^V0V'i ^ ™v
Xipeva tou deXrjparos rov ©eou (Polyc. i, 2).
(12) Horn. 112, p. 1784.
O /xova^os ovk e^ei eaurou e£ovcriav...oi yap aapKiKol
Ta nvevpariKa irpacrcreiv ov Bvvavrai, ovBe oi nvevpariKoix
ra crapKiKcL xp~n °^v r^v ftovXopevov rrjv dyyeXiKrjv rav-
rrjv rov povrjpovs /3iov dcrKrjcrai noXireiav, Krrjcracrdai
rrjv cppovrjcriv tov oc/>ecos Kal to aKepaiov Trjs nepi-
crrepas (Polyc. 7, Ephes. 8, Polyc. 2).
(13) Horn. 116, p. 1793.
O ovtcos padrjrrjs deXei dBiKelcrdai Kal prj dBiKelv, /cat
Sia Ta7reivcocrecos viKrjcrai tous dSiKouvras auTov, Kai ir/)os
Tas opyas avrwv npavs eivai, npbs to peyaXopprjpov awwi'
raneivorppwv, npbs to dypiov rjpepos, Kal prj 6poiovcr0M
avrols iv pr/Bevi, dXXd ttj inieiKeia, cos piprjrrjs rov Kvpiov,
crnovBd^wv paXXov dBiKrjOrjvai rjnep dBiKrjcrai Tiva (Eplies. 10).
(14) Horn. 124, p. 1820..
'O Qeocpopos 'lyvanos inicrreXXei Xeywv' To) erficKOTTO)
npoce)(6Te, Fna kai 6 Oedc ymTn. anti'yyXon ^r^ 7$> Ytto™0"
coMeNCp erricKontp rrpecBYTepoic tc kai Aiakonoic" met' aytwn
moi reNOiTO to wiepoc e'xeiN cn Gear Kal au#is" /VUpTYC moi,
eN tp A6A6MAI, OTI And CApKOC AN9pCOTTINHC OYK eTNCON, TO
Ae TTN6YMA Ikh'pyccsn, Aero-N TAA6- Xcopic TOY enlCKOTTOY
mhAen noie?T6. XPV ov>v dveu tov inicrKonov prjBev npacro'eu'
rjpds' onov ydp dv cpavfj inicrKonos, c'kci to nXrjdos ift^i
wcrnep, bnovnep av ovopacrdfj Xpicrrbs 'Irjcrovs, eKeiij otpO".
Xi/07 iKKXrjcria inicrvvdyerai  ovk i£bv ovv icrriv x^P1^ T0V

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 201
emcrK07rou ovre fianril^eiv ovre dydnrjv noielv, dXX' o av
eKelvos BoKipdcrrj, tovto Kal tco ©eco evdpecrrov. 6 rbv
etrio'Konov ripwv vnb tov ®eov nparai' 6 XdOpa inicrKonov n
npdcrcrwv rw SiaySdXco Xarpevei. dvayKalov Be icrriv vnordcr-
crecrdai Kal rco npecrfUvTepiw, cos d7rocrToXois 'I^crou Xpicrrov,
rrjs iXniBos rjpwv, Kara ndvra rpbnov nacriv dpecrKeiv. ov
yap fipwpdrwv Kal nopdrwv elcrlv BiaKOvoi dXXd iKKXrjcrias
©eou vnrjperai. Beov ovv icrriv aurous (pvXdcrcrecrdai ra
eyKXrjpara cos nvp. opoiws irdvres ivrpenicrdwcrav tous
SiaKovous cos 'lijcrovv Xpicrrov, Kal rov inicrKonov cos tov
narepa, tous Be npecrj3vrepovs cos crvveBpiov ®eov Kal cos
Becrpbv dnooroXwv. x^P^ tovtwv iKKXrjcria ov KaXel-
Tai (Polyc. 6, Philad. 7, Smyrn. 8, 9, Trail. 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.
45-
Chronicon Paschale [c a.d. 630].
(i) p. 416 (ed. Bonn.).
"Oti Se Tpeis eviauTous Kfjpv^as to evayyeXioy o Kvpios
eni tov eKovcriov Kal tjwonoibv rjXOe crravpov, SiSdcrKei Kai
'Iyvdrios d Oeocpopos Kal pdprvs, 6 'lwdvvov rov OeoXoyov
yvrjcrios paOr/rrjs yeyovws, rrjs Be ev 'AvTio^eia ayiwrdnns
iKKXrjcrias inicrKonos vnb tcov cwrocrTdXcov KaracrraOeis. ev
rrj npbs TpaXXiavovs roivvv inicrroXfj yeypa<pev inl Xe'gecos
ovrws' 'AAhBcoc toi'nyn ereNNHce MApiA to ccoma Ocon Ixon
6NOIKON, KAI AAH9tOC lr£NNH9H 6 AdrOC 6K THC TTAp9eNOY
M*p I AC, CCOMA OMOIOTTA9eC HM?N HMCbieCMENOC AAH9cocreroNeN
In MHTpA 6 TTANTAC AN9pC0TT0YC 6N MHTpA Al ATT AATTCON,
KAI InOIHCEN eAYTCp CCOMA CK TCON THC TTAp9eN0Y CTTepMATCON,
TTAHN OCON OMlAlAC ANApOC AN6Y- AAH9COC 6 K YO (J)Op H 6 H, COC
KAI HMeTc, XPONCON TTepldAOIC, KAI AAH6C0C 6T6X9H, COC KAI
HMeiC AAH9C0C IrAAAKTOTpOCbH'eH Ka'i TpOCbfic KOINHC Ka'i

202 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
ttotoy metecxen, coc ka! hmeTc' ka) TpeTc AekaAac etcon
TTOAlTEYCAMENOC EBATTTIC9H YTTO 'IcOANNOY A/\H9C0C KAI Ot'
AOKHCET KAI TpeTc 6NIAYT0YC KHpYZAC TO EYAITeAlON, K&'l
TT0IHCAC CHMeTa KAI TEpATA, YTTO TCON YE YAOl'o YAAl'cON K&i
TTlAATOY HTEM0N0C O KpiTHC EKpi'SH, EMACTir"C09H, YTTO AofAcON
eni KOppHC eppATTl'c9H, ENETTTYC9H, AKAN9IN0N CTECpANON
kai nopcpYpoYN imation ecpcJpeceN, katekpi9h, ectaypcoBh
aAhGcoc, of AOKHCEI, OY 4>antaci'a, OyK ATTATH. ATTE9AN6N
AAH9C0C, KAI ETACpH Ka) HTEp9H EK TCON NEKpcON (Ps-Trall. io).
IBov cp"avepws o toiovtos Kai tt/Xikovtos rrjs iKKXrjcrias
BiBdcrKoXos rpels iviavrovs Ktjpv^ai to evayyeXiov rbv awTtjpa •
Xeyei. (ii) p. 471. The passage is quoted above, p. 65 sq.
46.
Theodorus the Presbyter [c. a.d. 650?].
De Authenticitate Libri Dionysii, Photii Bibliotheca 1.
IIcos pepvrjrai rrjs rov deocpopov 'lyvariov enioToXrjs i]
fiifiXos ', o pev yap Aiovvcrios tois tcov dnocrroXwv ivrJKpatre
Xpovois, 'lyvanos Be eni Tpa'iavov rbv Bid paprvpiov rj6Xrjo~ev
ay cava, os Kal npb fipaxv rrjs reXevrrjs ravrtjv enicrToXrjv, 17s
rj [iifiXos pvtjpovevei, ypdcpei. 47-
Maximus the Confessor [t a.d. 662].
(i) Schol. in Dionys. de Div. Nom. iv. 12 (Op. 1. p. 613, Corder.).
'O gbios 'irNATios- Kal eK toutou Tives oibvTai BiafidXhav
evKaipws to napbv crvvraypa, cos prj ov tou Oeiov Aiowcriov,
ineiBrj 'lyvariov Xeyovcn perayevecnepov avrov elvai' ?™s
Be Bvvarai tis tcov perayevecrTepwv pepvrjcrdai ; irXaa/Mi
Se Kal tovto Bokovv avTols' 6 yap ayios IlauXos 0 <f>omo~a,
Aiovvcnov peTayevecrrepos rjv tw ^odvco tou ctytov Uerpov,
peff ov 6 'lyvaTios enicrKonos yiverai 'AvTio^eias, perareuevroi,
Uerpov iv 'Vwprp ine^rjcre Be 6 dyios IlauXos XP°V0V m^vV>
[d] (pwricras Aiovvcnov, Kal Aiovvcrios per avrov eLflffQ'-

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 203
d Se euayyeXiorr)? 'Icodvv^s e7rl Aopenavov e£opit,erai eis
ndrpov <p dvnypdcpei Aiovucrios' 'Iyvarios Se npb Aope
navov paprvpei- wcrre npoyevecrrepos Aiowcriov. '0 emoc
Ipcoc tpqrrjreov 7rcos eni 'Ovrjcripov tov perd TipoOeov 'lyva
riov BiaXeyopevov Kal ypdcpovros to emoc epcoc ectaypcotai,
Aiovucrios vvv Tipodeco ypdcpwv tovtov pepvrjrai, cos 'iyvaTiou
rjBrj ypdxfjavros.A.rj Ta^a crvvrjOes auTco eiVai dnocpdeypa, cos
Kal to 9eocb6poc noXXaKis auTco Xeydjuevdv tc Kal ypacpope-
vov. reKprjpiov Be to pr) npocrKelcrdai, Tpd<pei Be nen, rovrecr-
ti 'Pcojuaiois* dXX' a7rXcos, Tpdcpei Be Kal 6 delos 'lyvanos.
(ii) Loci Communes, Op. 11. pp. 534, 638, ed. Combefis.
Sermo 2. 'Iyi/crn'ov.
TeAeioi ontec, teAeia cbpoNeTTE" 9eAoyci r*P YmTn ey npAT-
TEIN 0EOC ETOIMOC file To' TTApEXEIN (Smyrn. 11).
Sermo 43. Tov ayi'ou 'lyvariov.
Kan IppcoMENOc co ta kata Oeon, ttAeon me Ae? <uoBeTc9ai
KAI npOCEXEIN ToTc EIKH CpYCIOYCl' ME' InAINOYNTEC TAp ME
mactitoyci (Ps-Trall. 4). 48.
Anastasius of Sinai [c. a.d. 680].
Hodegus 2 (Patrol. Graec. lxxxix. p. 196, ed. Migne).
Tou dyiov 'lyvariov inicrKonov 'Avrio^eias. Eacate
mimhthn tenec9ai toy tta9oyc toy ©eoy moy (Rom. 6).
On this writer see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. p. 571, ed Harles.
49.
Andreas of Crete [c. a.d. 680].
Horn. 11 in Nativitatem B. Virginis (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 87).
'iis <p"rjcri 7rou dyios dvrjp, 'lyvanos ovopa avrw' Ka)
I'Aa9E TC)N ApXONTA TOY AICONOC TOYTOY H TTAp9ENl'A MApiAC, KAI
6 TOKOC AY'THC, (5mOICOC Ka) 6 9ANAT0C TOY XptCTOY, TpiA MYC-
THpiA (bpiKTA, ATINA EN HCYX'* ©EOY 6TTpAX9H (EpheS. ICj).

204 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
So.
John of Damascus [before a.d. 754]-
Sacra Parallela (Op. 11. p. 274 sq., ed. Lequien).
(A) Parallela Vaticana.
a. ix. p. 314.
GeAoycin ymTn EY npATTEIN 0EOC ET0IM0.C EIC T(J nApe-
XEiN (Smyrn. 11).
a. xviii. p. 354.
OfAEN ECTIN AM.EINON EipHNRC, EN H TTAC TldAEMOC KATAp-
TeTtai (Ephes. 13).
a. xxi p. 358.
Tcp KAICApi YUOTATHTE, EN oTc AKINAyNOC H YTTOTArH
(Antioch. n).
c. xviL p. 514 sq.
TTantec Tcp ettickottco akoAoy9e?te, coc'Ihcoyc XpicToc tiJ»
nATpi" ka'i TCp npEcBYTEpi'cp coc toTc attoctoAoic toyc Ae
AlAKONOYC ENTpETTEC9£, COC Geof ENTOAHN AIAKONOYNTAC.
MHAfilc X00?10 EniCKOUOY TI npACCETCO tcon anhkcIntcon EIC THN
EKKAHCIAN. EKEINH BeBa/a EYXApiCTl'A HrEIC9CO, H YTTO TCON
ETTICKOTTCON OYCA. OTTOY AN 0>ANH 6 ETTl'cKOTTOC, EKE? TO TTAfi60C
HTCO, COCTTEp, onoy AN 6 XpiCTOC, IkeT h kaOoAikh [h] ekkAhci'a.
OYK ElON ECTI XCOpiCTOYETTICKOTTOY 0 YTE B ATTTl'zE I N OYTE ArATTHN
TTOIE?N" AAA' 0 AN EKeTnOC AOKIMACH, TOYTO TCp QfiCp EyApECTON.
6 TIMCON ETHCKOTTON YTTO QeOY TETi'mHTAI* 6 AA9pA ETTICKOTTOY TI
npACCCON tco AiaBoAco. AATpEyEi (Smyrn. 8, 9).
TTantac Bactaze, coc kai ce 6 Kypioc ttantcon an^oy
EN ATAnH' npOC£YXA?C CXOAAZE AAIAAEi'tTTOIC" AITOY CYN6-
cin ttAei'ona hc e'xeic" rpHropsi, akoi'mhton omma kekthme-
noc (Polyc. 1).
TTantcon tac Nocoyc Bactaze, cbc t&Aeioc 6 a9Ahthc. onoy
ttAeicon kottoc, noAy KEpAoc. KAAoyc ma9htac Ian 4>iAhc,
XApic coi oyK ectat maAAon toyc Anei9ecTepoYc en npAOTHTi
yndTACCE. oy ttan tpayma th ayth emttAactpco eEpATreyeTAr
toyc nApoIycMoyc emBpoxaTc ttaye. Aia toyto capkikoc ei
KAI TTNEYMATIKOC, i'NA TA CpAINOMENA COI EIC TTp OCCOTTQN KOAA-

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 2 05
KE^HC, TA AE AOpATA aTtEI FnA COI (J)ANEpC06H, TnA MHAENOC
Aei'tth (Polyc. 1, 2).
c. xxviii. p. 522.
KAN EppCOMENOC CO KATA* TON QfiON, TTAeTciN ME AeT CuOBeTcGaI,
KAI npOCEXEIN ToTc EIKH CbyCCOCIN ME" ETTAINOyNTEC r<^P ME MAC-
TiroyciN (Ps-Trall. 4).
it. x. p. 642.
TTap6eni'ac zyroN mhAen) ettitiGet etticcj)aAec [-ApTO kthma
KA) AyccbyAAKTON, OTAN KAt' ANATKHN TINHTAI.
ToTc NE0IC ETTl'TpETTS TAMeTn, TTp'lN Al ACoGApCOCIN EIC ETEpAC.
it. xiii. p. 650.
Xpi^ZCO npAOTHTOC, EN CO KATAAyETAI (5 ApX^CON TOY AICONOC
toytoy AiaBoAoc (Ps-Trall. 4).
ct. xi. p. 687.
Ol CApKIKo'l TA TTNEYMATIKA TTpACCEIN OY AyNANTAI, OyTE oi
TTNEYMATIKOI TA CApKIKA (Ephes. 8).
v. ix. p. 702.
MhAEIC YMCON KATA* TOY TTAHCi'oN €)(eT-CO TI' MH ACpOpMAC
AlAOTE ToTc eGnECIN, FnA MH Al' OAl'royC ACupONAC TO ENGeON
ttAhGoc BAaccuhmhtai (Trail. 8).
X- iv. p. 724.
XpiCTIANOC EAYTOY llOYCIAN OyK i%ei, AAA<i TCO QfiCp CXOAa-
zei (Polyc. 7).
(B) Parallela Rupefucaldina.
a. U. p. 747. Too ayiov 'lyvariov.
TeAeioi 6'ntec, teAeia cpponeTte' GeAoyci ta'p hmTn ey rrpAT-
TEIN 0EOC ItOIMOC EIC TO TTApEXEIN (Smyrn. II).
a. xviii. p. 750. Too ctyi'ou 'lyvariov Ik tt/s Trpos 'E<£«rtbvs iiriaToXijs.
TTanTA, ON AN TTEMTTH O OIKOAECTTOTHC cie iAi'an oikonomi'an,
OYTCOC HMAC AE? YTTOAeSACGAI, COC AyTON TON TTEM*pANTA (Ephes. 6).
a. lxxvi. p. 772. 'Ek tiJs irpos "E^etrious c7r(o-ToAir/s too dyiov 'lyvariov
rov ©eo<popov.
Toyc MEpiCMOYC <bEyr£T£, COC APX^N kakcon. eicoGaci' TINEC
AoAcp noNHpco to 6'noma XpicToy ncpicpepEiN, a'AAa tina np<£c-

206 , EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
contec anaIia Geoy* ofc AeT ymac coc Ghpi'a ekkAi'nein- eici
r"Ap KYNEC AYCCCONTEC AAGpoAHKTAT OyC AE? y'mAC CbyAACCECBAI
ontac AycGEpAnEYToyc (Smyrn. 8, Ephes. 7).
MhAEIC TTAANACGCO. EAN MH TIC HENTOC TOY GyCIACTHpiOy,
YCTEpfiTTAI TOY ApTOY toy Oeoy. ei rAp enoc ka) AcyTEpoy
npocEYXH tocay'thn icxyn e^ei, ttocco maAAon h te toy etii-
cKonoy kai ttachc thc IkkAhci'ac 6 OYN MH EpXOMENOC £TII T(i
AYTO, OYTOC HAH YUEpHCbANET KAi EAyTON AlAKpiNEI" rerpATT-
tai Ae 'YnEpHcbANOic d Qeoc antitaccetai (Ephes. 5).
Mh ttAanacGe, AAEAcbof moy' oiKOcbGopoi BaciAei'an Oeoy of
KAHpONOMHCOYCIN. £1 OyN Ol KATA CApKA TAYTA TTACX0NT6C
ATTEGNHCKON, TTdcCp MAAAON EAN niCTIN EN KAKOAIAACKAAIA
(bGEpfiT, y"n£p hc 'Ihcoyc XpicTo'c IcTAypcbGH. oti oytoc pynA-
pdc reNOMENoc eic to nyp to acBecton x^Ph'cei, omoi'coc ka'i
6 AKoycoN aytoy (Ephes. 16).
*Ek ttJs 7rpos TpaAAaeis IttiotoA^s.
TTapakaAco ymac, oyK Ircb aAA' h XApic toy Kypt'oy h'mcon
'Ihcoy XpicToy, monh th xpictianikh Tpocbn xPhcGat aAAo-
Tpi'AC A€ BOTANHC AnEXECGAI, HTIC ECTIN AfpECIC" KAl TTApEMTrAe-
KOYCIN 'IHCOYN XpiCTON KATASlOTTICTEYOMENOI, COCTTEp Gana'ci-
MON (bApMAKON AlAONTEC MET OINOMEAlTOC, OTTEp 0 AfNOWN
hAecoc AamBanei In hAonh kakh to attoGaneTn" <byAACcec8e
oyN Toyc TOioyVoyc (Trail. 6, 7).
*Ek rij<i avTys.
thfi-rreTe TAC KAKAC TTApACJJYAAAC TAC reNNCOCAC KApTTON
GANATHCbfjpON, OY EAN reyCHTAl' TIC, TTApAYTIKA ATT09NHCK6I.
oytoi rAp oyK eic'i cbyTEiA toy hneymatoc (Trail. 11).
'Ek r>/s irpos 3?tAa8eAcpibus eiriOToA'r/s.
'AnlxEcGE tcon kakcon Botancon, con XpicTOc'lHcoyc rewpreii
AlA TO MH £?NAI AYTOyc (byTEIAN TOY TTATpOC. MH TlAANACBe,
AAeAcboi moy* ei' tic cxizonti akoAoyGeT, BaciAei'an Oeoy of
kAhponomeT (Philad. 3).
/?. I. p. 775- Tou ayiou 'lyvariov e/c rijs 7rpos 'Ecpeo'ioos eirioroAiJ*
OyAEN ECTIN AMEINON EipHNHC, EN H TTAC TTOAEMOC KAT*P"
TeTtai (Ephes. 13).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 207
y. xvii. p. 777" ^°^ ayfo« lyvariov tou ®eo<popov.
MdNOYC ANApAC toyc omozytoyc eTnai nomicteon taTc
TYNAlIlN, olc KAI HNCOGHCAN KATA TNCOMHN QfiOY (Antioch, o).
8. xii. p. 77^- Too ayiov 'lyvariov tov Oeocpopou Ik riys irpos 'E<pe-
cious lirioroAiJs.
"EcXATOI KAipOl', AAeAcbOl' AOITTON Al CXYN GCOMEN. cboBHGCO-
MEN THN MAKpo9YMIAN TOY GfiOy, MH EIC KpiMA HM?N rENHTAI"
H TAp THN MEAAOYCAN 6pr"HN 4>0BH9C0MEN, H Th'n ENECTCOCAN
XApiN ATATTHCCOMEN In TCjJ NYN Bl'cp" MONON In XpiCTCp 'IhCOY
Eype9coMEN (Ephes. n).
8. xxxi. p. 778. Tyvcmou too ®eorpopov irpos 'E^ecioos.
"Otan nyKNcoc ett'i to ayto ti'necGe, kaGaipoyntai Ayn^meic
toy Satana", Ayetai oAEGpoc aytoy In th omonoi'a ymcon thc
tti'ctecoc (Ephes. 13).
8. xxxiv. p. 778. Tou dyiov 'lyvariov Ik ttJs irpos JJoAuKapiroi/ lirioroA'r/s.
0! AoyAoi mh IpATCocAN And koinoy lAEyGEpoycGAi, AAA' eic
AoIan toy Geoy to1 ttAeTon AoyAeyetcocan, Tna KpElTTONOC
eAEyGEpiAc yno Geoy tyxcocin {Polyc. 4)-
t. xlviii. p. 779- ToS ayiov lyvariov rov ©eocpopou Ik t^s irpos 2/<u»p-
ratovs lirtoroAijs.
TTantec Tcp ImcKdncp akoAoyGeTte, cbc 'Ihcoyc XpicToc t<1>
nATpi, ka'i tco npecByTEpi'cp coc toTc attoctoAoic" Toyc Ae Aiako-
Noyc ENTpenEcGc, cbc Geoy IntoAh'n. mhAe'ic x^P10 InicKonoy
TI TTpACCETCO TCON ANHKONTCON In IkKAHCIA. BeBAIA EYXAplCTIA
hteicGco h yno toy ettickottoy oyca, h co Ian aytoc IniTplyH.
cittoy an cbANH 6 Itti'c kottoc, IkeT to ttAhGoc, cocnEp onoy Ian
H 'IHCOYC XpiCTOC, EKE? H KAGoAlKH IkkAHCIA. OYK liON ICTI
Xcop'ic InicKonoy oy'te Battti'zein oy'te ata'tiac ttoieTn, aAA' co
Ian IkeTnoc Aokimach, toyto ka'i tco 'Ihcoy XpicTco ey'apecton,
FnA ACCbAAEC Ii KAi BeBAION TIAN 6 npACCETAI. EyAOrON ECTI
AOITTON ANANHYAI HMAC, COC KAipON I'XOMEN EIC ©EON METANO£?N.
kaAcoc exei Oeon ka'i Itti'ckotton eIaenai. 6 TIMCON etti'ckotton
yno Geoy teti'mhtai, 6 AAGpA Ittickottoy ti npAcccoN tcJ> AiaBo-
Acp AATpEyEi (Smyrn. 8, 9).
Ek tjJs irpos IIoAijKap7roi'.
Tcp ETTICKOTTCp npOCEXETE, l"NA KAI y'm?N 6 QeOC Ir<i> ANTI-

208 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
YYX0N TCON YTTOTACCOMENCON IniCKOTTCp, npECByTEpi'cp, AIAKONOIC
MET AYTCON MOI jb MEpOC TENOITO 6N OfiCp (Polyc. 6).
lTpos 'E^>ecious.
ZnoyAACcoMEN mh antitaccecGai tco InicKo'ncp, "na comen
GecTj yttotaccomenoi. ka'i ocon BAlnEi tic citconta Ini'cKonoN,
nAEON AYTON cboBEICGCO- nANTA TAp ON nEMTTEl 6 oikoAecttothc
file lAlAN OIKONOMIAN, OYTCOC AE? YMAC AEXECGAI, cbc AYTON TON
ttemttonta. ton royN Ini'cKonoN cbc ayton ton KypiON Aei
npocBAETTEiN (Ephes. 5, 6).
Tou avrov irpos Mayviyrrious.
Eic timhn Geoy toy GeAh'cantoc hmac nplnoN Ictin ytta-
KOYEIN TO) IniCKOTTCp KATA MHAEMl'AN fnOKpiCIN" IueI 0y)() TON
E'ni'cKOnON TOYTON T0'n BAEnOMENON nAANA tic, aAAa' ton
AOpATON nApAAORZETAI QeON. TCO AE TOIOYTCp OY UpOC CApKA
d Aoroc aAAa npdc Qe6n ton ta KpycbiA eiAo'ta. nplnoN oyN
Icti, MH monon kaAeTcOai xP'ctianoyc, aAAa ka'i eTnai" cbcnep
KAI TINEC Im'cKOnON MEN KAAoyCI, X^Op'l C Ae AYTOy nANTA TTpAC-
COyCIN. Ol T0I0YT0I OyK EYCyNElAHTOI MOI chAINONTAI, AlA TO
mh BeBai'coc kat' IntoAhn CYNA9pOIZEC9AI (Magn. 3, 4).
'Ek rrjs avTrjs.
MhAen ectco In ymTn 6 Aynhcetai ymac Mepi'cAi, aAA1
ENCOGHTE TCp IniCKOnCp KAI ToTc npOKAGHMEN OIC EIC TOTTON KAl
AlAAXHN A0>9ApCl'AC. COCUEp OYN 6 KypiOC HMCON AN6Y TOY
nATpdc oyAen InomceN, oyte Ai' Iaytoy oy'te Aia tcon attocto-
Acon, oytcoc mhAe ymeTc aney toy InicKonoy mhAen npACceTe,
mhAe nEipACHTE EyAoroN ti 4>ai'nec6ai iAi'a ym?n (Magn. 6, 7). .
Tou auTou.
"Otan too cnicKoncp ynoTACcucGe, cJjai'necG.e moi of kata
ANGpCOUON ZCONTEC AAAA KATA 'IHCOYN XpiCTON TON Al' HMACi
AnoGANONTA (Trail. 2).
Tou aurou.
TeKNA cbCOTOC AAH9EIAC, chEYTETE TON MEpiCMON KAI TAC
kakoAiAackaAi'ac onoy Ae 6 noiMHN Icti, Ikei coc npoBATA
akoAoy9eTte (Philad. 2).
Tou auTou.
MApTYC MOY EN Cp aIAemai, OTI And CApKdc ANGpCOTTI.NHCOYK
I'tncon- to Ae nNEYMA Ikh'pycce taAe- Xcop'ic ImcKonoYMHAeN

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 209
nOlfiTTE" THN CiipKA y'mCON COC NAON QeOYTHpcTTE- THN ENCOCIN
ArAnATE" TOyC MEpiCMOY'c C^EyrETE" MIMHTa) pNEC9e 'IHCOf
XpicToy, cbc aytoc Toy nATpoc aytoy (Philad. 7).
it. XXV. p. 785- Tou ayiou Upo/uapTupos 'Iywriov ®co<popov Ik tt/s
irpos Erp«rious auTov lirKrroAirJs.
OyAen AanGanei ymac, Ian eic XpicTON 'Ihcoyn Ixhte thn
niCTIN KAl THN ATAnHN, HTIC IcTIN ApXH ZCOHC KA'l TeAOC" ApX1^
MEN H niCTIC, TEAOC Ae H ATAnH' TA A£ Aya EN ENOTHTI pNOMENA
Qeoc Icti" ta Ae aAAa uanta eic kaAokataGi'an akoAoyGa eicin.
oyAfi'ic niCTIN InArreAAdMENOc exein amaptanei" oyAe'ic ata-
nHN KEKTHMENOC MICE?. CJJANEpON TO AENApON And TOy KAp-
noy aytoy" oyTcoc 01 InArreAAoMENOi XpicToy eTnai, Ai' con
npiccoyciN 6o>Ghcontai. oy r"Ap nyn InArreAi'AC to IproN,
aAAa Aynamei ni'cTEcoc Ian tic EypEGH e]c teAoc (Ephes. 14).
Tou aurou.
'H m'cTIC HMCON ANArCOfEyC HMCON, H AE ATAnH OAOC H ANCO
r^lpoycA npdc Geon (Ephes. 9).
*Ek rrys irpos Mayi/ijo"ious tou auTou lirioroA^s.
MaGCOMEN KATA XPICTI AN ICMON ZHN' ScTIC TAp AAACp ONO
MATI kaAeTtai nAeToN toytoy, oyk Icti toy Geoy (Magn. 10).
u. XV11. p. 788. Tou ayiou 'Iyiwibu eK rrj'S irpos IIoAuKapirov liri-
1 oroAiJs.
'.' Zthke cbc akmcon TynTOMENOc" Mer^Aoy aGAhtoy Icti
AlpECGAI KAI NIKAN" MAAlCTA Ae ENEKEN Geoy nANTA HMAC
fnOMENEIN AeT, Tna ka'i AYTOC HMAC ynOMEINH (Polyc. 3).
"Ek ttJs auViJs.
MakpoGymeTte met aAAhAcon In npAyTHTi, cbc 6 Gedc meg'
hmcon Aia nANTdc JPolyc. 6).
X- xxi.- p. 789. Tou ayiov 'lyvariov Ik tjJs irpos 'Ecperrious Iitio-toA^s.
TTplnoN Ict) mh mo'non akoyein xpicTiANoyc, aAAa ka'i eT-
mai (Magn. 4).
<£. xix (given by Cotelier Pair. Apost. 11. p. 18, ed. Leclerc, 1724).
TTantec, omohGeian Geoy AaBontec aAAhAoyc iNTplnecGE,
Al MHAEIC KATA CApKA BAEnETCO TON nAHCION AAA' In XpiCTCO
AAriAbyc Aia nANTdc ATAnATE (Magn. 6).
IGN. I. 14

2IO EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. 21).
The Parallela Sacra, which bear his name, appear in forms more or less different
in different mss. Two very distinct forms are published by Lequien, the one from
a Vatican, the other from a Rochefoucauld MS. 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. This Rochefoucauld collection seems to have been made after the
capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes (a.d. 614) but during the reign of Heraclius (+A.D.
641) : see Lequien Joann. Damasc. Op. II. p. 274 sq. (comp. I. p. xi), Langen I.c.
p. 204 sq. An investigation of the work of Leontius and John (Sacr. Per. Zibr.), from
which Mai (Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii) has published extracts, might perhaps throw
some light on these collections ascribed to John of Damascus.
The above extracts are taken from Lequien, with the exception of the last, which
is given by Cotelier from Claromontanus, a MS which seems closely to resemble the
Rupefucaldinus. One or two extracts given by Lequien have been overlooked by
previous editors of Ignatius.
In the Vatican extracts use is made of the Long Recension (e.g. Ps-Trall. 4), as
well as of the Middle Form (the genuine Ignatius). In the Rochefoucauld 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
iv ry vvv §101, see 11. p. 61 ; Polyc. 6 Trpetrfsvreplo/) ; but these are questions of reading,
not of recension. The collector of these Rochefoucauld extracts therefore would
appear to have used a MS, in which the spurious epistles are attached to the seven
genuine letters of Ignatius in their uninterpolated form. The extracts, t. x, p. 642,
do not belong to any Ignatian epistle, and the ascription therefore is an error.
They are however so quoted again by Antonius Melissa.

5L
Theodore of Studium [a.d. 759 — 826].
(1) Catechesis 3.
'0 Imoc I'pcoc IcTAypcoTAi XpicrTos (Rom. i).
Quoted by Cotelier on Rom. 6, and by Grabe in Spicil. II. p. 229 : by the latter
from the Oxford Ms, Barocc. 130.
(2) Catechesis 127.
%vvenerai Be Kal 6 Oeocpopos 'lyvanos, rdBe Xeyav TFpo-
(pyAACCCO YMAC AHO TCON 9HpiC0N TCON AN6pCOnOMC>pc|>C0N °'/,£"
tikwv' oy'c oy monon oy AeT ymac nApAAexccGAi, aAA' ei AYN*"
ton, mhAe cynantan (Smyrn. 4).

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 211
Quoted in the Greek by Cotelier Pair. Apost. II. 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 Theophilum (p. 1485, ed. Migne).
Aeyei roivvv Kal b deocpopos 'lyvanos' Toyc micoyntac
OyN TON GfiON MICeTn XPh'. KAI In'l ToTc lx9pO?C AYTOY EKTETH-
KENAI, OY MHN Al AlCOKEIN HMAC AYTOYC H TynTEIN, KAGAnEp
TA eGnh ta mh eIacJta ton Oeon (Ps-Philad. 3).
(4) Iambi lxx (p. 1797, ed. Migne). Eis toV ayiov TyvaViov rov
®eo<jj6pov.
"E^cov epwra Xpicrrov iv crrj KapBia,
dnocrroXwv crvcrKrjvos wcpdr/s, rpicrpaKap'
aOXois Be deppols iK<pXoyi^,wv rfjv nXdvrjv
inicrroXals crov TlavXos aXXos tis ireXeis.
(5) Menaea Decemb. 20, pp. 138, 146.
*X1 rrjs crreppas Kal o\Bapavrivov crov xjjvxrjs, dtjiopaKapicrre
'lyvdrie. crv yap npbs tov ovtws crov ipacrrrjv dvevBorov
ex<uv ttjv aipecriv eXeyes' OyK Ictin In Imo'i nyp cpiAdyAoN,
yAcop Ae maAAon zcon ka'i AaAoyn In Imoi', InAoGen moi Aeton,
Afiypo npoc ton nATepA (Rom. 7).
A%rrjXrj epxjwxos Kal epnvovs e'lKwv, rj irrjcrios crov inecrrtj
eoprrj, Oeodjope 'lyvdne, ras pvcrraywyias crov Kal ras
apioreias crov Krjpvrrovcra, rrjv vnep rrjs nicrrews pexpis
ai/xaros avriKaTacrracriv, rrjv paKapiav eKeivr/v Kal doiSipov
cfMovrjv rrjv on cTtoc eim'i Geoy Xeyovcrav, ka'i Ai' oAontcon
BHpi'coN aAh'9omai (Rom. 4). Sto mimhthc toy nA9oyc tou Xpi
crrov (Rom. 6) crv yeyovws npecrfieve crwdrjvai ras $vxds
rjpwv. These are headed tov 2tov5Ltov. I presume that Theodoras Studites is meant.
(6) Anal. Sacr. Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 571 sq., ed. Pitra(i876).
Two anonymous hymns to Ignatius, which the editor (p. 445) assigns to Theodore.
In the first are the follbwing expressions;
t Xpicrrov Be tvx<*>v, tov crov epwros, xc"/3eiS",°'e ryy/ca-
VicraTo Kupios naiBiov ovra...peyas dvereiXas rjXios rals
id. — 2

212 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
eKKXtjcriais, wcrnep d/criVas [ ] enicrroXds crov eKnepirmv
navraxov. 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.
52.
Joseph the Hymnographer [c. a.d. 820?].
Hymn. 5 (de S. Ignatio) Anal. Sacr. Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 388.
The following are the passages in this hymn which recal the language of Ignatius
himself :
l^paiavbs yap ravra cos rjcrdero, 6 Qrjp 0 dvrjpepos, #17/31015
flpwpa BoXw decrnitfci ere earecrdai, crnovBrj rrjv 'Fcopijv
cpddcravra, Kal XeondpBois niKpols crvvBrjcras ck rrjs e$as
npos Bvcrpas rpex^iv nporpenerai (Rom. 2, 4, 5).
Itvpnadels iv epol, cpiXoi, pr/B' oXcos yivecrde, npo rov
'Pwprjv IBelv, paKap, 'Vwpaiois eypacp"es. ®rjpwv pe yevecrdai
idcrare /3pwpa. ri poi crvpcpepei KaXws enicrrapai, cra/wcos
pov prj cpeicracrdai' crlros elpi yap ®eov, Kal fiovXopai oXws
aXecr#els XeoVrcov erropaenv yevecrdai dpros rjSvs tw Xoyco
rw crravpwdevTi Bi ipe Kal Xoyx^-vOevri rrjv nXevpdv' rovrov
cpepw ev crrepvois, rovrov cpXeyopai tco n60w (see esp. Rom. 4, $)•
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. Bibl. Graec. x. p. 79, ed. Harles. S3-
Michael Syncellus [c. a.d. 820].
Encom. in Dionys. Areopag., Dionys. Op. 11. p. 233 (ed. Corder.).
Tpdcpei Be /cat d delos 'iyvaVtos* '0 emoc Ipcoc Ictaypcotai.
rovro yap to pr/rbv 6 Oeocpopos 'lyvdnos, peXXwv iv 'Paittj
paprvpiKws dOXrjcreiv /cat rots Xeovcrt fiopd /caret rijv tov
rvpdvvov Tpa'iavov npocrra^w napa/3Xr)0rjo-ecrdai, irepi to
rrjs avrov rvpavveias kvvarov eros Kara rwv evcrefieoraTW

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 213
XP^cmavwv Biwypbv iyeipavros, 'Pwpaiois inicrreXXwv ye-
ypacpev. Michael Syncellus also was a contemporary of Theodoras Studites.
54-
Nicephorus of Constantinople [f a.d. 828].
(i) Chronographia Brevis p. 1001 sq. (Patrol. Graec. c, ed. Migne).
p. 1012. Ipdiavbs err) iff , prjvas S"'.
'Eni tovtov 'lyvdrios 0 ®eocpopos iv 'Pwprj ipaprvptjcre,
Orjpiois fiopd napaBodeis-
p. 1053. Kat dcroi iv 'Avrto^eia ineo-Konevcrav dnb
Xpicrrov /cat twv dnocrroXwv.
a'. Uerpos b dnocrroXos errj ta'.
/8'. EvoStos err; kB ' .
y. 'lyvanos 0 ®eocp"6pos b inl
Tpa'iavov paprvprjcras errj B'.
8'. "Kpwv errj k ' .
p. 1060. Kat dcra rrjs veins anoKpvcpa.
a'. IleptoSos Uerpov crrixoi fityv .
/S7. IlepioBos 'lwdvvov crrixoi fix-
y. TlepioBos ®wpd crrixpi /"/»'.
B'. EvayyeXiov Kara ®wpdv crrixoi .or-
e'. AiBax^j dnocrrcXwv crrixoi cr .
r'. KXrjpevros a', /3' crrixoi fix-
£'. 'lyvariov, LToXuKa/>7rov, Uoipevos Kal 'Eppa.
The numbers of verses differ in the different authorities for the text ; but we are
not concerned here with these differences.
(ii) Antirrhetica(Spicil. Solesm. T. p. 356, ed. Pitra).
ToC ayiou iepopdprvpos 'lyvariov, e/c rrjs npos <3>tXifl"-
rrrjcriovs' E*C 6 ENANGpCOHHCAC, oyTe 6 nATHp  l'd)Ar£ ka'i I'm-
en (Philipp. 3).

214 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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.
55-
Georgius Hamartolus [c. a.d. 850].
Chronicon iii. 135 (Patrol. Graec. ex. p. 525, ed. Migne).
'Eni aurou [rov Tpa'iavovJ A%vpewv 6 rov KXeona 0 eV
'lepocroXvpois inicrKonos Kal 'lyvanos b ®eocp6pos ipaprv-
prjerav. Kal BacrtXetSrys /cat MevavBpos Kal KrjpivOos Kal
Nt/coXaos ets tcov £' BiaKovwv, ot alpecridpx^i, ixOpol rr/s
dXrjOeias eyvwpitpvro.
The mention of these heretics suggests that this writer derived his information
directly or indirectly from the Long Recension of the Ignatian epistles ; Ps- Trail. 1 1.
56.
Ado of Vienne [t a.d. 874].
Libell. de Festiv. SS. Apost. (Patrol. Lat. exxm. p. 181 sq., ed. Migne).
(i) p. 189.
xiv Kal. Martii. Natalis sancti Onesimi, de quo beatus apo
stolus Philemoni familiares litteras mittit  quem beatus idem
apostolus episcopum ordinans praedicationisque verbum ei comrnittens,
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 multitudinem vestram in
nomine Domini in Onesimo, dilecto praeceptore nostro, vestro autem episcopo,
obsecro eum secundum Iesum Christum diligere vos, et vos omnes in Con
cordia eius in ipso esse. Benedictus enim Dominus, qui vobis talibus talent
episcopum donavit habere in Christo. Hie, Romam perductus atque lbi
pro fide Christi lapidatus, sepultus est Christi martyr primum ibi j inde
ad loca, ubi fuerat ordinatus episcopus, corpus eius est delatum.
(ii) 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 gwi
vobis commendaverunt. Mementote digne beatissimi Euodii, pastoris vestn,
qui primus vobis ab apostolis antistes ordinatus est. Non confundawM

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 215
patrem, sed efficiamur 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. 221.
57-
Antonius Melissa [c. a.d. 900 ?].
Loci Communes (Patrol. Graec. cxxxvi. p. 765 sq, ed. Migne).
(1) i. 14, p. 809.
Ef TIC A^NATAI EN ATNEi'a MENEIN, fiic TIMHN THC CApKOC TOY
Kypi'oy, In akayxhci'a menetco" kai ean rNU>c9H nAeoN toy Itti-
CKonoy, !<)>9ApTAi. npenEi Al toTc r-AMoyci ka'i taTc tamoymenaic
meta tncomhc Toy InicKcinoyTHN en coc in noicfcGAi, Fnao tamoc
H KATA Q£ON KAI MH KATA AICXPAN IniGYMIAN (PolyC. 5).
TTap9eni'ac zyton mhAen'i emTi'eer IniccpAAEc rAp to kthma
ka'i AyCCbyAAKTON, otan kat anatkhn tInhtai.
ToTc NECOTEpOIC Ini'TpEnE TAMeTn, np'lN AlACpGApCOCIN EIC
ETAl'pAC. (2) i. 26, p. 857.
OyAEN IcTIN AMEINON EipefNHC EN H nAC 6 ndASMOC KATA-
A^etai (Ephes. 13).
(3) ii. 3, p. 1016.
iEnoyAACATE mh antitaccecGai tco -EnicKonco, !'na hte Qeco
fnOTACCOMENOI" KAI OCON BAlnETE CITCONTA TON IniCKOUON,
nAEON AYTON CboBfiTcGE" UANTA TAp ON nEMUEl 0 oiKOAECUOTHC
fiic lAl'AN oiKONOMl'AN, OYTCOC AE? HMAC AYTON AEXEC9AI, COC AYTON
ton neMnoNTA. ton oyn Ini'cKonoN cbc ayto'n ton KypiON AeT
npocBAlnEiN (Ephes. 5, 6).
(4) ii. 4, P- 1020.
TTantac Bactaze, coc ce d Kypioc" uantcon anexoy In
ATAnH" AITOy C^NECIN nAEIONA HC I'xEIC UANTCON TAC NOCOyC
Bactaze" onoy rAp uAeicon KCinoc, noAy to KlpAoc (Polyc. 1).
(5) ii. 19, p. 1060.
'0 ZAMOYHA UAlAApiON con d BAencoN IkAh9h, ka'i tco x°PV
TCON npOCbHTCON lrKATEAEX9H. AaNIhA NEOC CON EKpiNEN OMOfE-

2l6 EPISTLES 6F S. IGNATIUS.
Pontac tinac, Aei'Sac IScoAeic AyToyc ka'i oy npecByTEpoyc
eTnai. 'lepeMi'Ac Aia to neon nApAiToyMENOc thn erXe,Pl2°-
MlNHN AYTO) nApA GEOY npOC[)HTEl'AN AKOYEI" Mh AlfE NECOTEpdc
eImi- Aioti npdc uantac oye Ian llAnocTEAco ce nopEycH.
SoAomcon Ae d cocbdc Ayokai'Aeka tytxancon Itcon cynhketo
META THC ATNCOCIAC TCON TYNAIKCON eTTI ToTc CChfiTEpOIC TEKN0IC
ZHTHMA. AAYlA 0 npOCJJHTHC OMOy KAI BAClAfiyC MEipAKION
XPi'etai yno ZamoyhA eic BaciAea (Mar. Ign. 2, 3).
(6) ii. 23, p. 1066.
01 AoyAoi mh Ipatcocan And toy koino? lAEyGEpoycGAi- aAA
e!c AoZAN QfiOy nAEON AoyAEYETOOCAN, TnA KpEITTONOC IAeyGe-
piAc And Geoy tyxcocin (Polyc. 4).
(7) «• 43> P- "12-
KaAoyc ma6ht<£c Ian coiAhc, X^P,C co1 °tk ectt maAAon
toyc AnEiGecTlpoyc In npAy'THTi yndTACce. oy nAN TpAfiw*
th ayth iMnAACTpcp GcpAnEyETAi" toy'c nApoIycMoyc lMBpox*ic
nAYE (Polyc. 2).
(8) iL 67, p. 1 162.
OyAEN IcTIN AMEINON EipHNHC, EN H UAC 6 ndAEMOC KAT&-
Ayetai (Ephes. 13).
(9) ii. 84, p. 1204.
Xphizco npAYTHTOc, *In h kataAyetai d a*pxcon toy aiconoc
ToyToy AiaBoAoc (Ps-Trall. 4).
(10) ii. 89, p. 1216.
Zthke coc akmcon TynTOMENOc" metaAoy aGAhtoy Icti
AlpECGAI KA'l NIKAN" MAAlCTA Ae ENEKEN GfiOY n^NTA HMAC
ynOMENEIN AeT, Tna ka'i AYTOC HMAC ynOMEl'NH (Polyc. 3).
MAKpoGyME?T£ MET AAAhACON In npAyTHTI, COC 0 0EOC M66'
hmcon Aia nANTdc (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 (t 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.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 217
It is evident from the quotations, UapBevlat flryoc k.t.X. and Tois veurtpois k.t.X.
(i. 14), that this collection is not independent of the extracts in the Parallela Vaticana
of John of Damascus. This is not the only instance in which the close connexion
between these two works appears ; see Philippians p. 252. The two passages here
are not directly ascribed to Ignatius, but follow on the one correctly so ascribed,
without any fresh ascription.
58-
Severus of Ashmunin [c a.d. 975].
De Conciliis etc. iv.

<ulLy ^J 2J_y^ <J»)u **> «-iJWl <L£liaJl iSfjiJai CJ^jjJs^
wU*«ft!| Jj^uJ L«^ ^^to^ ^/ ^->} +»)) JlS "lij-cyJ J&! ^J\
J^J >>^ 1^ cS/Ua ^ Jyjj |JW1 j!U illl ^! uib yj jjj
1 B om. ^.Lall . 'Bom. Jj^l . 3 A L^ .
* B has only j^j . 6 B M . !Bom. laj&sdb .
'B<jK "Badds^kc. 9A<t).
The fourth chapter of the book. The teachings of the ancient
Fathers regarding the Headship before the breaking up of the faith,
and a little 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 was born of the Virgin Mary,

218 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
and was baptized by John, and was crucified for our sake in the time of
Pontius Pilate (Smyrn. i). And he has said in his Epistle to Antioch:
Whosoever acknowledges 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 what 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 Arabe Suppl. 79, fol. 45 sq., has substantially the same text, but with the
addition of these words after " Ignatius, patriarch of Antioch" :
Jlij H-aJ\j ^Xc i(Jo !>-_«*!! <J*t"" *-?^ )^ U^X^^1^ •&&)
\ijt> Jiu, ,jj£»J [read tj-j£] jt& u£, cj <l\j\ y* *iw*!UI
.111 ^M\ UU\ <*<fa >j U> u^N tsdJ J J!j JdJI
And this Ignatius it was on whose head the Lord placed His hand, •
and said to His disciples : Whosoever wishes 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 Dr Rieu from a British Museum MS of his history, Add. 26101. (1) 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 undei
Ephrem 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) >s 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,
Orient. 11. pp. 70 sq., 143, III. p. 543, Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. p. 623, Lequien Oriins
Christ. 11. p. 596, Cave Hist. Lit. II. 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 Syriaques de la Bibl. Nation, p. 190 ; comp. Assem. ffl*
Orient. III. p. 543). It is preserved in four Paris mss, three Arabic {Ancien Funds 90,
Supplement 55, 79) and one Carshunic (Ancien Ponds 154; see Zotenberg L c).
The extract here given belongs to the beginning of the fourth book, and is taken from

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 219
the mss, Ancien Ponds 90 fol. 19 sq., and Suppl. 55 fol. 94, designated A, B,
respectively in the collation.
Pearson ( Vind. Ign. p. 90, ed. Churton), after speakirig 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 Eutychen cap. quarto ; Dicit Ignatius etc' : after which
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 others. Among these is the above-mentioned work ' On the Councils,'
which contains the extract. This Isa ibn Zorha was a famous Jacobite writer (Ann.
He£- 331 — 398)> out 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.

59-
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 Caesar,
and then he went up to Ephesus and built a church there. Now there
went up with him three disciples ; 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.'
(ii) '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.'

220 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
For this Syrian writer see Assemani Bibl. Orient, in. p. 309. This book called
'the Bee' is preserved in a Vatican MS (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 576) and in
Brit. Mus. 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., 251 sq.).
The latter of the two passages is also quoted by Assemani (Bibl. Orient, in. 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.
60.
Gregory Barhebraeus [c. a.d. 1285].
Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (ed. Abbeloos et Lamy).
(i) 1. 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 I am the wheat of God who
am ready to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be pure breed
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 j and he was de
voured as he had before prophesied.'
'After Ignatius Nurono Erori in the time of Plinius Secundus. He
condemned many Christians to death and deposed them from their
rank, etc.' (comp. Euseb. H. E. iii. 33).
(ii) 11. 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;
(1) 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-Latffl';
Version see above, 1. 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. 141), whose great ann-

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 221
quity claimed for it a special mention. Notices will be found in n.
p. 416 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. 1. p. 2 1 1, 11. pp. 202,
207, 223, 420). For the rest, it may be said generally that the prayers,
invocations, etc., in the Mensea 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 (1) the notice in the Viri Illustres of Jerome (see above,
p. 147); (2) the version of Eusebius H. E. iii. 36 by Rufinus (see
above, p. 160); and sometimes also (3) the Bollandist Latin Acts of
Ignatius (see 11. p. 370). Thus the passage in Gildas (de Excid. Briiann.
iii. 7, p. 373, ed. Migne) is taken from Rufinus; the account in Freculph
of Lexovium (Chron. ii. 2. ri, Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. ix. i. p. 509) is
copied almost word for word from Jerome; while the narrative in Ado
(Libeil. de Festiv. Apost. p. 191, Migne) and in the Martyrology of the
so-called Bede (Op. v. p. n 12, Migne) is derived chiefly from the
Bollandist 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.

Eusebius

1.

2.

3-

Short Form

Middle Form

Long Form
SYRIAC
GREEK & LATIN
ARMENIAN
COPTIC
GREEK & LATIN
(i) From Smyrna;
1. Smyrnaeans
1. Smyrnaeans
1. Tifew
1. Mar. Ign.
i. Ephesians "j
1. Polycarp
2. Polycarp
2. Polycarp
2. Smyrnaeans
2. Ign. Mar.
2. Magnesians 1
2. Ephesians
3. Ephesians
3. Ephesians
* *
3. Trallians
3. Trallians j
4. Magnesians
4. Magnesians
4. Magnesians
4. Romans J
5. Philadelphians
5. Trallians
5. Tarsians
6. Trallians
6. Philadelphians
6. Philippians
(ii) From Troas ;
3. Romans
7. Mar. Ign.
7. Romans
7. Philadelphians
5. Philadelphians )
[Trallians]
8. Ign. Mar.
8. Antiochenes
8. Smyrnaeans
6. Smyrnseans >-
9. Tarsians
9. Mar. Ign.
9. Polycarp
J 1
7. Polycarp J
10. Antiochenes
10. Ign. Mar.
10. Antiochenes
11. Hero
11. Tarsians
11. Hero
Martyrdom )
12. _ffm>
12. Ephesians
with \
13. Philippians
13. Romans
12. Romans '
See 1. p. 138 sq., ii. p.
See 1. p. 70 sq., 11.
See 1. p. 73 sq., 11.
See 1. p. 84 sq.
See 1. p. 101 sq.,
See 1. p. 102 sq.,
1 sq. The order is chrono
logical.
p. 657 sq.
A fragment of Tral
lians is embedded in
Romans.
p. 589.
The extant Greek MS
is imperfect.
II. p. 859 sq.
II. p. 71 r sq.
The first, Mar. Ign.,
is wanting in the Latin.
SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED
EPISTLES.
HTHE 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 earnest 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 faith1.
It can hardly be doubted that the forger took the existing Ignatian
1 This seems to be the correct order (1), (2), the correspondence with the
of the letters, as it preserves a proper Virgin preceding the letters to S. John.
climax. It is found in Magdal. 76, Caiens. For the letters themselves see 11. p.
395- On the other hand in Lincoln. 101, 653 sq.
Laud. Misc. 141, the order is (3), (4),

224 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Epistles as his starting-point. Among these there is a letter to one
Mary of Cassobola, who is addressed as xPLa"r04i°P0s Ovyarijp Mapia,
' Christifera filia Maria.' A careless reader might assume that the
Virgin was meant thereby1, 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 language2. 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-
1 The instance given above (p. ng, 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 xpurrotp6p<f> SvyaTpl Mapta are rendered
of this 19th century, will show that a ' Christi filiae ac matri Mariae.1
misapprehension was far from improbable 2 Cotelier (on Philipp. 14) states that
in the nth. he read in a catalogue of MSS 1

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, %pux- martyris ad B. Mariam Virginem et ad
Torpbprp ewyovrpl Mapla, '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 by
Latin translation by J. Brunner, which it ; see Labb. Cone. xiv. 42.
is attached to Gesner's edition of these

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES., 225
pretation of his meaning. In one of his sermons this father writes as
follows1 :
' 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, salutefh a certain3 Mary in several epistles8 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 '.

1 In Psalm xc Serin, vii. § 3, 4 (ll.
p. 124, Venet. 1726) ' Glorificate itaque,
dilectissimi, et portate interim Christum
in corpore vestro, onus delectabile, suave
pondus, sarcinam salutarem.. ..Magnus ille
Ignatius, discipuli quem 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 sa,ncto
sanctorum in sanctam civitatem mereatur
induci. '
2 The word quandam 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 quidem is sub
stituted for quandam with the same view,
as in Laur. 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, Laur. xxiii. 20.
3 The expression 'pluribus Uteris ' must
be set down to an error on S. Bernard's
IG. I.

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 coijfusion
which combined the two letters to the
(wo 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. 119), 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.' 15

226 . EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Here it is clear from quandam 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 applied 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 foolish 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
genuine. 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 1. can still say of its genuineness, 'non est
p. 300), writing as late as a.d. 1633, improbabile.'

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 227
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, n), 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 Centuriators1 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
1 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.

.228 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
equip themselves with ghosts like these (talibus larvis...se 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 quidern
epistolas hasce Ignatii, sed adulteratas, sed interpolatas.' Even later
(a.d. 1641), 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 aut medium secundi saeculi, 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
date. 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 published a.d. 162.3 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 (ra i/'euoWypa^a km
rd 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 Andrewes1. 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. 39'>
428 (Parker Society's ed.) ; Hooker's 394 (Oxon. 1841).
Works III. pp. 4, 173 sq., 185, etc. (ed.

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 229
Ip 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 difficulties. 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 Answer to the Book entituled an Humble Remonstrance
(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 1. p. 225) and entitled The Original
of Bishops and Metropolitans (ib. vn. 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 time1. A storm of writings followed on both sides of the ques-
1 The leading facts relating to Ussher's remains, areas follows. (1) In his An-
labours on Ignatius, as collected from his swer to a Jesuit, published in 1625, he

230

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

tion. Among the champions of episcopacy in this melee 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. S2> 72> 89, i°2> io3> etc.) as authoritative,

quotes the Long Recension without any
expression of misgiving (Life and Works
ill. 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. 81). 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 Forster (see above p. 81) 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, 1631,
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. 81 note.

(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-
acutianus (see above p. 82); 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
literary work, notably his Britannicarum
Ecclesiarum Antiquitates which appeared
Aug. 10, 1639. He 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 (xn. p. 584 sq.).

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 23 1
though in one passage (vii. p. 155 sq.) he confines himself to the seven
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 Ussher1. Those places, which he himself quotes, ' must ' he says
1 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).
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
1 The one exception is Smyrn. 8, Here again he showed his critical sa-
1 wherein is written that they should fol- gacity. The mention of the bishop sacri-
low their bishop as Christ did His Father, firing, and the assertion of the superiority
and the presbytery as the Apostles ' (p. of the bishop to the king, which justly
80). This had been quoted by Ussher. offend him in the context, disappear in
Milton remarks that, ' not to speak of the the Vossian letters. The charge of in-
insulse and ill-laid comparison,' it 'lies on sulseness remains, but why should Ig-
the very brim of a noted corruption ' and natius not have been ' insulse ' ?
thus is discredited by its environments.

232. EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 anywhere, 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 Ign. Ep. pp. viii sq., cxxviii, App. Ign. p. 85 sq.). He was led into
this error chiefly by the authority of S. Jerome, who, as I have already
pointed out (p. 148), misunderstood the language of his predecessor
Eusebius and confounded the Epistle to the Smyrnseans with the Epistle
to Polycarp1. He failed to perceive that Jerome, having no direct
1 Pearson, in refuting Ussher's objec- tion of the Epistle to Polycarp. To this
tions ( Vind. Ign. p. 50 sq.), justly re- Pearson replies that Honorius is no inde-
marks, 'Neque enim Hieronymum hie pendent or trustworthy authority, as he
imprimis spectandum esse puto, neque derives all his information from Jerome
Eusebium ex Hieronymo interpretor, and very frequently perverts or misunder-
sed, uti par est, Hieronymum ex Eusebio stands him (p. 54). On the other hand
ex quo sua transtulit.' He shows con- he quotes Nicephorus (H. E. iii. 19)1
clusively that Eusebius speaks of seven who rightly interprets Eusebius, m!
epistles ; but he is less happy in his Xp.vpvaiois aXXiji' Siaxaparrei, Kal mrry
attempt to impose the same meaning on di IStq. t$ TrpotSpip touti;s UolvnipTV
Jerome. This he does by means of a eTipav trta-TeWe. The fact that the
parenthesis — a solution which Casaubon Latin version of this epistle in the Long
had suggested— 'Scripsit. ..ad Smyrnaeos Recension ends abruptly (§3 'propter ¦
(et proprie ad Polycarpum commendans nos ut hominem'; see above, p. n*)
illi Antiochensem ecclesiam) in qua et was also drawn into this controversy:
de evangelio etc' Ussher had laid some and Ussher and Pearson each endea-
stress on the fact that Honorius of Au- voured in accordance with his own theory
gustodunum (de Script. Eccl. 1 7, Migne's to find some reason in the intrinsic con-
Patrol. clxxii. p. 199) omits all men- tents of the epistle why the end should

SPURIOUS, AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 233
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. 1. a), 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
Florence, which promised to supply the deficiency (Polyc. 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 ' Sincera. 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 ever1. Yet
be omitted (Ussher p. cxxviii, Pearson were generally accepted. Thus Jeremy
P- 59). The simple solution seems to Taylor in his Doctrine and Practice of
be that the Greek MS which the trans- Repentance ( Works IX. p. 94), published
lator used was defective here, probably ten years after the appearance of Ussher's
by the loss of a leaf. The Latin Ver- edition, still quotes the Epistle to the Mag-
sion elsewhere (e.g. in the superscription nesians from the Long Recension. As he
of this Epistle to Polycarp) exhibits was not » professional critic however,
traces of indistinctness or mutilation in there is no reason to suppose that he did
the copy from which it was made. Thus so from deliberate preference. About the
the fact has no bearing on this con- same time Morinus (Comment, de Sacr.
1 troversy. Eccl. Ordin. Par. iii. p. 45 sq-, Paris 1655,
1 It took some little time however quoted by Cureton C. I. p. xiv) defends
before the results of Ussher's labours the Long Recension. In Suicer's . The-

234 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
notwithstanding the cogency of the evidence critics have boldly stepped
forward from time to time and 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
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? Secondly. 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?
1. 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 Additional
Epistles are five in number; the letter of Mary 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)
saurus (ed. 1, 1682; ed. 2, 1728) it is J Theolog. Studien u. Kritikm 183&
still quoted as if authentic. p. 340.

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 235
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 Middle.
(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. 1, 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, Ant. 2 — 5, 10,
Hero 1, 5).
Allied 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 way (Ephes. 6, 10, n, 12, 14, 15, Magn. 3, 12, Trail. 7, Philad. 1,
4, 9, Smyrn. 7). This feature again is faithfully reproduced in the
Additional Epistles (Mar. Ign. 2 — 4, Tars. 2, 3, Ant. 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, Hero 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

236 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 ireon-ros ilvai 8o£<d Kai cpavijT imaa).
(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 these literary obligations. This is
the case with the plagiarisms from the genuine Ignatius (e.g. the use of
the characteristic Ignatian ovai/nrjv ; Ign. Mar. 2, Tars. 8, 10, Ant. 12,
14, Hero 6, 8, Trail. 13, Philad. 4, besides Magn. 2, 12, Ephes. 2,
Polyc. 1, 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. 250), 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. 1, 6, Ant. 1, 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, Ephes. 7 ; see the note on the former passage);
they are 'foxes' or 'fox-like' (dkmirrj^, aWjro's, Philad. 3, Ant. 6); they
are ' serpents ' (Philad. 6, Ant. 6) ; they are ' wolves in sheep's skins
(Au'kos iv irpojidrov Sopa, Hero 2, Ephes. 5, comp. Philad. 2). Again
the same words are met with in the t'.vo sets of letters : such as

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 237
ayvuioros (Trail. 6, Smyrn. 6, Ant. 5) ; dkoytlv (Mar. Ign. 2, Smyrn.
6); dn-o'Xawo-is, aVoXauo-TtKos (Smyrn. 6, T^/X 2); a£i(«/Aa. (of 'office,'
/*«£ 8, Hero 1, Smyrn. 6) ; eXc^io-ros (applied to himself, i&w 6,
Ephes. 12, .#<?»?. 4); ei/o-oj/AdVcoo-is (Philad. 6, yto. 4); eVc^ctv (/£«.
Jfar. 4, Philad. 4); /aiptoKTo'i'os (Trail, ir, 7hr.r. 3; comp. xpto--
toktoVos Magn. 11, .Ksw 2, xpio-ro<poVos Philad. 6); Xao7rXaVos (Mar.
Ign. 4, Philad. 5, .E/to. 9) ; Trepi-rro's (' superfluous,' ' officious,' -Afar.
/g»- 5. ^>a//- 10, -4«r\ n); Trto-To'raTos (Ephes. 6, n, j%tz. ^far. inscr.);
iroAid (i/ar. Ign. 2, .Afff£-«. 3); peso's (Philad. 4, ^«£ n); xp<-<?to-
<£dpos (./^z. iJ/tfr. inscr., yl/"<3g7z. 3, Smyrn. 12, .gen? inscr., .£//*«. 6; comp.
Xpto-To'Xry7rTos, ^^A 1 2). So again the word Aen-oopyi/cos occurs in both
in the same connexion (Philad. 9 al Xen-ovpytK<u...Wd/ueis, Hero 7 rd.
XeiTovpyiKd TayfmTa) ; and generally there is great fondness for adjectives
in -i/cfis (e.g. dyyeXiKo's Trail. 7, yevoruco's 7>ff//. 6, ypacpiKos Ign. Mar.
3, 8i8ao-/caXtKo's Philad. 5, tjyep.oviKo's Philad. 5, 6Y;ko's Magn. 8, koo-^iko's
Ephes. 19, i?00z. 4, Xotp.ticos Trail. 8, tA^tiko's ^tz*1. 10, rpiXiKos Ign. Mar.
1). Again there is a recurrence of the same phrases, such as c/c irporrunrov
toS ©coC of the prophetic utterances (Trail. 8, ^tzz". 3) ; <£c<m££o-0<H wo
tou flrciytaros or T(3 Trvtvp.a.Ti (Philad. 4, ^4»/. 4) ; 0 xopos TW Trporprrrav
(Mar. Ign. 1, Philad. 9 ; comp. /§•«. J/ar. 1) ; oTrep/u.a. AauctS «ai
'APpadp, (Mar. Ign. 1, ifrwz. 7), Again there is a partiality for cer
tain other words, familiar in themselves, such as /m/cdpios, 7ravTo/cpd™p,
iradapxav, iroipaivav, (pOopevs, etc.
(ii) With these results obtained from the examination of the letters
themselves external evidence 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
The main facts will be seen from the ments, but it is not open to any reason-
table on p. 222. The details are given in able doubt; seeabove p. 89 sq., 11. p. 686.
the accounts of the respective authorities, The case with regard to the Coptic will be
P-73s1- The statement with regard to seen on p. 101. How many epistles it
the Synac is an inference from its rela- contained, we are unable to say, as only a
tion to the Armenian version, combined fragment remains.
with extant Syriac quotations and frag-

238

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

have been distinct from either1; 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 them2.
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
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. 138), whom he describes as still widely renowned (irapA,
TrXetbrois elo-eVi vvv Sta/Jo'r/Tos). 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 misgiving3.

1 This seems to have been the view of
Pearson (Vind. Ign. p. 58, ed. Churton);
but I do not remember that he has any
where explicitly stated his opinion.
2 Thus Cureton Corp. Ign. p. 338 sq.
' So far therefore as the evidence of all the
existing copies, Latin as well as Greek,
of both the recensions is to be considered,
it is certainly in favour of the rejected
epistles rather than of those which have
been retained', with the context; see also .
p. lxxviisq. These passages are highly
instructive in their honest perversity.
s 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. lxxi, 337).
His two arguments are: (a) The historian
throws doubt on their genuineness by
using ' the guarded expression ' Xoyos exe'.
But in thefrst place this expression (see

above, p. 138) 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 \6yos fyei 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. p,
viii. 17 appendix; see also the note to
kcit^x" Xoyos 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'; kqI 0 B>
\vKaprros Si tovtwv afauv piprrtrtu. I' T1
rpcpoiUvQ avTov irpbs *iXnnri)(rfoi/! ^jr«rro-
\y (iii. 36), foircp oSr ifUKa rod 'Iy^rr**

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES.

239

The testimony of Theodoret (see p. 161 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

h ats xanXiiapev irrio-ToXals Kal rov KXif-
[levtos iv t-q avo>[w\oytip.iv-Q irapa iraaiv,
¦qv iK trpoo-iinrov ttjs 'Fupaluv iKKXyo-las
tjj Koputf/up Sierviriio-aTO (c. 37), 7; p.iv
o3x tou K\ijp.evTos op.o\oyovp.ivri ypaip-rj
ir/»'SijXos " etpiyrai Si Kal to\ 'lyvariov xal
Uo\vKapirov (c. 38). By this juxtaposi
tion of separate passages Cureton would
make it appear as though the antithesis
in Eusebius were between the <j>tpop.£vri
on the one side, and the avap.o\oyi]ix£vq,
ip.o\oyovpivij, on the other. But (1)
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 tpepopiv-q 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 Irenaeus and which he himself uses
as bearing testimony to the Epistles of
Ignatius. (4) The word <f>4peo-0ai does
not suggest any such doubt. Eusebius
uses it of the First Epistle of S. John (iii.
25 rqv fapoptvrpi Iwkrrm irporipav),
which in this same passage he classes
among the Ap*>\Dyov'p.tva, and of which
he has said just before irapa re tojs vvv
Kal tois It' dpxalois ai>ap.<f>l\eKTos iipio\6-
yip-ai. (iii. 24) : he even applies it to this
very Epistle of Clement, iii. 16 toutov drj
oOV tou XXfavTos opo\oyovp.ivij pio.
<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^ toi tloXiiKapiros
iv rj? SijKwdelo-ig irpos $i\tTiri}0-iovs avrov
yparpy (pepopivg els Sevpo Kkxp-rp-al nm
p.aprvplais k.t.X , ' circulated to the present
time.' (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,
Hero 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
tion.

240 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
not quote beyond the limits of the Seven. The same is true of Timo
theus of Alexandria (p. 165 sq.), who wrote a few years later, and of
Severus of Antioch (p. 169 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 Irenaeus 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.' 196).
Moreover a comparison of the positions which the six Additional
letters occupy with reference to the Seven in the collections of the
Long and Middle Forms, as exhibited in the table on p. 222, reveals
plainly the history of their connexion with the two recensions respec
tively. Of the Seven Epistles four are dated from Smyrna and 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 — Tarsiaqs, Antio
chenes, Hero — are dated from Philippi ; and the remaining one—
Philippians — professes to have been written after he had already reached
Italy (see 11. p. 712). 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 Avgre 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 rest1. In

1 Cureton argues that 'no prejudice the circumstance of their being ;
can result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, after the others in the collection [he is
to the Antiochenes, and to Hero, from speaking of the Latin and Greek, for ne

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 241
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 however being omitted by an
accident of which an explanation will be offered presently (p. 242). 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
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
was not acquainted with the Armenian] ; are mixed up with those dated from Troas ;
for they are evidently arranged in chrono- (2) He has omitted all mention of the
logical order and rank after the rest, as letter of Mary and the answer of Ignatius.
having been written from Philippi' etc. Professing to have been written while
(P-338)- The answer is twofold; (i)The Ignatius is still at Antioch, they come
order is not chronological in the earlier after the seven letters dated from Smyrna
part, where the epistlesdated from Smyrna and Troas.
IG. I. 1 6

242 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Latin and Greek1 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 discerned2.
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 collection3. 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. 85), 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 irpos &i\nnn]criovi stands immediately before
7rpos $tXa8eX^>ets, 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-
1 Though the existing Greek MS (the 3 It may be regarded as quite certam
Medicean) of this collection is imper- that this epistle passed through the me-
fect at the end, so that the part which dium of a Syriac Version; e. g. §4/coXw
ought to contain the Epistle to Philip-' istranslated w ^[^^wheii
pians is wanting, yet the close resemblance
of this MS to the mss of the Latin Version differently vocalized, signifying either 'cor-
in all the main features enables us with mP&ya' or <a ro^' § 5 "" W*"'
fair confidence to say that they agreed in 'form' |_r^o>C03n.A 'likeness' for
omitting this epistle r^CC*A death]; al,Xei, **+
* the Epistle to the Philippians was .
assigned to a different author from the ' g°°d ' [i*ajL i<a\6v for \xiUL nlWl'
other forged epistles by Ussher (pp. lxxix, with several other instances scattered
cxxviii) ; and this view is apparently through Petennann's notes.
Cureton's, C. I. pp. 338, 341.

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 243
phians, which was already in his copy1. 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. 196) 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
collection. Thus the external evidence, taken as a whole, favours the identity
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 ; o' ©eos tw oXmv (§ 1 ; comp. Trail. 3, Philad. 9, Smyrn. 9,
Ant. 3, Hero 7, Ephes. 7) and d px>Vos aX^ives (§ 2 ; see below, p. 256)
applied to the Father-; Xdyos ®eos or d @cds Xdyos (§§2, 3; comp.
Mar. Ign. 1, Trail. 10, Magn. 6, Tars. 4, 6, Philad. 6, Smyrn. 1)
and /iovoyevifs (§ 2; comp. Magn. 6, Tars. 6, Philad. 4, 6, Smyrn. 1,
Hero inscr. 7, 9, Ephes. 7, 16, 20, Rom. inscr.) to the Son; 7rapaKXr/ros
(§ 2, 3, several times; comp. Philad. 4, 5, 9, Ephes. 20) to the Holy
Spirit; wavOpwiretv, ZvavdpJnrricris (§§ 2, 3, 5; comp. Mar. Ign. 1, Ant. 3,
4) to the Incarnation. There is the same jealous maintenance of the
vrrcpoxrj of the Father (§ 12 ; comp. Smyrn. 7), and the same anxiety to
vindicate the epithet dya/vrrros to Him while denying it to the Son (§ 7),
which are leading characteristics of the other epistles (Trail. 6, c,,Magn. 6,
7, 8, 1 1, Philad. 4, Ant. 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, So/070-ei or <pavTa<ria not dkrjOeta (§ 3, 4; comp.
Trail. 9, 10, Tars. 2, 3, Smyrn. 2, 3), and who therefore are 'ashamed
of the passion,' to irdOos erraio-xuWtfai (§ 4; comp. Trail. 6, Philad. 6,
1 This very obvious explanation is like- whose book had not appeared when the
wise offered by Zahn (I. v. A. p. 114) above was written.
l6 — 2

244 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Smyrn. 7, Ant. 4, 5, Hero 2); those who maintain that the Son is a
mere man, \j/i\6s aV0punros (§ 5, 6; comp. Trail. 6, Tars. 2, 5, 6, Philad. 6,
^#/. 2, /&;•<? 2, Ephes. 19); those who identify Christ with d em iramnr
©eo's (§ 7; comp. 7fe«. 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, n, Trail. 1, 5,
Smyrn. 13, Ant. 14, Hero 7, Ephes. 9, 15, 20, 21, Rom. 1, 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. 258). 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 offend in these respects are Christ-murderers,
like the Jews, xPi<rT0KT°V0i (§ I4> see als0 § 3 °^X VTT0V 7*"v T°v Kwpiw
o-TavpuxrdvTOiV, comp. Trail. 10; § 1 5 koivowos icrn roZv airoKTaranw tov
Kvpiov), a very favourite mode of expression in the other epistles
(fcoptoKTofOs Trail. 11, Tars. 3; xP'otoktovos Hero 2, Magn. 11; voioro-
<pdvos Philad. 6; comp. xpio-Top:axos 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 aWi/'uxos (§ 14) or ovalpyv (§ 15)
would be an obvious expedient, and no stress can be laid on these.
But the case is different with yaXaKTOTpo<£ia (§8, 9; comp. yakojampo-
(pelv Trail. 10), awpM d/noiojrat9e's (§ 9; comp. Trail. 10), crvvdrpiui (§ 12
applied to marriage, as in Philad. 4; comp. Ephes. 4), vapavhi^
(§11; comp. Mar. Ign. 2 irapcnrXr/f), owrr/p-a (§ 15 to ciart\pA\ t&t
¦trapOevuiv; comp. Trail. 7 ti 8e izpvrfivrkpiov aXX' rj o-voT-r/fia lepov), wnp
Kat ala-dyjTa (§11, and see § 5 ; comp. Philad. 5), d jrapaSo£os tomto's (§ 0,
of the incarnation ; comp. Hero 4), to ivepyrjcmv iv Mcoo-g «<« jtoo^tms
Kal aVoo-ToXots (§ 1 ; exactly the same expression which is used of the
Spirit in Philad. 5), riXeia djpovetv (§15; comp. Smyrn. n), mo-roraTos
(§ 15; see above, p. 237), 7rpuTd?rXao-Tos (§11 of Adam and Eve; com^

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 245
Hero 4). Other parallels again are the expressions applied to Satan,
d BpaKiov 0 dVoo-TaTrys, o too XpLcrTov yiopurdtk, °" r0^ ayiov 7rvevp;aTos
aXXoTp«ot5eis (§11; comp. Philad. 6 tov BpaKovra tov dVooraTryv, and ib.
tov ayiou 7rvevp.aTos kcvos Kai tov XpiaTov aXXdrpios) ; or the form of saluta
tion ao-jra£eo-r9ai tov Xadv Kvpiov diro /UKpov ews p:eydXov (§15; repeated
word for word Hero 8, Ant. 12); or the parting benediction eppoxrOc a-apid
T^rKO irveup-aTt (§15; comp. Tars. 10 eppojo-t9e crio/iaTi Kai ij/vxfj Kai Trvevfiovn
h>i). Again the unusual desiderative form em.8eiKTiaV (§ 10) has a parallel
in <pavrjTia.v (Afar. 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. 1 Tim. iv. 10 (inscr.; comp. Ephes. 9,
Magn. 1); 1 Cor. i. 10, Phil. ii. 2 (§ 1; 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); 1 Cor. viii. 6 (§ 1, 2; comp. Tars. 4); John
i. 14 (§3, 5; comp. Ephes. 7, 7>«//. 9, Smyrn. 2, ^4«^. 4); Prov. ix. 1
(§ 3; comp. Smyrn. 2); Is. vii. 14 (§ 3; comp. Ephes. 18, ^?z£ 3); Eph.
ii. 2 (§ 4; comp. Smyrn. 7, Philad. 6); 1 Cor. ii. 8 (§§ 5, 9; comp. TW/.
11); Eph. v. 28 (§ 13; comp. Philad. 4, Tars. 9, Ant. 9); Matt. iv. 23,
etc. (§ 5; comp. Magn. n); 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. Smyrn. 7).
2. Having thus shown 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 (see p. 196) and Stephanus Gobarus (p. 195), towards the
close of the sixth century. But a long interval might elapse before this
recension superseded the other, more especially as the frequent quota
tions from the earlier letters in Monophysite writers secured to them a
vitality and a prominence which barred the way to this 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

246 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
considerable lapse of time after the first appearance of the Greek text,
before the translation was made (p. 85 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
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,
(ciropKio-TaL), confessors (Ant. 12 ; comp. Philipp. 15). The fact thatthe
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 were not very new when he wrote. Now of these lower orders,
the subdeacons, readers, doorkeepers, 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 Constitutions, 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 s (see 11. p. 824 for the references,
1 The application of Prov. xxii. 29 and active bishop (Ephes. 6) perhaps sug-
6paTiKov avSpa Kal o£uc iv rots (pyois gests the same inference.
avTov jSacriXeiVii/ Set Trapeo-Tavai. to a wise * On the date of this Council

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 247
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'
(^dXrai) and the 'labourers' (K07riaYai). 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
our Ignatian writer in describing this office avoids the substantive
K07riaVas and employs instead the corresponding verb tous K07ri<3vTas,
betraying, as I suppose, the consciousness of treading on dangerous
ground and desiring to disguise an anachronism under the veil of a
less distinctive expression2 (see 11. p. 825, for the references and for
additional information on this subject)3.
Again the notices oi 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 Jejun. 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 Nica^a (Labb. Cone. 11.
36 ; comp. Athan. Ep. Encycl. ad Episc. 4, Op. 1. p. 91), though in the
middle of the third century, when Dionysius of Alexandria wrote (Labb.
Cone. 1. 857), the fast seems not to have extended beyond the Paschal
Westcott History of the Canon p. 428, 3 Perhaps the absence of any mention
e<i. 4. of the/ara&>/««2intheseIgnatianEpistles
1 In the 15th canon they are styled is also significant. They are first men-
al ko.vovi.koI jMXtoi : in the 24th canon all tioned in a law of the younger Theodosius
the orders below the diaconate are enu- (a.d. 416), Cod. Theod. Lib. xvi. Tit. ii.
merated thus ; vn-qphrai. [i. e. iiroStaKovoi] Leg. xlii. It would appear from the lan-
ti awi'/i'Mo-Tai ij ^akrai -ij iiropKio-ral tj guage there used, that the office, though
(fopupol yj to raypa twv cutkijtuv. already firmly established and powerful,
The sentence in the text (together was comparatively recent ; ' eorum qui
with the greater part of the present chap- parabolani nuncupantur,' ' eos qui para-
ter) was written before Zahn's work Igna- bolani vocantur.' If the office existed
tius von Antiochien appeared. Zahn ex- when our Ignatian author wrote, it must
presses himself in precisely the same way, have been so recent that the anachronism
I.v.A. p. 120, would have betrayed itself.

248 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Nicaea decided
against this practice and established uniformity throughout Christendom
(Athan. de Synod. Ar. et Set. 5, Op. 1. p. 574; Ep. ad Afr. Episc. 2, Op.
1. p. 713 ; Chrysost. cum Jud. Jejuni iii. 3, Op. 1. 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 warning against Jewish practices (Philipp. 14) has its closest
parallels in the decrees of councils and synods about the middle of the
fourth century.
(/?) The rough date which is thus suggested for this forgery
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.
1, Hero 9) becomes prominent in conciliar lists and elsewhere in the
fourth century (see below, 11. p. 721). 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 11. p.
722). 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. 1), like
Marinus, appears in conciliar lists at this epoch (see below, 11. p. 724).
One Eulogius became bishop of Edessa a.d. 379 (Lequien Oriens Christ.
11. 958). So likewise the name Vitalis2 (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 Apollinaris, was bishop of
1 Martyrol. Roman, vi Id. Aug. ' Ana- without any indication of the place.
zarbi in Cilicia S. Marini senis qui sub 2 The Vitalis (BitoXios) of Philipp. 14
Diocletiano etc' In the Martyrol. Hie- is called Vitus (B(tos) in Hero 8. 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. 1 1 34), where he stands next in the list
under Aug. 24, a Marinus is mentioned to a Eulogius and not far from a Mans.

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 249
the Apollinarian party, apparently also at Antioch, some half-century
later (Greg. Naz. Epist. 102, Op. 11. pp. 94, 96; Epiphan. Haer. lxxvii.
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
Philippopolis (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 (!EXa<£pa
/101 Kai Kovrpa Ta 8eo"/ia d Kvpios Tren-oir/Kev), which with one insignificant
exception (ireiroir/Kev for eVoir;o-ev) 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. n). It is scarcely
less clear again, that the distinction made in Philipp. 1 2 between Matt.
iv. 10 vjraye SaTava and Matt. xvi. 23 vVaye ottio-oj pov is derived from
Origen (see n. p. 784), 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 (Philad. 6)
is taken from Eus. H. E. iii. 27, as the close resemblances of language
show (see 11. p. 797). A polemical passage relating to the Logos
(Magn. 8) seems to be suggested by the Eccl. Theol. ii. 8, 9 (see 11. p.
755), while the preceding context (Magn. 6) is apparently borrowed
from the companion treatise, c. Marcell. ii. r, 4 (see 11. p. 754). The
comments on the fall of Satan (Philipp. n) present close resemblances
to Praep. Ev. vii. 16 (see 11. p. 783). The remark on the descent into
Hades (Trail. 9) is evidently taken from the Doctrine of Addai, as
quoted in Eus. H. E. i. 13 (see 11. p. 742); 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
nanative in Eus. H. E. Hi. 34, 36, 38, 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 Con
stitutions 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 (Comm. in Esai. 104), whom our Ignatian

250 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
writer also mentions in his context (see n. p. 725 sq). Again the
expression in Trail. 6 ou xP'o-Tiavoi a'XXa xpio-Teynropoi appears in Basil
Ep. 240 xpiore/Mropoi Kai ov xpicrriavoi (see n- P- 737); an(l this can
hardly be accidental, unless indeed it had become a proverbial expres
sion (see 11. p. 759). 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'
(11. p. 758), for this seems to have been a recognized designation. But
the resemblance in the opening of Ign. Mar. 1 to the opening of one of
Chrysostom's letters (Epist. 27) is very close (see 11. p. 729); 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; 11, pp. 725, 727,
736, 739* 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 750, 751, 752, 756, 758, 760, 761,
766, 771, 777, 784, 785, 786, 787, 789, 790, 791, 792, 794, 796,797,
800, 801, 802, 807, 808, 809, 823, 824 sq, 826, 828, 830, 831, 832,
846, 848. 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. lxiii sq.).
Pearson again (Vind. Ign. p. 155 sq.) started a theofy 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-

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 25 1
existing SiSao-KaXiai or SiSa^ai', 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. 213), where they are included among apocry
phal works. From the SiSao-KaXi'a 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-KaXi'a 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 Apostolic Constitutions, though apparently not without one notable
exception (Lagarde Rel. Jur. Eccl. Graec. p. vii)1. Meanwhile the
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 Apostolorum Syriace), and with
the help of the larger document he re-translated them into Greek
(Bunsen's Anal. Antenic. 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. Jur. Eccl. Graec. pp. iv, lvi), Zahn (I. v. A.
p. 145 sq.), and others, or whether on the other hand the Syriac is an
abridgement of the longer form extant in the Greek, which is the opinion
of Bickell (Geschichte des Kirchenrechts 1. 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 (01 paKapioi
&urd£avTo an-do-ToXoi) for you'. The reference is to Apost. Const, ii. 20
(see below, 11. p. 739). 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. Const, ii. 1 it is stated that Josias began his
1 Bunsen too so far acquiesces in Us- ' if not from one and the same hand' (Ig-
, sher's opinion as to maintain that the natius v. Antiochien etc. p. 206).
two works issued from the same school,

252 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
righteous reign when he was eight years old ; but in Magn. 3, which
partly copies the language of Apost. Const, ii. 1, 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 11. p. 727). 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
author has by an accidental error ascribed to Abeddadan (Obed-Edom)
the words and deeds assigned in the Biblical narrative to Sheba
(see 11. p. 751). 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 (n-pwTov hra'ap®
ko.1 TdYe e8i'Sa£ev), 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' (rjp£aTo trptoTov iroiav mi tote
8iSao-Keiv), whence we see that the passage in question is Acts i. 1 (see
11. p. 846). Again in Antioch. 9 wives are bidden to honour their
husbands and 'not to dare to call them byname'. 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 11. p. 823).
In several other passages also the Ignatian Epistles are elucidated by
the Constitutions. Thus in Ant. 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 (p.ikir-r\ vdfuov) is explained by
the fuller treatment of the same topic in Apost. Const, ii. 36, vi. 23 (see
11. p. 756). 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 of the Apost. Const, iii. n, 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 11. p. 824 sq.).

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 253
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. 250), the following refer to
these two books; pp. 736, 742, 743, 751, 752, 760, 761, 766, 777, 786,
800, 802, 826, 828, 830, 831, 832, 848. Though Zahn (I. 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 of the Constitutions (vii. 46) respecting
the succession of the early Roman bishops (see 11, p. 731), preferring
in this instance to follow Eusebius (see above, p. 249). 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.
1 Zahn's atternpts to account for the Magn. 1 : ; viii. 46 in Tars. 3 ; vii. 25 in
coincidences in the passages which he Philad. 9. The section, Hero 5, is made
notices will not, I think, command as- up of passages from these books of the
sent; and he altogether overlooks several Constitutions. Bickell (1. p. 58 sq.) in like
of the most cogent parallels ; e.g. viii. 12 manner overlooks the closer parallels.
in Trail. 10; vii. 37, 41, viii. 1, 12, in

254 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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.
(8) The doctrinal teaching of these Ignatian Epistles affords another
evidence of date not less decisive than any of the former. There may
be some difficulty in fixing the precise position of the writer 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
Monophysitisnt 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.
1), 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. 1; 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 Patr. Apost. 11. p. 506 sq, AmsteL
1724), of Grabe (Spicil. n. p. 225 sq.), and of Newman (Essays Critical
and Historical 1. p. 239 sq.); and it has been adopted still more
recently by Zahn (I. v. A. p. 132 sq.), who is disposed to identify the
author with Acacius of Csesarea, the scholar and literary heir of

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 255
Eusebius. Funk (Theol. Quartalschr. lxii. p. 355 sq.) defends him
against the charge of Arianism, but sets him down as an Apollinarian.
Ussher discovered some affinities with Arianism, others with Apolli-
narianism (p. lxxxv sq., cviii sq.). On the other hand Bunsen (Igna
tius v. Antiochien etc. p. 205) is doubtful whether either Arian or Apolli
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 11. p. 753). 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 11. p. 754 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. (1) He
betrays his heretical leanings in the alterations which he introduces
into the Christological passages of the genuine Ignatius. Two examples
(Ephes. 1, 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.
Smyrn. 1 Tr/o-ovv Xpiordv toV ®edv tov ovtojs k.t.A,, altered into tov ©eoV
Kai iraTepa tov Kvpiov i]p.&v Ir/rrov Xpio-Tov tov 81 avTov ovtois k.t.X., and
Ephes. mscr. tov iraTpos Kai 'I170-0V ~%.pio-rov rov Oeov ijp,wv, altered into
Weou iraTpos Kai Kvpiov r)p.o)v 'Irjcrov ZK.pio-TOv rov o-amjpos ijp.<ov (comp.
Rom. inscr., 3). The force of this argument however is considerably
Weakened by the fact, which will be noticed hereafter (p. 258), that
frequently elsewhere he deliberately assigns to Jesus Christ the name of
God, which in these passages he seems to withhold. (2) Pie is careful
to distinguish between the Father as ayewr/Tos and the Son as yevv??Tos
(see above, p. 243). This however proves nothing. If indeed Zahn
had been right in supposing that in the age when this Ignatian pre
tender wrote the terms yevvryTo's and yev^ro's, a'ye'vvryTos and aye'vr/Tos,
were used indiscriminately, there would have been much force in this

256 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
yewr/To's, though not yevTjTos ; and that, though (for reasons which I
have explained there) the orthodox fathers of the Nicene age avoided
the term yervr/To's, they could not deny its correctness (e. g. Greg. Nyss.
Op. III. p. 35, ed. Morel, tou Se iraTpos "8iov to ayewijTUJS eivai o'/ttiAoyet
rai). When therefore our interpolator altered the expression yevnp-os
Kai ayeVvr/ros 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 dyivvyTos, which, as applied to
the Son in His divine nature, involves a contradiction of terms. (3) He
denies that the Son is d eVi 7rdVro>v ©eos, 6 t<5v oXo>v ©eo's, confining
these terms to the Father (see above, p. 244). ' 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. Op. ll. pp. 336, 340, 342, 343, etc., ill. pp. 22, 24, 31, etc.).
(4) He quotes with emphasis the passages in the Bible which speak of
the unity of God (Ant. 2, 3, 4, Philipp. 2) ; and on these and other
occasions he speaks of the Father as the p-o'vos aXr^ivds ©eo's (Smyrn. 6,
Philad. 2, Magn. 1 1, Ephes. 7, Ant. 4, Philipp. 2 ; comp. Rom. 6).
But this language is not without parallels in the orthodox fathers;
the expression 6 p,o'vos aXr/0ivds ©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 Kv'pios and ©eo's. (5) He uses such
terms as apxio-rpdriryos (Smyrn. 8) and dpx^pevs (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 only high-
priest (of the Father) by nature' (<puVei), Magn. 4, Smyrn. 9. (6) He
never uses the term dp,oou'o-ios, 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 Sabellianism of Paul of Samosata. (7) He insists on
the preeminence or superiority (virepoxrj) of the Father (Philipp- n>
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 (o!8a tov ?va, exio-Ta/tai t6v povov), from

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 257
whom thou hast become an apostate. I do not set myself against God
(ovk eip.1 arrifleos), I confess the preeminence. I do not refuse to worship
Him whom I know, who is the cause of my generation (tov t^s ep^s yev-
njo-eus amov)...for / live by reason of the Fat/ier (Sia tov TraTepa)1.' But
in the first place, the v7repo^r/ of the Father is maintained by the most
orthodox writers (see Cotelier Pair. Apost. 11. p. 86), and indeed, when
rightiy understood, is a necessary element of the Cathohc 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, rov Te irvevpuzros tt)v ui/r/Adrr/Ta Kai tov
Kvpiov njv /JarriAei'av Kai «ri tram, to tov iravroKpaTopos ©eov dirapdOerov,
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. (1) If he
avoids the word dp.oovo-ios, he uses dp.0Tip.0s 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/ump-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. 1 (Op. 1. p. 79), where he calls the Son ttjv d\r]8tvijv
eucdva tov ?raTpds uroTipov Kal lcr6&o£ov, or Greg. Naz. Oral. 31 § 12
(Op. 1. p. 563), where this father speaks of to ev tqis Tpio-lv opwripiov rr/s
a#as Kal tt/s fledi-ip-os (see also other passages quoted by Funk, p. 372 sq.).
(2) He repeatedly speaks of the Son as begotten or existing wpd
alcoviuv, 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 it2. (3) He speaks of the Son as ' by nature unchangeable,' rrj
<jmo-a aYpeTrros. On the other hand Arius in his Thalia had designated
Him Tg ifiv'o-ei rpe7rrds (Athan. c- Arian. i. 5, 9, Op. 1. 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^iAds av6pa>iros (see above, p. 244), 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
This very passage has « parallel in 'Byu ydp, ifrrpri, fu Sta rbv iraripa.
Gregory Nyssen c. Eunom. i (Op. II. p. 2 It is even urged by Newman (Essays
417) ")" piv alrlav tou efceu ixeiScv lxa"' '• P- 24°) ^ a mark °f Arianism.
IG. I. 17

258 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
maintaining the unity of the Godhead, deny that Jesus Christ is God
(Ant. I tov Xpiordv dpveio-6ai irpo<pdo-ei tov evds ©eov, ib. 5 eva Kai /tdyov
KaTayyeAXei ©edv eir' aVaipccrei t^s tov Xpiorou 0eoTirros). (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,
Rom. inscr., 6, Ephes. 7), sometimes even inserting it proprio motu
where it does not so occur (Tars, r, 6, Smyrn. 5, Ephes. 15; and with
Xdyos or p;ovoyevr/s, Smyrn. 1, 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 like Sabellianism, and this
dread led him to avoid the Nicene term dp,oovo-ios; to emphasize the
antithesis of aye'w^Tos and yewryTos, 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 risking 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 Smyrn. 4 he instinctively
omits the words tov reXeiov dv9p<airov, 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' (TeAeios avflpowos), but
it is plain from the authorities (see 11. p. 777) 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 dvdpamwv
i//vx>?v e^ovTa). 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 11. pp. 777, 796 sq.) copyists or translators have tampered with
the text, altering it so as to remove this blemish of heterodoxy.
Is this Apollinarianism? Not strictly so. Apollinaris himself adopted
the tripartite division of man's nature, vous (or irveup-a), fuyrj, (ru/w;
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 vovs but the human yyvxr} also (Epiphan. Hut.
Ixxvii. 2, 24), apparently adopting a bipartite division. This indeed

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 259
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. Apoll. ii. 9, Op. 1. 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. 1. p. 753; Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, 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 ti jrapa-
vopov KaXeis tov rrj? 8d£r>s Kvpiov, tov Tfl <pvo-£i aTparrov ; ti irapa-
vop-ov Xeyets tov vop-oOir-qv tov ovk av#powreiav Tn>X'iv *X0VTa>)- Again
he calls attention to the fact that in Smyrn. 5 the Ignatian forger
adds ©edv to o-apKo<popov, and this fact he connects with the statement
of Gregory Nazianzen (Epist. 102, Op. 11. p. 96) that the favourite
Apollinarian dogma was to 8eTv 7rpoo-Kuveiv p,rj dvOpuiirov Oeocpopov dWd
®eoV crapKo<pdpov. Yet, notwithstanding these resemblances, the Apolli
narian leanings of the writer seem to me more than questionable.
The Apollinarians took the dp.oouo-ios 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 ' (jua <£wns)
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 Apollinarian1.
On the whole it seems impossible to decide with certainty the
position of this Ignatian writer. Notwithstanding the passages which
1 See Greg. Naz. Ep. 103 (Op. 11. p. ference of the term o-apKuvis to ivavSpii-
168) avrov r» povoyevij Qeov  Bviyrov ir-r\m.s, Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, 102 (Op. II.
eivat Karao-Kevafa [0 'AiroWivdpios] Kal tt} pp. 90, 94). Hence also the orthodox,
ISia ovrou BeoTip-i vados B4£ao-0ai, Athan. when denounced as av6ponro\a.Tpi)S, retorts
c. Apoll. ii. 5 (Op. 1. p. 752) Xifyere Beov on the Apollinarian that he is rrapKoKa-
yeyevvi)aBai Ik rapShov, comp. ii. ii. 14 Tpys, Greg. Naz. Ep. 101 (Op. II. p. 89);
(p- 758). Hence the Apollinarian's pre- comp. Athan. c. Apoll. i. 6 (1. p. 739).
17—2

260 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
savour of Apollinarianism, the general bearing of his language leans
to the Arian side. But if Arianism in any sense can be ascribed
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. Autheni. p. 32 sq., 1843), of Hilgenfeld
(Zeitschr. fiir Wiss. Theol. 1874, p. 211 sq.), of Newman (Essays
1. p. 238 sq.)1, and especially of Zahn (I. v. A. p. 173 sq., Ign.
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 ' (Ignat. Epist. Apol. p. 5). It has been adopted like
wise by the most recent Ignatian editor, Funk (Theolog. Quartalschr.
lxii. p. 355 sq., 1880), though, he has since in his subsequent work
(Pair. Apost. 11. 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 the 'one Lord' or 'one Mediator'
(Tars. 4, Philipp. 1, 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. Apoll. i. i?, 21, ii i°>
Op. 1. pp. 743, 749, 762 ; Greg. Naz. Epist. 101, 102, Op. p. 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. lxxvii. 4,
13. PP- 999> I0o7J 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
1 'Probably,' writes Card. Newman, 'about the year 354' (p. 243)-

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 261
be ' mere man ' (i/uXdv avOponrov), 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.
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* (iKtWtv iirl to riJSe eWvoSos). 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. 210 sq.).
The Vossian Letters still continued to be transcribed, as the existing
Medicean ms shows. In the Latin 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 Grossteste or his fellow-labourers ; and even
then its circulation was confined to England, perhaps to the Franciscan
order to which Grossteste 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. 119).
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 Armenian 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

262 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
side by side a passage from the Epistle to the Smyrnseans in the
Middle Form and another from the Epistle to the Antiochenes (see
above, p. 217). The case of the Egyptian speaking Christians again
would be the same. The extant Coptic Version (see above, p. 101)
is a mere fragment. Whether it was ever complete, we cannot say,
but the extant relique 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, n. p. 883 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 'AXt/0<us ovv...evay7js, though not
verbatim, the word e'vayr/s being amplified. It will be remembered that
the Epistle to the Philippians is the thirteenth in the Armenian (see the
table above, p. 222), 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 Rom. 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 (CI. p. 363) see in these passages an
evidence of extensive forgeries in the name of Ignatius beyond the
epistles commonly known.

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 263
It has been assumed throughout this chapter that the Epistle to thc 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
ia 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. 222).
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.
^S"- 2, 3i 4) j 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.
(0) There is the same insertion of scriptural texts : 2 Cor. iv. 18, John xv. 19, in
§ 35 Matt, xvi. 26 (Mark viii. 36, Luke ix. 25) in § 6; Gal. ii. 19, Ps. cxvi. 12, in § 8 J
John x. 11 in § 9. So also, where the language of Ignatius has been influenced
by some scriptural passage (e.g. § 7 aprov tov Qeov k.t.X. from John vi. 31 sq., or § 9
tfoi/ieVi from John x. 11), other words are inserted from the scriptural context, or the*

264 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
text itself is directly quoted, just as the Ignatian interpolator is in the habit of doing
elsewhere (e.g. Polyc. 1, Trail, n, 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
Svvai the interpolator substitutes SiaXvBijvai, being niore or less influenced by sound in
the choice of a word, as in Polyc. 2 84Xi)p.a is substituted for Bipa, in Polyc. 3 avapetvn
for viropelvr/, in Polyc. 5 irX-qv for irXiov, in Trail. 1 dvvirb'Kpi.Tov for dSidKpirov, in
Philad. 10 <rvyxaPV^:nvaL for rrvyxapijvai, in Ephes. 3 virop.vijaBijvai for iraXetipBijpat. '
Again a strong argument for the identity of workmanship may be drawn from the
interpolator's vocabulary. Thus in inscr. he has introduced the words irvevpxvroQopoi^l
and iravroKpan-ap. 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 § 1 an explanatory clause irpoajlurei. <piXlas o-apAijS
is added. With this compare Ant. 1 irpotpdo-ei tou ivbs Qeov. Similarly at the close
of § 4 after pijSiv iiri.6vp.elv there is a gloss Koo-piKov $ pAraiov appended. This inter
polation indeed with others is found in some texts of the Middle Form, 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 irapavriKa diroBvijo-Kec [ov tov irpbaKaipov davarov dXXcb tov alto- ¦
viov] will serve as an example ; and with this last passage again may be compared
likewise the elaborate glosses on fwi) and Bdvaros in Rom. 6. As regards the par
ticular words, the interpolator's fondness for adjectives in -ikos has been already
noticed (see above, p. 237), and he uses this very word KoapiKos elsewhere (Ephes. 19
aocpla KoapiKiq). Again in four several passages (inscr. tov 0eXt)javros rd, iravra, § 6
iKelvov BiXoi, § 8 BeXijcaTe iva Kal vpels BeXijBiJTe, ib. riBeXi/o-are) the peculiar Ignatian
uses of BiXetv (see 11. 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
dure elsewhere (Magn. 3 roO tfeXijcravros 57/ias). Again the treatment of § 4 (iKeivoi'
dirbaroXoi, iyii KardKpiTos) is eminently instructive. The expression aV6oroXoi seems
bald to him, and he adds T770-0B XpioroO. There is the same treatment in Trail. 3
diroarbXav [XpiaToO]. Moreover the word KaT&Kpnos is objectionable, perhaps unin
telligible, to him, and he ejects it, just as it is ejected in Trail. 3 ba uv Ka.T6.Kfuos
k.t.X. in a similar connexion, and again in Ephes. 12 eyi) KaTaxpiTOS. These are the,
only three occurrences of KaraKpiros in Ignatius. In its place however iXaxtmos 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. 1 2 iyOi p.iv 6 iXaxirrros) it is a substitute for this same word (card-
npiTos. 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 Sib, for els in § 6 am-
Bavelv els lijrrovv Xpurrbv (comp. Ephes. 3 Sib. t6 Svopia for iv t$ bvbpaft, Philad. 1 81
ov SiSepAxi for iv $ Sidepai.) ; the omission of tjj Kara, crapxa in § 9 tJ 68$ r§.Kard, ro/)*"
(comp. Ephes. 1 ipav Si iv crapKl iirio-Kbiroi, where in like manner iv o-apd is omitted);
the arbitrary alteration of ba into oirois in § 3 ba pi) pAvov Xiyapai on account of the
preceding ba (comp. Smyrn. 11, and see the notes II. pp. 204, 339)v Again such
erasures as § 8 rb dtf/evdis arbpa (comp. e.g. Ephes. 3 to dSiaKpiroy ripuv £?"> Trai
ll Ss iartv airbs), and such alterations as § 2 Tpixw for qioivi] (comp. e. g. Polyc '
ivavopBiha-ns for xoXaKeiys, Ephes. 5 o/toSoriXois for o-wdtSao-KaXtTais, Magn. 3 kstu#»-

SPURIOUS AND INTERPOLATED EPISTLES. 265
vilv for o-vyxpaaBai, Magn. 14 iroipavBijvai. for Spoo-iaBi)vai), arising from the 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 rrpon-
pare for imBvp-elre), are altogether after his manner (e.g. Trail. 3 ovtoi Siaxelo-Bat for
o0tus ^X61")- Again the breaking up and recombining of sentences, such as we have
in § 3 d xP^mavto-pAs orav puo-rjrat viro xoo-pov, $i\eirat irapa Qeov, is a device in which
the interpolator indulges elsewhere (e. g. Trail. 3, 4, obx o>s dirooroXos Siardo-aopai,
d\X' ipavrbv perpti, Ephes. 10 iav tis irXiov dSixqBels irXetova iiropxlvr/, outos puKapios
K.T.X.). (7) The doctrinal changes are not less decisive than the literary. More especially
in the Christological passages can we trace the identity of authorship. There is the same
anxiety to maintain the supremacy of the Father and to represent the agency of the
Son as dependent on the Father, which we find in the other epistles ; and this anxiety
expresses itself in the same way. In inscr. alone four changes are made, all tending
in this direction. In the sentence irarpbs vipiarov Kal 'Ii]aov Xpiarov tou povov vlov airov,
he prefixes 9eou to irarpbs and substitutes p.ovoyevovs for pavov (comp. Ign. Mar. inscr.,
Hero inscr., Smyrn. inscr., Ephes. 20), the word povoyevi)s being a specially favourite term
with the Ignatian interpolator (see above, p. 243). In 'IijcroS Xpiorov tov Qeov r)pwv he
adds Kal o-orijpos after 6eou to break its force, this term <rarr)p again being introduced
elsewhere in the interpolations (e.g. Ephes. inscr., Trail. 1). For 'Itjo-ou Xpiarov
vlov varpos he substitutes Qeov iravroKparopos Kal 'lijo-ov Xpio-rov rov vlov aOrov, where
(as I have already remarked) iravroKpdrtap is a favourite term of the interpolator.
And lastly, for iv 'lijo-ov Xpusri} t$ Gey ijpwv is substituted iv Qe<£ Kal irarpl Kal Kvploi
iipiov lijirou Xpumlp, while again in § 3 6 yap Qebs 7)p.o3v 'Iijo-ovs Xpurrbs k.t.X. is in like
manner erased (comp. Ephes. inscr.). Again in § 6 a characteristic expression of the
Ignatian interpolator is inserted, rbv vlbv tov aX-nBivov Qeov Kal irarpbs 'I-naovv rbv
Xpiorbv ; for, though the coincidence would have been more close if ivbs or pjbvov had
been inserted before AXriBivov QeoC (see Zahn /. v. A. p. 164), the meaning is the
same, and the omission of this further defining word does not destroy the resemblance.
, Again in § 8 Ti/<rous Se Xpiarbs becomes outos Si 0 Qebs Kal irar^jp xal 6 Ktiptos ij/jaSe
'I))irous d Xpiords (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, Philad. 8, Smyrn. 9, 10; comp. Tars. ^'lyo-ovs 6 Kiptos,
Smyrn. 8 d Xpicrrbs 'Iricrovs). Again in § 6 tou irdBovs rov Qeov pov, the word Xpiorov
is inserted (comp. Ephes. 1), though here indeed its absence from the Latin Version
throws very great doubt on its genuineness. Lastly ; in § 9 rraipivi to) QeQ XPV™,
pavos airr\\v 'Iijcrous Xpiarbs iirio-Koirijaei is changed into iroipivi xi"Fai- t<J> Kvplip r$
elrrovn ''Eryii dpi b iroipyrpi b KaXos, Kal povos abripi iirio-Koiri\<sei, apparently to avoid the
inferential identification of 0eds with 'IrjcroSs Xpio-rbs. 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, n, Smyrn. 13). In the former passage xpl<rTovopos, irarp&vvpos, irvevparo-
ipbpos, the word xvevparorpopos (like the allied word x/"<tto0o>os) 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

266 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Zahn, 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 /. 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 iKKXrio-la dl-ieiraivtp Kal d^iopviipoveirip Kal -d%iayain)Tip palpably suggested by
the opening of the Roman Epistle, where, and where alone, there is a similar accumu
lation of words compounded of d£ios, and in which also occurs the solitary instance of
the rare word d£ liiraivos in the genuine Ignatius ? Again, the opening of Ign. Mar,
rrj ipXeitpivy %apiri Qeov irarpbs vif/lorov Kal Kvplov'I. X....d^io84(ji...Maptq. irXeloraiv
8e<j> xahuv more closely resembles other parts of this same passage than anything else
in the genuine Ignatius. Again in Ign. Mar. 2 the expression bvalpijv twv SetvQv tuv
ipol -ifToipaapivuv 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 riSv ipol irolpav without
any variation ; while in the independent texts of the Roman Epistle it is rwv ipol
r/roipiao-piivoiv, as quoted in Ign. Mar. 1, likewise without any variation. Again Tars.
10 irpoaeixeffBe iWl7jffou iirirvxoi has its closest resemblance in Rom. 8 alriKraoOe irepl
ip.ov ba iiriTvxoi (the phrase ba 'lijaov Xpurrov iirir6x°> occurring twice in § 5 of this
same epistle), though parallels may likewise be found in Magn. 14, Smyrn. 11, and
elsewhere. (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, dprjv subscriptum est tamquam clausula totius collectionis (p.
288, 17).' This seems to be a mistake. The ap-r]v is not the concluding word but is
part of the letter itself, dpijv %) xdpis (see below, II. p. 850), and was quoted as such by
Anastasius of Sinai (see above, p. 196). It occurs moreover in exactly the same
position in the Epistle to Polycarp (see n. p. 816); and there is even some ground
for surmising that it may have stood originally in the genuine Ignatius in both these
places (11. p. 850). But Zahn continues ; ' Atque in codice Vaticano 859 [gj qui
reliquis epistulis omnibus subscripsit tou dyiov Upopudprvpos 'lyvariov iirurroX^ irpos
'Avrioxels, irpos "Hpwva, k.t.X., sive addito sive omisso epistulae numero, epistulae
ad Romanos prorsus singularis subjuncta est epigraphe, tou &y. iepopi. 'typ. iraTpiipx'"
Geou irbXeus dvrioxelas iiricrroXr] irpbs pupalovs tj3'.' This is true likewise of our other
chief mss (gj g4). But Zahn has omitted to observe that a corresponding elaborate
title (inserting however in this case not irarpidpxov QeoviroXeas but dpxi«ri<rei™
9eou?r6Xews) 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 S2 (comp. also g4). 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 g1 g2 g4) were derived was not written before the age of Justinian
(A. D. 538), when Antioch acquired the name of Theopolis.

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS.

'"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 DaiHe" (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. Bibl. Orient, in. 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 xm, 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),

268 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
who prosecuted some enquiries but without success (Life and 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. I. p. xxiv. sq.) from D. Roberti Huntingtoni 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 aftenvards
discovered. At a later date (a.d. 1716) Renaudot in his Liturgiarum
Orientalium 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 St above (p. 89 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, 11. p. 677 sq. A few years
later (a.d. 1725) J. S. Assemani (Bibl. Orient, in. i. p. 16) printed in the
original Syriac the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu already mentioned ; and in
his notes and elsewhere (ib. 1. 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. 1. praef. § xi). This ms has
been described above (p. 100). 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 184s. This version
was discovered by the learned editor in two mss which had been pro
cured in recent years for the British Museum (Add. 12175, and ^4^
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. Tbe Syriac version, as published by Cureton,
contained only the three epistles 1 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 should be mentioned however that Trallian Epistle (§§ 4, 5) of the Middle
at the close of the Epistle to the Romans Form.
is incorporated a fragment from the

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 269
additional portions of these three, were forgeries. He was at once
attacked by a writer in the English Review (no. viii, July 1845), since
known to be Dr Chr. Wordsworth, now 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 Ignafianae (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 Ignatianum (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 achten u. die drei unachten
Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien and Ignatius von Antiochien u. seine
Zeit. The former work contains the text of the epistles in the
several recensions and is dedicated to Lachrnann; the later discusses
the main question in seven letters addressed to Neander. On the same
side also were ranged A. Ritschl (Entstehung der altkaiholischen Kirche
ed. 1, 1850; ed. 2, 1857), Weiss (Reuter's Repertorium 1852, p. 169
sq.), R. A. Lipsius in two several tracts (JJeber die Aechtheit der
syrischen Recension der ignatianischen Briefe in the Zeitschrift f. die
historische Theologie 1856, 1. p. 3 sq.; Ueber das Verhdltniss des Textes
der drei syrischen Briefe des Ignatios zu den iibrigen Recensionen der
ignatianischen Literatw in Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgen-
landes 1859, 1. p. 1 sq.), Pr,essense" (Trois Premiers Siecles u. p. 392 sq.,
1858), Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Israel vn. p. 281 sq., 1859), Milman
(Hist, of Christianity 11. p. 102, ed. 2, 1863), Bohringer (Kirchengesch.
in Biographieen 1. p. 16 sq., ed. 2, 1864) and (though less definitely)
Bleek (£z'«/. indasNeue Test. 1862, p. 142), with others. The opposition

270 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
to Cureton's view combined critics of two directly antagonistic schools.
On the one hand its ranks included writers like Baur (Die ignatianischen
Briefe u. ihr neuester Kritiker, eine Streitschrift 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
within or near to the age of Ignatius himself. Thus it was a matter of
life and death to theologians of the Tubingen 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, Wurzburg
1849) and Uhlhorn (iZeitschrift f die historische Theologie 1851, pp. 3 sq.,
247 sq.) to range themselves in the same ranks. This view was
adopted also in their subsequent editions by two principal editors of
the Patres Apostolici, 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 Ignatianum, and has contributed
greatly to the solution of the Ignatian question by the republication
of the Armenian version, much has been said already (p. 84 sq.),
and I shall have to recur to the subject again1. The work of
Merx also (Meletemata Ignatiana 1861) has. been mentioned more
than once (pp. 98 sq., 183 sq., 192 sq.). On the same side also
1 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 CURETONIAN LETTERS. 271
were ranged not a few other writers of repute, more especially in
England. 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. Ursprung 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. 1 70; 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. 278),
between various forms or recensions of the epistles and various readings
1 In the Contemporary Review, Feb. curtness in the style, but the epistles
:8/5> 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
tes (.y.i?. I. p. 262 sq.); ' 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. xiv, ed. 6) repudiates my interpreta-
sion, not only is there no interruption of tion of his language.

the

sense and no obscurity or undue

272 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
some length (p. 238 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 affect 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 1
venture to believe) refuted in the following pages. In the earlier
stages of the controversy indeed, it seemed as if they were in a fait
way to obtain general acceptance. A large number of influential
names, especially in Germany, was enlisted 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 Antiochien (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 Ursprung des Christennamens p. 7, 1873; Zeitschr. fir
wissensch. Theol. xvn. p. 209 sq., 1874; Jenaer Literaturzeitung
13 Januar 1877, p. 22) has recanted his former opinion and finds
himself no longer able to maintain the priority of the Curetonian

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 273
letters1. He states that he had misgivings even while his second
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 Literaturzeitung 1874, no. 20,
p. 290, referred to by Zahn Ign. Ep. p. vi). So likewise Renan (Les
Evangiles 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 up8- 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
decisive. The examination falls, as usual, under the two heads of external
and internal evidence. 1. 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
1 The author of Supernatural Religion though equally explicit, were misunder-
(1. p. xxvi sq., ed. 6) takes me to task stood by my critic, who fell into the error,
because I inferred (Contemporary Review, to which I shall have occasion to refer
Feb. 1875, p. 34o) from the language of below (p. 278 sq.), of confounding various
Lipsius that ' having at one time main- recensions and various readings. Lipsius
tained the priority and genuineness of the in his later writings still maintains that the
Curetonian letters' he had afterwards Curetonian letters preserve older read-
" retracted his former opinion on both ings (as undeniably they do) than the
questions alike.' Nevertheless the infer- existing text of the Vossian, but he not
ence is unquestionably true. See for in- less distinctly abandons their priority as a
stance the statement of Lipsius in the recension.
Jenaer Literaturzeitung p. 22, ' Ueber * One very recent writer however
die Nichturspriinglichkeit der Cureton- (Chastel Histoire du Christianisme I.
schen Recension der drei syrischen Briefe pp. 113, 213 sq., Paris 1881) follows
langstkein Streit zwischen uns besteht.' Bunsen blindly, without showing any
HU previous statements in the Zeitschr. knowledge of the more recent criticism
fiir Wissensch. Theol. xvn. p. 209 sq., on the subject.
IG. I. 18

274 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
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
Irenveus (see above, p. 135) and two in Origen (see p. 136). The
passage cited by Irenaeus is the startling image in Rom. 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
force. 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. 129 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. 133) that Peregrinus 'sent about letters
to nearly all the famous cities ' might indeed be met by the expression
in Rom. 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

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 275
(e'xapoToVijo-e) certain of his companions ambassadors (irpeo-fievTds),
whom he called death-messengers (veKpayyiXovs) and infernal-couriers
(vepTtpoSpo/ious),' 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' (x«ipoToveii', Philad. 10,
Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 7) certain persons who should visit Syria as 'God-
couriers' (0eoSpo/*os Polyc. 7) or 'God-ambassadors' (deoirpea-^evrrjv
Smyrn. 11). The further coincidence in Lucian's description of the
Christians as ' despising death ' (Kara<ppovovai tov davarov) with an
expression in Smyrn. 3 (davarov KaTtcppovqeav) 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. 128) is discussed in the notes on
the passage (n. p. 932). Though the words ras e7rurroA.as tos tte/i-
<p6tCo-as -qplv Sir 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 Smyrnaeans, 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 ' (Kat oAXas 6'0-as dxop.ev irap'
•jp.iv). 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 Philippians) 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 Smyrnsean 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 (§ 1), seems to be taken from the similar
image in Ephes. 1 1. 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' is an echo of several
18—2

276 ' EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. Iii. 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' (§ n) resembles similar apologies in Ignatius (Magn. n, Trail. 8).,
Other coincidences also with passages which are not contained in the
Curetonian letters will be found above, p. 128.
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 oi Ephes. 19, cites it Kal eAadev k.t.a., 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 v/wr
Se o-ion/pia Kal fan} aiolnos). 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 friend of Origen, had gathered together at
Csesarea and left as an heir-loom to the Church there (H. E. vi. 33).
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
side. But, if Origen be withdrawn, the solitary quotation of Irenseus alone
remains. An induction from a single example is no induction at all.

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 277
But even this testimony may be invalidated. The reader who compares
the references given above (p. 135) will form his own opinion of the
value of the coincidences with the Ignatian letters in the language of
Irenaeus ; but they cannot count for nothing. To this point however I
shall return hereafter. It is sufficient at present to observe that with one
exception (Ephes. 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. 129 sq.),
will be differently estimated by different minds. But' the references of
Eusebius himself (see p. 138 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 can say confidently that it was taken from 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 phenomena 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 mss of the Latin Version are still later. If we had no other
data for deteniiining 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. How 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
nourished eight centuries before Jerome and Augustine. The oldest

'278 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
extant ms of Bede is two or three centuries older than the oldest extant
ms of JEschylus. Yet an interval of twelve centuries separates Bede
from iEschylus. 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 latter 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 ft are two
recensions of the same author ; ft being a literary recension, whether by
abridgment or expansion or otherwise, of a. The state of the text of
a and. ft respectively in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
centuries after ft was produced from a, and the two recensions began to
be transmitted separately, are represented by a, a2 a3 a4 a5 a„, ft 0, /?,
ftt ft5 ft6, respectively. Suppose that of a we have only ae extant, while
of ft we have ftx. It is quite plain that in the parts common to both
the only readings of ft which are known to us must show greater
antiquity than the only readings of a which are known to us, though (as
a recension) ft is the offspring of a and not conversely. This is a

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 279
rough representation of the relation of sur 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
latter by /?,. 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 Medicean), 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 :
I. CMYPN&IOIC
2. npdc noAyKApnoN irN<vnoc.
3. npoc id^ecfoyc IrN&Tioc.
4. M&rNHCieyciN IrNATIOC
5. MArNHCieyciN cbiA&AeAcpeYCiN irNATioc.
6. Tp&AAlANOIC IrNdkTIOC.
The word p.ayvrjcncv'o-i.v 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; (1) Sjnupvaiots, Mayvryo-teCo'iv, "SiAaSeXcpevo-iv, TpaXXiavois; (2) irpos
IIo\i;Kap7rov, irp6"9 Ti^eo-iovs. It will be seen at once that these two
elasses 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 ; first, 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 'Iyvartos), these have not pre
vailed so as to obliterate the main distinction of the two classes.
1 The inference has been drawn from thing to Zahn's refutation of this in-
the subscription to the MS S2, ' Here end ference (/. v. A. p. 188 sq.).
(the) three epistles of Ignatius' (see above 2 The facts with regard to this MS are
p. 72, 11. p. 669), that the translator or incorrectly stated by some editors of
transcriber knew of no other epistles of Ignatius, who assign to it the title irpbs
Ignatius (Bunsen Die drei aechten etc. 'Papalovs : see above, p. 75, and comp.
pp. xvi, xvii, Lipsius Ueber die Aechtheit Journal of Philology 11. p. 157 (1869).
etc. p. 159). It is unnecessary to add any-

280 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 irpos "E<p«Ti'ovs and 'E^eo-t'ots by
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 irpos 2/iupvai'ous, wpos 'Etpeo-lovs, etc.
When I first observed this curious fact, which I had not seen noticed
in any writers on the Ignatian question1, it impressed me strongly, and
I called attention to it in an article in the Journal of Philology i. ii.
p. 47 sq., 1868 (comp. 11. 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 Mayvryo-iEvo-iv, 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 irpos rovs iv Mayvi/o-iij,
as I have shown (n. p. 105 sq.). Thus it would correspond to the
heading of the Tarsian letter irpos rovs iv Tapo-ui*. 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 ms, TpaAXiavois T-yvanos, 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 between the
two recensions, so far as these can be traced.
It has been shown above (p. 86 sq.), that there existed in the early
centuries a Syriac version of the seven Vossian letters, to which were
1 I have since seen that attention is 2 The Tarsian letter stands next to the
called to this fact in B. H. Cooper's Free Magnesian in the Long Recension (see
Church of Ancient Christendom. The above, p. 222) ; and its heading was pro-
book is without a date, but I am informed bably suggested by that of its immediate
that it appeared in 1852. predecessor.

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 281
appended the six additional spurious Ignatian letters. From this Syriac
version the extant Armenian translation was made at a comparatively
early date. It has been proved also (p. 89 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 expan
sion from the Curetonian letters made by filling in the missing parts
with the aid of the Greek. Which is the more probable supposition ?
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 Ephesians or the opening salutation of the Romans 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

282 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
sonal. 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.
A|-An&N of outward demonstrations of affection (see n. p. 34J)j
Polyc. 2 ra Sea-pd pov a ^yairrio-as Smyrn. 9 cnrovra pe ko.1 Trapovratiyairf
care
Ar&nH joined with maris (see the note n. p. 29);
Ephes. I Kara ttio-tiv Kai dydmjv Ephes. 14 rr)v ir'icmv xal rr\v ayatrp.
For other instances see Ephes. 20,
Magn. 1, i$,Pkilad.u,Smyrn.\wt.,
6,13

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 283
personified and used in a peculiar way;
Rom. 9 doirdferai vpas. . .r) dyawr) tcov Trail. 1 3 doTrdferai vpas r) dydirtj 2pup-
e kkAijo-kJv k.t.A. vaiatv, Philad. 1 1 do-jrd£erai vpas rj
dydjrij raiv dSeXdxov
identified with the blood of Christ;
Rom. 7 to aipa avrov o e'oriv dyd7rn Trail. 8 e'v dytin^ o e'oriv aipa 'Ino-ov
atpdapros Xpicrrov
&,r-ne(o. in connexion with p.eVeiv ev;
Polyc. 5 ei tw Siivarai e'v dyveia piveiv Ephes. IO e'v 7rdo-# ayvela. Kai o-uxppo-
o-iivrj ue'vere
ArN(zec9«j in a strange construction with a genitive (see n. p. 51);
Ephes. 8 irepi\jfijpa vpiav Kal dyvi£opai Trail. 1 3 dyviferai vpdi v ro ipov irvevpa
vpxov ^AeiN in the expression 'to sing to the Father ';
Rom. 2 iva e'v dyairrj x°Pos yevopevoi Ephes. 4 x°P°s ytvea-de, Iva o-vp(po>voi
atnjre ra irarpl ev XpiaTip 'Ijjo-oO k.t.A. ovrey e'v dpovoia...a8nre e'v (j>avfj pia 81a
'Ij;o-ou Xpiorov r<5 irarpi k.t.A.
tJmA. in the expression ev ai/ian ©eou (Xpio-rov) used mystically ;
Ephes. I dvafunrupijo-avrer ev alpari Philad. inscr. i)v arrird£opai iv aipari
6eoS 'Ino-oO Xpicrrov, Smyrn. I rJSpao-pevous
...iv to aXpan Xpiorov : comp. Trail.
inscr. (v. 1.), Smyrn. 12
&itoN in the phrase 'the prince of this world' (see 11. p. 73) ;
Ephes. 19 TkaQev tov ap\ovra tov 6 apx<ov tov alavos tovtov occurs
alavos tovtov, Trail. 4 KaraAtierai 6 Ephes. 1 7, Magn. 1, Rom. 7, Philad.
apxtov tov aldvos tovtov 6
AicoNec in a manner personified as the recipients of a revelation
or a report ;
Ephes. 8 eKKjKrjo-ias Trjs ftiafioTfrov tois Ephes. 19 7ro>j ouv tUpavepcSSr/ rots
aiao-iv aimcriv; Smyrn. I "iva apy o-vrrcrnpov
els tovs al&vas
ak(nhtoc in reference to the faith of the persons addressed;
Polyc. I (rou r^v e'v Qem yvmprjv iJ8pao"- Smyrn. I vpas Karrjprio-pivovs iv oki-
pivrpi as eVl irerpav OKivrjTov vrjra it'io-rei : comp. Philad. I eVi-
yvovs. . .ro aKivrjTov avrov
amwmoc in the connexion ev dpMpM xapd and similar phrases ;
Ephes. inscr. iv apaipw ^apa xaipeiv : Magn:"] iv ri/ xa/>? TV dp0'/*'?) comp.
comp. Rom. inscr. dpoipas xai'peiv Ephes. 4 e'v dpdpm ivomjTt, Smyrn.
inscr. ev dpoipa irvevpari. See also
Trail. 1

284

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

&N,vreAAco used metaphorically;
Rom. 2 iva eis avrbv dvareika

Magn. 9 r) far) rjpav dve'reiXei/ &'

an rip in the phrase oi Kar avSpa;
Polyc. I roir Kar' Sv8pa Kara bpo-r)8eiav
Qeov AdAei

Ephes. 4 ol <ar avbpa 8e xopbs yiveoSe,
Ephes. 20 oi Kar* avbpa koivtj iravres,
Trail. 13 oi kot avbpa aKXrp\ovs dya-
7rare, Smyrn. 5 ra ijperepa rmv kot
avhpa iradrjpara, Smyrn. 12 roir mf
avbpa Kal koivtj iravres

ant(yyxon implying devotion to another;

Polyc. 2 Kara irdvra aov dvri^rvxov iya
Kal rd becrpd pov, Polyc. 6 dvrtip-vxov
iyo) t<ov virorao-o-opevoiv k.t.X. (comp.
irepi\jn]pa vpwv Ephes. 8)
Alideeoc,
Rom. inscr. iKKkno-'ia i)ris npoKadr)-
rai. . .dgiodeos, Rom. I vpaiv ra dgiodea
irpoo-oma AZJOMAKAplCTOC,
Ephes. inscr. t% iKKkno-'ia rfj dgiopaKa-
piVra), Rom. inscr. iKKKrjo-ia. . .rjris Kal
irpoKd6r)Tai...dgioirpeirrjs,dgiopaKdpio-ros Alionpenric,
Rom. inscr. (L c.)
aIioc in other compounds ;
dgiayvos )
dgieiraivos f A?/«. inscr.
dgieiriTevKros )

Ephes. 21 dvrtyvxov vpav iya Kal tav
iirepfjraTc k.t.X., Smyrn. 10 dvrtyvyw
vpav ro 7rveCpd poo Kai ra berrpi pov

Magn. 2 rov dgiodiov vpav eViora'-
nov, Trail, inscr. iKK\rjo-ia...dgioSia,
Smyrn. 1 2 rov dgiodeov iirio-Koirov

Ephes. 1 2 IlavAou. . .roO dgiopaKapiirrov,
Rom. IO 8i' 'Ecpecrioiiv r&v agiopam-
piOTIBV Magn. 1 3 rov dgioirpeireo-rdrov eVimco:
irou vpaiv

dliayd^ro* I .flfafcrf J
a^ioffavpiacrros j
dgiovopao-ros, Ephes. 4
d|id7rio-ror, Philad. 2, /Wcf. 3
d£idVAoKoj, Magn. 13
&iEioc with efyu, more especially in denouncing his own unworthiness
(see n. p. 33);
Trail. 4 ovk olba ei agios ei'pi Magn. 12 idvirep agios a, ib. 14 ofe>
ovk a£io'r eZpt KaAeio-^ai (comp. TVs*
13), 7fo»z. 9 ovbe ydp agios elpi, Smyrn.
1 1 ovk iov agios iKeWev eivat
Ephes. 2 L xaPl,T<*pevos vplv dglois Smyrn. 9 agioi ydp lore, Polyc. 8 ypv
ovmv \jreis... as agios oiv

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 285
and used absolutely of things ;
Polyc. 6 iva ra OKKema vpav dgia Kopi- Smyrn, 1 1 itpavt] pot ojv agiov irpdypa
aij<r8e &1io0n, used especially of himself (see 11. p. no);
Rom. I rov dgia&tjvai pe els re'Aor clvai Ephes. 9 7)£ia>#i7V...7rpoo'opiA;;o-ai vplv,
id. 2 1 rjgidBriv els rlprjv Qeov evpeSrjvai,
Magn. I eVel ovv rjgia&rjv Ibelv vpas
aopatoc in the phrase 'visible and invisible';
Trail. 5 bpard re koi aopara, Rom. 5 Smyrn. 6 01 apyovres oparoi re Kal
twv bparav Kal dopdrav (comp. Polyc. aoparoi
2,3) &n«,6ric opposed to ira(9r;Td's and said of Christ ;
Polyc. 3 rov diraBfj, rbv 8i' JjpSs iraGr/- Ephes. 7 irparov ira8r)rbs Kai rdre dira-
rov 6tjs
MT&pTizeiN (comp. also avairdpriaTos, II. p. 259);
Ephes. I ro oTjyyeviKov epyov reAeiioi Ephes. 3 ov;ra> dirr]prio-pai, Philad. 5
aTrnpnVaTe, Ephes. 19 ro irapd Bern rj irpoo-evxr) vpaiv... pe dirapricrei
cuTTjprio-pevov AnoAexecOAi said of saluting or welcoming persons ;
Ephes. I airobegapevos [vpaiv] ev Oeoi Trail. I airobegapevos ovv tt)v Kara Qeov
ro n-oAvayaTrnrov ovopa, Polyc. I a7ro- evvoiav K-r.A.
bexopevos aov Trjv iv 0ea> yva!pnv
inoAAMBANeiN said of welcoming persons;
Ephes. I Tr)v jroAv7rX7J 5eiav vpav...direi- Ephes. 2 ov igepirXdpiov ttjs d(p' vpav
Xrjipa iv 'Ovrjo-ipa dyd7rr/r direXajiov
and otherwise ;
Awz. I rdv KXijpov pov dvepirobto-Tas Smyrn. 1 1 direXaftov to iSiov peyedos
airdkafie'iv ApecKeiN of pleasing God or Christ ;
Polyc. 6 dpe'o-Kere <3 arpareveo-Be Rom. 2 Geo) dpeaai, ao-rrep Kal dpioKere
aptoc, speaking of the ' bread of God ';
Rom. 7 oprov Qeov 6eXa Ephes. 5 vorepeirai rov aprov rov Geov
A<b9&pcfdy
Polyc. 2 ro Oe'pa d<f)0apo-ia Kal far) Magn. 6 bibaxr)v acpBapcrias, Philad. 9
a"»vios to be evayyeXiov djrdpno-pd e'oriv a<p8ap-
o-las, comp. Ephes. 17
&<b8ApT0C,
Rom. 7 dydmj acpdapros Trail. 1 1 d Kapirbs avrav dcj)dapTos

286 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
BdkCKiMNeiN, Backan(a,
Rom. 3 ovSeVore efiao-Kdvart- ovSevi Rom. 7 /3ao-Kavia e'v vplv pr) KarouceiTW
Tncomh in the phrase ' mind of God ';
Ephes. 3 orras o-vvrpexrjre rfj yvaprj The phrase yvdpi) Beov occurs Rom. 8,
roii 0coO Polyc. 8 (comp. yvaprj 'ir/aov Xpiorov,
Ephes. 3, Philad. inscr.)
in the phrase 'mind of the bishop';
Polyc. 5 pera yvdprjs tov iiruTKoirov Ephes. 4 irvvrpe'^eiv 77/ rov eVunEotrov
(comp. § 4) yvaprj
and in other expressions ;
Polyc. I crov rrjv iv &ea yvdprjv k.t.X. Rom. 7 Trjv els Qeov pov yvdprpi
rpAcpco in a particular connexion ;
Rom. 4 iya ypdqSta 7rdo-ais rais cVkAij- Polyc. 8 irdcrais rals eKKXr/rrlais oi!k
trials TjbvvrjBrp/ ypdtyai
AcAcmai, AeAe/weNoc, in particular connexions, especially of a 'pri
soner in Christ';
Rom. I 8e8epe'vof...e'v Xpio-TO 'li;o-ov Trail. I bebepeva iv 'iijcov XpiOTffl
(comp. Philad. 5, 7)
7Va//. S ov KaBori bebepai el yap Kal bebepai, Ephes. 3, Magn. 12
Accma, see above under dvTiijrvxov -,
Accmoc used metaphorically (with Xveiv) of the powers of evil;
Ephes. 19 e^vero 7rSo-a payela Kal was Philad. 8 5s Avrrei dtp' vpav iravra
beo-pos heo-pov
Aia toyto followed by iva or oVojs;
Polyc. 2 bid tovto crapKiKOS ei Kal irvev- Ephes. IJ bid tovto pvpov eXaftev... am
pariKos 'iva K.T.X., Ephes. 3 bid tovto rrverj k.t.X., Magn. 9 8id toEto imopi*
irpoiXapov irapaKaXelv vpas, ottos aw- vopev "iva evpeoapev k.t.A.
rpixrjre k.t.X.
Aia hantoc,
Polyc. 6 ovaip-nvipav biairavros, Ephes. Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 1, 6, Smyrn. 12,
inscr. eivai bid iravrbs eis bogav irapd- Polyc. 8
povov k.t.A.
At' d>N, in a particular connexion, where it is equivalent to 81' im-
vojv a;
Ephes. 15 iva bi avXdke'i irpdao-rj Kal Ephes. 4 iiriyivdo-Kji bi av ev ttpoa-
bi av o-iya yivdo-Krjrai o-ere k.t.X., ib. 14 bi av irpao-o-owrai
dcpono-ovrai, ib. 9 bi av ypaspo, tpoir-
opikrjo-ai vplv (comp. ib. 1 5 ig <"")

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 287
,Aiatacc£c9ai in connexion with the Apostles;
Rom. 4 ovx ols Herpes Kal TJavXos bta- Trail. 3 "iva av KaraKptros as dtTooro-
rdo-o-opai vplv' eVeivoi djrdo-roAoi, eyd> Aos vpiv 8iardo-o-(»pai, Ephes. 3 ov 81a-
KaraKpiTos rdcro-opai vplv as av ti
AoSa in the phrase eis 8o£av (®eov) ;
Polyc. 4 eis bogav Geov 7rAe'ov 8ovAeve'- Magn. 1 5 7rapdvres els bogav Geov,
Ta>o-av, Ephes. inscr. eis 8d£av irapd- Rom. 10 rav irpoeXdovrav pe. ..els bogav
poxov Geov (comp. also Ephes. inscr.), Polyc.
7 bogdo-fl vpav tt)v doKvov dydirrjv els
bogav Geov
AoSazoj (YnepAolAzco) used absolutely, and in a particular connexion ;
Polyc. I dirobexbpevis crov ttjv iv Gem Trail. I airobegapevos ovv tt)v Kara
yvdpriv...viTepbogdfa Karagtadeis K.T.X. Gedv evvoiav bi avrov ibogaaa k.t.X.
(where the addition of Geov in the
Syriac text is an obvious gloss)
Aynamic in the phrase ev Bvvdpei;
Ephes. 14 e'v Suvdpei iriareas Ephes. 1 1 e'v bvvdpei 'Itjctov Xpicrrov,
Smyrn. 1 3 e'v bvvdpei narpas
AyckoAoc in the neuter Svo-koXov;
Rom. I e'poi be bvoKoXov eVriv rov Geov Smyrn. 4 oirep SvoraAov
einrvxeiv Ian in the phrase ovk idv ;
Ephes. 3 rj dydirrj ovk ea pe mairdv Ephes. 9 ovk eido-are airelpai els vpas
eApAzeiN, in the perfect r]8pdo-6ai, r;Spao-fie'vos, especially with ev;
Polyc. I tt)v ev Gem yvaprjv rjbpacrpevrjv Philad. inscr. rjbpacrpevrj iv opovola
Geov, Smyrn. I rjbpao-pevovs iv dydirrj,
So too Ephes. 10 eSpaioi ttj irlo-ret Smyrn. 13 ebpacrdai irltrrei Kal dydirrj
eAeeTN, the perfect participle rJXe^e'vos and the construction with ev ;
Rom. inscr. rjXerjpevTj iv peyaXeidnjri Philad. inscr. i)Xerjpevrj . . . iv opovola
irarpbs Qeov, Smyrn. inscr. Tjkerjpevrj iv navrl
Xaplo-pan
eAnfc used of Christ, especially with koivos (see 11. p. 263) ;
Ephes. I vnep rov koivov dvdparos Kal Ephes. 21 iv 'irjcrov Xpiara rjj Koivjj
eXn-iJos IXiribi ijpav. So too Philad. II
(comp. Philad. 5). So 'Ir/o-ov Xpiorov
Trjs iXirlbos r)jiav, Magn. II, Trail.
inscr., 2
6N0YC8AI, especially the perfect participle 77'voj/tevos ;
Ephes. inscr. r)vapevrjv koi e'KXeAey- Rom. inscr. r)vapevois irdo-jj ivroXfj
/"V avrov .- comp. Magn. 6, 7, 14, Smyrn. 3

288 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
6NWCIC 'union';
Polyc. I Trjs evdo-eas cppovri£e Magn. I evatriv evxopat, Philad. 7
tt)v evamv dyairaTe: comp. Magn. 1 3,
Trail. 1 1, Philad. 8, Polyc. 5
cIoycIa in the phrase igovo-iav e^eiv nvo's;
Polyc. 7 xpianavos eavrov igovaiav ovk Smyrn. 4 rovrov be e^ei igovo-iav 'I17-
evei rrovs Xpioros
krro.rVsXid,, enArreAAec9Ai, of the profession of Christianity ;
Ephes. 14 ov yap wv iirayyeXlas to Ephes. 14 irio-riv eVayyeAAdpevos...
epyov e'irayyeAAdpevoi Xpiorov eivat
emefKeiA,
Ephes. 10 Tg eVieiKe/a The word occurs twice in Philad. 1
erriKeTc9Ai of impending death (or life);
Rom. 6 6 be roKerds poi eViKeirai Magn. 5 iiriKcirat ra 8vo dpov, 0 re
ddvaros Kai 77 fair/' (but see II. p. 1 17 on
the reading).
emcKoneTN of the superintendence of God (or Christ);
Polyc. inscr. eirio-Konrjpeva viro Geov Rom. 9 avrr)v 'Ir/o-ovs Xpiorbs iirimo-
irrjaei. So God is called the universal
eirio-Koiros, Magn. 3. Compare Oeoii
eirio-Koirij Polyc. 8.
eniTpeneiN in the imperative eirirpe'ipaTe ;
Ephes. 10 iirirpexjraTe ovv avrols Kav Rom. 6 imrpiyjraTe poi pipTjrrjv eivai
eK rwv epywv vplv pa8rjrev8rjvai k.t.X,
eniTYrx^NeiN with an infinitive following;
Ephes. I iirirvxeiv iv 'Pdprj Brjpiopa- Ephes. I eVirv^eiv bvvtjBa paSrjrrji
Xrjo-ai, Rom. 1 iirervxov ibelv k.t.A. eivai
in the phrase eirirv^eTv ©eov ;
Rom. 1, 2, 4, Polyc. 2 ; comp. 'Ir/o-ov The phrase occurs Ephes. 12, Magn.
Xpio-rov iirirvxeiv Rom. 5 (twice). 14, Trail. 12, 13, Rom. 9, Smyrn.. 11,
.Ptf/yi:. 7.
So rv^eiv Geov Ephes. 10 So tv^eiv Geov Magn. I
enoYpANiA, especially in reference to angelology;
Trail. S PV ov biivapat to eirovpdvia Smyrn. 6 koi ra iirovpavia Kal r] 805*
ypdrjrai, ib. bvvapai voeiv ra eirovpdvia rdiv dyyeAtov : compare Ephes. l}i
Trail. 9
Ipan (not found in the N. T. or in Clement or Polycarp);
Rom. 2 ipaa&rjre rf/s trapKos pov, Polyc. Rom. J epav rov d7TO0aveiv
4 ipdraaav dirb rov koivov eXevdepov-
o-8ai. So too epojs /?<?;«. 7

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 289
etoimazein, the perfect participle passive;
Ephes. 9 rtroipuapevov els oixoSopr/v Rom. 5 r<3v Brjpiav rwv e'poi tjToipaape-
Qeov vav
eYAoreTN, the perfect participle passive with ev ;
Ephes. inscr. T77 evAoyr/pevg e'v peyeBei Magn. inscr. rj; eCXoyr/pevrj iv xdplTl
k.tA. k.t.X. (comp. Ephes. 2)
EYpfcKeiN in the aorist passive tvpeBrjvai, a characteristic Ignatian
expression ;
Rom. 2, 3, 4, 5, Polyc. 4, 6 Ephes. 10, 11, 12, 14, 21, Magn. 9,
Trail. 2, 12, 13, Smyrn. 3, Polyc. 7
6Yxec9Ai used with especial frequency, and in sentences of similar
form; e.g.
Ephes. 1 ov ev^opai Kara 'Ir/o-ovv Smyrn. II ^v ev^opai reAeiav poi 80-
Xpicrrov vpas dyairav Orjvat, ib. 13 tiv evxopai ebpacrBai,
6\6in with an infinitive ;
.fftfjs. 2 e^ere iiriypacprjvai Philad. 6 e^ei ris Ka»x'i0"o0"^ai
with igovo-iav (see s. v.), and with xaipov (see s. v.).
zhn with KaTa;
Ephes. 8 apa Kara Geov fiyre Philad. 3 Kara 'Irio-ovv Xpiorov fwires :
comp. .E^te. 6, 8, Afag-rc. 8, 9, 10,
Trail. 2, Rom. 8.
HCYxf*. of God or of Christ. The two passages quoted are the only
cases of its occurrence in these letters ;
Ephes. 15 Svvarai Kai rf/s rprvxias av- Ephes. 19 ariva ev i)o-vxia Geov iirpdx-
tov aKovetv thj
BeAHMA, used absolutely of the Divine will (11. p. 85);
Rom. I idvwep QeXijpa 7/ Ephes. 20 idv pe Karagido-ri 'Itjctovs . . .
Kal BeXrjpa §, Smyrn. II Kara BeXrpia
be KarijgidBrjV, Polyc. 8 ojs rd BeXrjpa
irpoardo-o-ei (comp. Smyrn. 1)
BhpiomaxcTn of himself;
Ephes. I iirirvxeiv iv 'Pdpij Brjpiopa- Trail. IO ri be Kal evxopuii Brjptopa-
\Wal X^<7<u> Rom. 5 'Atto Hvpias peXP1 'Paprjs
Brjpiopaxd
Byciact^pion used metaphorically;
Rom. 2 as en Bvatao-rrjpiov eroipdv Ephes. 5 idv prj tis 77 e'vror rov Bycnacr-
* *a™ rrjpiov (comp. Trail, j), Magn. 7 cos
iirl iv Bvo-iaorrjpiov (comp. Philad. 4)
IG. I. ' 19

290 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
KA9AipeTc9Ai of the powers of evil;
Ephes. 13 KaBaipovvrai ai bvvdpeig rov Ephes. 19 KaBrjpe'iTO iraXaid p3acriXeia
Harava KAipdc, especially in the phrase Kaipov e^eiv followed by an infinitive;
Rom. 2 ov ydp e'yca 7rore ega Kaipbv Smyrn. 9 o5s [eri] Kaipov e%opev ek
toiovtov Qeov iirirvxeiv Geov peravoeiv
kakotcxnTa in the same connexion;
Polyc. 5 rds KaKOTexvias tpeiiye Philad. 6 tpevyere ovv ras KaKore^viat
kata with the accusative (e.g. Polyc. 1, Ephes. 1); a favourite form of
expression in various connexions (see 11. p. 107). Thus we have Kara
©eo'v, Kara Kvpiov, etc. ;
Polyc. 5 d ydpos rj Kara Kvpiov, Ephes. See Ephes. 2, Magn. 1, 8, 13, Trail.
I Kara 'irjaovv Xpiardv dyan-av, ib. 8 1, Philad. 3, 4
apa Kara Geov £fjre
again in the expression Kara iravra ;
Polyc. 2 Kara 7rdvra aov dvriijfvxov See Ephes. 2 (twice), Magn. 8, 12,
e'yoj k.t.A. Trail. 12, Smyrn. 9, 12, etc.
so too in the phrase £r}v KaTa nva (or ti); see above, p. 289.
kataman9ancin in the imperative;
Polyc. 3 rovs Kaipovs KarapdvBave Smyrn. '6 KarapaBere be rovs frepobo-
goivras
kataIioyn, a favourite Ignatian word (see 11. p. 85); said of himself]
Rom. 2 6 Qebs Kanjgiao-ev evpeBrjvai, So used in Ephes. 12, Magn. i, Trail.
Polyc. I KaragiaBeis rov irpoo-dtrov crov 12, Smyrn. II
and of persons to be despatched to Syria ;
Polyc. 8 rov peXXavra KaragiovcrBai So used Polyc. 7, Philad. 10
K.T.A. KATAnAtfcceiN 'to overawe';
Polyc. 3 oi...erepo8i8ao-Ka\ovvres prj o-e Philad. I ov KaroJtrenXijypai tt)v eirwi-
KarairXrjo-aeTacrav Keiav
KAfipoc of his own circumstances, especially of his martyrdom;
Rom. I els to tov KXrjpov pov dvepiro- Ephes. II "va ev KXrjpa 'Ecpevlw
bio-ras diroXafielv evpeBa, Trail. 12 rov KXrjpov ovttp
eyKeipai (?) rv^eiv, Philad. 3 '"" l' $
KXrjpa rjXerjBrjV iirirvx"

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 291
koinoc in the phrase to koivov;
Polyc. 4 pi) ipdracrav dirb tov koivov Philad. I ttjv dtaxovt'av ttjv eir rd
eXevoVpova-dat koivov dn)Kovo-av
and connected with eXin's (see above, p. 287).
KpAYrA KpAYr^zeiNi of preaching;
Ephes. 19 rpi'a pvo-njpia Kpavyrjs Philad. J eKpavyaaa piragv cSv
K6KTHC9AI,
Ephes. I 0 Kennjo-Be cpvcret SiKat'a Ephes. I d£iot? oval roiovroV iiriaKO-
irov Keicrfjo-Bai, ib. 14 dydirrjv KeKTTj-
pe'vos, lb. 15 d Adyov 'Iijaov KeKTTjpevos,
Philad. 1 KeKTTJo-Oai tt)v biaKoviav,
Polyc. 8 Geov yvoSpnv KeKTTjpevos
more especially in a particular connexion ;
Polyc. I OKoiprjTov irvevpa KeKTTjpevos Magn. 1 5 KeKTirpevoi dbidxpirov irvevpa
AaAeTn frequent in Ignatius ; and especially of mere profession, as
opposed to right action ;
Ephes. 15 XaAovvra pr) eivai k.t.A. See Magn. 10, Rom. 7, Philad. 1
AereiN in this same contrast;
Rom. 3 iva pi) povov Xe'ycu Ephes. 15 eav d Ae'yuv 770177
and the passive XeyecrBai ' to be reckoned,' speaking of himself;
Rom. 3 Xeyojpat ^ptoriavos. . .xat Ae'- Trail. 13 ovk agios eipi XeyeaBai,
yerrBai bvvapat. Rom. 9 Jg avrdv XeyeaBai.
Aeinec9Ai with a genitive, 'to lack';
Polyc. 2 ottos prjbevbs Xeiirrj Trail. 5 iva Geov pr) XeiirdpeBa
Aimi^n, as a metaphor or simile ;
Polyc. 2 as xf 'Ma {bpevos Xipeva Smyrn. 1 1 Xtpevos Tjbr] eTvyxav<"'
AfeiN of the defeat of the powers of evil ;
Ephes. 19 eXvero irSo-a payei'a Kai jt2s Ephes. 13 Averai d SXeBpos avrov
8«rpos (comp. Philad. 8)
WAeHTeyeiN especially in the passive ;
Ephes. 10 e'« roiv epyav vplv paBrjrev- Ephes. 3 dpxrjv exa tov paBijTeveaBai,
°Vu, Rom. 5 e'v 8e toii dbiKrjpao-iv Rom. 3 a padrjTevovres ivreXXecrBe
oiiruv paXAov paBrfrevopai
19 — 2

292 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
ma9htiAc of discipleship to Christ (sometimes used absolutely), more
especially of his own imperfect discipleship ;
Ephes. I "iva iirirvxeiv bvvrjBd paBrjTijs Rom. 5 vvv apxopai paBrjrrjs e'voi
eivai Trail. 5 oi... irapa tovto 7)877 koi Magn. 9 "iva evpeBdpev paBriraVlrjcrov
jxaBv-riis eipi, Rom. 4 rdre ?o-opai paBr,- Xpiorov : comp. Magn. 10
rr)s dXrjdds rov Xpiorov
MereSoc in unusual connexions ;
Ephes. inscr. evXoynpevrj iv peyeBei, Smyrn. 1 1 direXafiov rd i'Siov peye 80s
Rom. 3 peyeBovs eVriv 6 xpioriavio-pds
mimhti^c of imitating God or Christ;
Ephes. I pipijTai ovres Geov Trail. I pip-nrds ovras Geou : comp.
Ephes. 10, Rom. 6, Philad. 7
monon used elliptically (see the note, 11. p. 61);
Rom. 5 povov Iva 'Itjo-ov Xpiorov eVi- Ephes. 1 1 povov iv Xpiara 'Iijo-oC et/pe-
Tfya Brjvai k.t.X., Smyrn. 4 povov e'v t$ ovir
pan 'Ir/aov Xpio"rov k.t.A.
MYCT^pioN of the revealed truths of the Gospel;
Ephes. 19 rpi'a pvo-rrjpia Kpavyrjs Magn. 9, Trail. 2
nomoc of the law of Christ ;
Rom. inscr. xpiordvopos Magn. 2 as vopa 'Itjo-ov Xpiorov
oIkonomoc, oiKONO/wfA, ofGod's stewards and stewardship;
Polyc. 6 ois Geov oIkovojiol Ephes. 6 ov irepirei 6 oiKoSfffJrofrji eis
rr}v 181'av oiKovopiav
oMorteeiA of conformity to God;
Polyc. I Kara dporjc'eiav Beov Magn. 6 dporjBeiav Geov Xa^ovres
oMoftoc ka! used in simple enumeration ;
Ephes. 19 7; irapBevia Maplas Kal q Ephes. 16 d roiojros.. .opoias. koi a
roKeTos avrfjs, bpoias Kai d Bdvaros rov aKoiav avrov, Trail. 13 opoias koi r(f
Kvpiov (comp. Polyc. 5 where opoias irpeafivrepla
koi also occurs, but in a more usual
way) 6na(mhn in more than one connexion ;
Polyc. 6 ovaiprjv vpav Sid ttovtos Ephes. 2 ovaiprjv vpav 01a mwof
(comp. Magn. 12)
Polyc. I ov ovalpr)V iv Gem Magn. 2 ov e'yo) ovaiprjv

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 293
onoma in the phrase eg dvd/xaros ;
Polyc. 4 eg dvoparos irdvras Crjrei Ephes. 20 iravres e'v X«piri ig dvoparos
avvepxeo-Be, Polyc. 8 doTrdfopai 7rdvras
eg dvoparos
and of actions done in or for ' the name ' of Jesus Christ or of God ;
Rom. 9 r<uv begapevav pe els ovopa Smyrn. 4 povov iv rto dvdpari 'J.770-0V
'Ljaou Xpto-rov, Polyc. 5 TTapdyyeXAe Xpiorov, ib. 12 doird£bpat-. e'v ovdpari
iv dvdpari "Iijo-ov Xpiorov, Ephes. I e'v 'Itjo-ov Xpiorov, Rom. inscr. ; comp.
dropart Geov diretAr/oSa Philad. IO i57rep dvoparos Qeov
also used absolutely, without further definition (see n. p. 37), of the
Divine Name ;
Eplies. 3 bebepai ev to dvopart : comp. Ephes. 7 rd ovopa irepicpepeiv, Philad.
ib. I vjrep rov koivov dvoparos IO So£do*at rd ovopa
also used of individual men and nearly equivalent to 'person';
Ephes. 1 'Airobegapevos [vpo3v] ev Qea Polyc. 8 *AAktjv to itoBtjtov ixoi ovopa
to iroAvaydmTTov ovopa (comp. Smyrn. 13), Rom. 10 Kpoxos
to irodrtrov jioi ovopa
dpATdc see on dopaTos above ;
nA9HToc see on drradijs above ;
ni9oc in the phrase ' in the passion,' ' by the passion,' etc. ;
Ephes. inscr. eicXeXey/ie'vr/v iv irdBei Trail, inscr. elprjvevovarj...Ta [v. 1. e'v]
.aXijffiiia ndBei 'iijo-ov Xpiorov. For e'v [to]
7rdt5ei see Magn. 1 1, TralL 1 1, Philad.
inscr., and for the prominence of 'the
passion' the note on II. p. 25
hapakaAu) in the expression ' I charge you,' and more especially with
an imperative following (see 11. p. 166);
Rom. 4 TrapaKoXa vpas p^ evvoia d/cai- Trail. 6 irapaxaXd ovv vpas. . .Xprjo-Be,
pos yevrjo-64 poi, Polyc. 1 irapaxaXa ae Philad. 8 irapaKaXa be vpias, pijbev
ev X"piri k.t.X. Kar' ipiBeiav irpdo-aere. For irapaKaXa
(irapeKaXerra) vpas comp. also Ephes.
3, Magn. 14, Rom. 7, Polyc. 8
nApAMONoc of eternal things ;
c.phes. inscr. eivai bid iravrbs els bogav Philad. inscr. xapd aldvios koi irapd-
irapdiiovov MOVO,
n^cxeiN in particular phrases relating to his own martyrdom;
rail. 4 ay ana pev ydp rd iraBeXv Polyc. J edvirep bid tov iraBeiv Qeov
eirvrvxa
Rom. 4 aX\' £av „aga> direXevBepos Rom. 8 eav irdBa, ijBeXrjaare
K.T.X.

294 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
nepicceYeiN of spiritual gifts;
Polyc. 2 koi iravrds xaP'°7"""oy rrepicr- Smyrn. 9 jravra ovv iJpiv e'v ^dpir* m.
aevTjS piaaevera
nAeoN in a somewhat strained sense, meaning 'beyond';
Polyc. 5 idv yvao-Brj irXeov tov eirio-Ko- Magn. 10 os yap aXXa dvdpari KaXeiroi
7rov, ecpBaprai irXeov tovtov
see also under the word epofteio-Oai.
nAHpofcOAi in the perfect participle;
Rom. inscr. neirXrjpapevois (ireirXrjpa- Smyrn. inscr. ireirXrjpapevrj iv iriaru
pevrj ?)
TTArtpojMA * the plenitude ' of the Divine Nature ;
Ephes. inscr. evXoyijpevrj iv peyeBei Trail, inscr. rjv xdl oo-jrdfopai iv t$
Geov TTarpds irXrjpdpaTL irXrjpdpaTi
TTN6YMA in the expression 'my spirit';
Ephes. 18 rrepiii/Tjpa rd e'pdv irvevpa Smyrn. IO dvriyjrvxov vpav rd irvevpa
tov oravpov, Rom. 9 do-jrdferai vpas pov, Trail. 13 dyviferai vpav rd e'poj'
rd epdv irvevpa irvevpia
and in the combination 'flesh and spirit';
Polyc. 5 roTs o-vp(3lois dpKelo-Bai o-apKi Magn. 1,13, Trail. 12, Rotn. inscr.,
Kai nvevpart Smyrn. I, 3
and see also under KeKrfjo-Sai.
ttncymatikoc joined with o-apxiKos;
Ephes. 8, Polyc. 1, 2 Ephes. 7, Magn. 13, Smyrn. 12
noAY- in elaborate compounds ;
Ephes. 1 rd 7roXvayd?T7irov ovopa, ib. Magn. I tV<Sv rd iroAvevraKToi' rijr
tt)v 7roXu7rXij#eiav vpav Kara Geov dydirrjs
npAOTHC (npAYTHc);
Trail. 4 XPTlfa °v" TpaoTijros, comp. Trail. 3 jj bi irpaorrjs avrov bvvajUl.
Polyc. 2, 6. So ir pais, Ephes. 10 So 7rpavird6'eia, Trail. 8
npAcceiN in particular phrases, as e.g. with Kara' o-a'p/ca;
Ephes. 8 d 8e koi Kara adpKa irpdo-aere Ephes. 16 oi Kara adpm ravra upon-
o-ovres,and conversely Kara Qtbv in PhuM, 4

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 295
and with avev or x<upis ;
Polyc. 4 prjbev avev yvdprjs o-ov [row Magn. 4 \apls Se avrov [rov e'jrio-Ko-
eVio-xdjrov] yivicrBa, prjbe ai) avev Qeov irov] irdvra irpdao-ovatv, Trail. 2 avev
ti irpaaae rov iirio-Koirov prjbev irpdaaeiv vpas,
Trail. 7 d xcopts e'7rio-Kd7rov...ri Trpdo--
aav, Smyrn. 8 prjbels ^tupls T°v *,,r'"
o-kottov ri irpaaaera
npenei frequent in Ignatius ;
Polyc. 5 TrpeVei 8e rois yapovo-i k.t.A. Ephes. 4, Magn. 3, Trail. 12, Smyrn.
1 1, Polye. 7 ; and similarly irpeVov
earivy Ephes. 2, Magn. 3, 4, Rom. 10,
Philad. 10, Smyrn. 7
npoKA9HMAi of ecclesiastical precedence;
Rom. inscr. irpoKdBrjTai iv T(ma...irpo- Magn. 6- irpoKaBrjpevov tov iirio-Ko-
Kadrjpevrj ttjs dyaTnis irov. . .r^>' eVio-Kd7ro> Kai rois irpoKaBrjpe-
vois
npoceYxec9Ai in the expression irpocrevxeo-Oe. virep ;
Ephes. 10 Ephes. 21, Smyrn. 4, and with irepi
Trail. 12
npoceYX^ in the expression 'in' or 'through your prayer' or 'prayers';
Ephes. I eXTritovra ttj, irpoo-evxfj vpav Ephes. II, 20, Rom. 9, Trail. 1 3,
iirirvxeiv k.t.X. Philad. 8, Smyrn. 1 1, comp. Magn.
14, Philad. 5, 10, Polyc. 7
npocexeiN ' to- give heed to ';
Polyc. 6 ra iirto-Koira irpoaexere, Trail. Philad. 7 rd) eiricrKoiro) irpoaexere,
4 pr) npoaexeiv rots (pvo-iovo-lv pe Smyrn. 7 irpoaexeiv bi tois irpodjij-
rais
npocAAAeTN (not elsewhere in the Apostolical Fathers and only twice
in the N. T.);
Polyc. j tois dbeXtpals pov irpoaXdXei Ephes. 3 irpoaXaXa vplv as avvbi-
baa-KaXirais pov, Magn. I 7rpoo-AaA))o-ai
tiptv
rtpocamoN with cpaivecrOai ;
Polyc. 2 Ta tpaivopcvd crov els irpbcrairov Ephes. 1 5 (pavrjo-eTai irpb irpoo-dirov
ijpav
of persons whom he visited or who visited him ;
Polyc. I KaragimBth rov irpoaumov crov Rom. I eVe'rvxov iSeiv vpdiv rd dgioBea
irpbaaira : comp. Magn. 6

296 . EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
nYKNwc, nYKNOTepoN, in connexion with congregational gatherings ;
Polyc. 4 irvKVorepov avvayayai yiveV- Ephes. 13 o-7rov8d£ere ovv 7TVKvdrepoi<
Baaav crvvepxeo-Bai,. . . orav ydp irvKvds iirl rd
avrd yiveaBe K.r.A.
ttyp, fire as an instrument of martyrdom ;
Rom. 5 irvp Kai aravpos, Brjpiav re Smyrn. 4 irpos jTvp, irpos pd^aipov,
avo-rdo-eis irpos Brjpia
as a metaphor or simile ;
Rom. 7 7rvp [duAoiiXov] Trail. 2 cpvXdcro-eaBai rd iyKkrjpara
as irvp
P(I)nnyc9ai, in the final salutation eppmo-de with ev;
Rom. 10 eppaaBe els TeXos iv vnopovfi For eppaaBe ev see Ephes. 21, Magn.
'Itjo-ov Xpio-rov 1 5, Trail. 13, Philad. 11, Smyrn. 13,
Polyc. 8
capkikoc, see on irvev/xanKo's above;
CApl in Kara o~dpKa;
Ephes. S a be Kal Kara adpKa updo-o-ere, Ephes. 16 Kara adpKa raira irpar-
Rom. 9 Trj 68a Trj Kara adpKa aovres, ib. 20, Magn. 6, 1 3, Rom. 8,
Philad. 7, Smyrn. 1 (with Rom. 9
comp. Ephes. I vpav be iv o-apa
iirurKoira)
joined with irvevpa;
Polyc. 5 aapKi Kal irvevu.an Rom.'mscr.,Magn. 1, 13, Trall.'mscr.,
12, Smyrn. r, 3 (comp. Philad. u)
with Kvpiov or Xpio-rov, especially in a mystical sense ;
Rom. 7 dprov Geov t)e'Aa> o eVriv ffdp£ Trail. 8 e'v iri'orei o e'onv aapg rov
Xpiorov, Polyc. 5 eis ripr)v ttjs aapKos Kvpiov ; see also Philad. 4, 5j Smyrn.
rov Kvpiov 6, 12
cii-an, speaking of the merit of silence ;
Ephes. 15 iva...bi av aiya yivoio-Kijrai Ephes. 6 ocrov fHXeirei ris myoma em-
o-Koirov, Philad. I ds aiyav irhlom
bvvarai, Ephes. 1 5 Kal a o-iyuK W W
irolrjKev Sgia rov irarpds e'oriv
cnoYAAzeiN followed by an infinitive, and in all cases in imperative
sentences ;
Ephes. 10 pr) o-TTovSdfovres dvripiprj- Ephes. 5, 13, Magn. 6, 13, Phikd.^
iraaBai avrovs. ..pipr/ral 8e rov Kvpiov
(TTrovSdfaipev e'vai

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 297
CTAYpfic, stress laid on the Cross, generally in some strong image ;
Ephes. 9 dva<f>epdpevoi els rd v>p!7 8id Trail. 1 1 kAoSoi tov aravpov k.t.A.,
ttjs prjxavrjs 'Irjaov Xpicrrov os icrriv Philad. 8 rd dBiKra dpxela 6 aravpbs
aravpos, ib. 18 irepityrjpa rd epbv irvevpa avrov, Smyrn. I KaBrjXapevovs iv r£
tov aravpov aravpa rov Kvpiov k.t.A.
CYMo>epeiN in the expression <rvp.cpepei.v nvC;
Rom. 5 ri poi avpspepei K.r.A. Smyrn. 7 <rvve(j>epev 8e avrois K.T.X.
CYNTOMCOC,
Rom. 5 KoAaKevo-a> o-vvrdpa>s pe Kara- Magn. 14 avvrdpas irapeKaXeo-a vpas
(payelv CYNTpexeiN signifying 'to concur';
Ephes. 3 oiras avvrpexT)Te rij yvdprj Ephes. 4 o-vvrpe'^eiv rj rov iiriaKoirov
rov Geov yvdpjj
cioTrtp, in connexion with the same words ;
Ephes. I e'v Xpiara 'irjaov r<3 aarrjpi Magn. inscr., ev Xpiara 'Ijjo-ov ro3
T/piSv aarrjpi [ifpav]
TeAefcoc,
Ephes. I to avyyeviKov epyov reXeias Ephes. 14 edv ... reXeias e^iyre rr)v
djnjprio'aTe iriariv, Smyrn. 5 reXeias avrbv dirrjp-
vr/rai
Ti/wrt, in the phrase eis Ti//ryV, more especially when the honour of
God is concerned ;
Polyc. 5 Trdvra eis Tiprjv Qeov yivioBa The phrase eis Tipr)v Qeov or eis Geov
Tiprjv occurs Ephes. 21 (twice), Smyrn.
II r comp. Magn. 3 eis ripTJv eWvov
rov OeATjVavros K.r.A., Trail. 12 eis
Tipr)v irarpos K.T.X.
Polyc. S eis ripT)v tt/s aapKOS tov Ephes. 2 els ripr)v vpav Kal rov eVl-
Kvpiov o-koVov
Tonoc used of ecclesiastical office ;
Polyc. I e'K8iKei o-ov rdv rcmov Smyrn. 6 rcnras prjbeva cpvaiovra
Tponoc in the phrase Kara irdvTa rpoirov ;
Polyc. 3 rdv Kara irdvra rpoirov bi rjpds Trail. 2 Kara irdvra rpoirov iraaiv
iiropeivavra dpeaKeiv. The phrase occurs also
Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 10
YnepH<t>ANeTN, 'to disdain,' with an accusative;
Polyc. 4 8ovAovs Kal 8ovAas pr) vireprj- Ephes. 5 ovros ijbrj virepijCpavel, Smyrn.
4>ivei IO rd 8eo-pd v.ov, a ovx vireprjcpavrjaare

298 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
YnoMeNeiN in the phrase 'endure all things'';
Polyc. 3 eveKev Geov irdvra viropeveiv Smyrn. 4 irdvra viropeva avrov pe hi-
rjpas bei K-r.A., ib. rbv [n-dvra] Kara bvvapovvros K.r.A., ib. 9 hi ov iravra
irdvra rpoirov bi rjpds viropelvavra viropevovres avrov revgeaBe
YnoMONH, especially in the phrase 'in endurance';
Rom. 10 iv viropovij 'Irjaov Xpiarov Trail. I dbioKpirov ev viropovij
Polyc. 6 rj viropovij as iravoirXla Smyrn. 1 2 viropovr) bid iravrbs, Ephes.
3: virdXeicpBrjvai. ..vrropovr)
YnoTACcec9Ai of obedience to bishop and clergy;
Polyc. 6 dvrixjrvxov iya tov iiiroraaao- The phrase virordaaeaBai to iiriaKoira,
pevav ra iiriaKoira, irpeafivrepois, bia- etc., occurs Ephes. 2, Magn, 2, J3,
kovois : and the Bishop himself is Trail. 2, 13 (comp. Ephes. 5)
enjoined § 2 rovs Xoiporepovs iv irpab-
TTJTl vTTOTao-o-e
4>AiNec9&t in great frequency. The word does not occur at all in
Clement or Polycarp, and only three times in S. Paul ;
Trail. 4 rd ydp £r)Xos iroAAois pev ov Ephes. 1 5 direp koi eoriv Kal Kpavrjo-fTai,
(paiverai, Rom. 3 orav Koapa pi) cpalva- Rom. 3 'Irjaovs Xpiarbs iv irarpi av
pai, ib. ovbev (paivopevov KaXov paXXov (paiverai, Polyc. 2 rd cpaivbpeva
aov els irpbaairov. See also Magn. 3,
4, 6, 7, Trail. 2, 11, Smyrn. 8, 11.
Thus altogether it occurs 14 times.
<?>ANepoYN also occurs with unusual frequency;
Ephes. 19 dvBpairivas djavepovpevov, Magn. 8 eis Geds e'oriv d cj>avepa<ras
Polyc. 2 rd be aopara a'irei iva aoi cpav- eavrov bid 'irjaov Xpiarov rot) viov
epaBfj avrov : comp. Ephes. 19, Rom. 8
o>eYreiN in the imperative cpevye, cpevyere, 'avoid.' It does not occur
in any other part of the verb ;
Polyc. 5 rds KOKorexvi'as $e£ye Trail. 1 1, Philad. 2, 6, 7, Smyrn. 7
0>oBeTc9Ai in the expression 'to fear more';
Trail. 4 vvv ydp pe 8ei irAe'ov (po- Ephes. 6 irXeibvas avrbv (7io/3ei(roffl,
fieiaBai Philad. S i" 9 bebepevos <JJo/3ovp««
paAAov
rJjpoNiMOC in the phrase oSpoVijuos yivto-6ai ;
Polyc. 2 (ppbvipos yi'vov as dcpis iv Ephes. IJ bid ti be ov iravres <
airaaiv yivdpeBa; The word occurs
Magn. 3

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 299
<|>YCioyn ' to elate, puff up';
Trail. 4 pr) irpoaexeiv tois cpvaiovalv Magn. 12 018a on ov (pvaiovaBe, Trail.
pe, Polyc. 4 pT)8e avrol cpuaiovaBaaav 7 rovro 8e eorat vplv pr) (pvaiovpevois,
Smym. 6 rdiros prjbiva cpvaiovra
<(>YCic of natural as opposed to acquired qualities;
Ephes. I o KeKT7jo-r5e oSvo-ei k.t.A. Trail: I eyvav vpas Zxovras ov Kara
Xprjaiv dXXd Kara (pvatv
XApA, see above under a/xoj/u.os.
XApic in the phrase ev [rjj] x°-PLTl>
Polyc. r irapaKaXa ae iv xdpiri k.t.A. Ephes. 20, Magn. inscr., Philad. 1 1,
Smyrn. 9, 13
Xapicma in connexion with the idea of lack or abundance ;
Polyc. 2 iravrds xaP^<rrWT0S irepiaaevrjs Smyrn. inscr.. dvvoTepijroj ova?/ rravrbs
Xapiaparos
XflpAi, speaking of care for the widows ;
Polyc. 4 xfiPal I") dpeXeiaBaaav Smyrn: 6- ov peXei avrols... irepl xvpas
Xopoc in the phrase ' forming a choir';
Rom. 2 iv dydjrrj xopbs yevdpevot Ephes. 4 ol kot avbpa be x°pos yiverrBe,
ib. 19 xppbs eyevero ra dorepi
XP^'zw,
Trail. 4 XPllCa °$v jrpadrr/roi Trail. 12 rrjs dcp' vpav dydirrrjS XPV~
fovros
XPICTIANlCMOC,
Rom. 3 peyeBovs e'oriv 6 xP"Trmvia'pbs The word occurs Magn. 10 (three
times), Philad. 6
Xpictianoc somewhat frequently;
Rom. 3 pr) pbvov Xiyapai xpurrmvos, The word occurs Ephes. 11, Magn.
Polyc. 7 xpiOTiavds eavrov egovaiav ovk 4> Trail. 6
eXei XwpeTN in the sense 'contain' (with an apparent reference to Matt.
xix. 12 o ouvap.evos x^P^ x^P6'™) j
J rail. 5 ov bwrjBevres x<opTjo-at Smyrn. 6 d xapd>v x^pelra
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 <3Wep koX iroieTs,
to. 4 oirep o£8e irpaWeis (comp. § 2 irepi 17s Kai rrv ire'ireio-ai). Such dis
claimers, expressed in very similar language, are frequent in the parts

30O EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
not represented in the Curetonian letters ; e. g. Ephes. 4 oirep Kal iroielre,
ib. 8 djo-irep ovSe egairaTa.o-$e (comp. Rom. 2, Trail. 2, Smyrn, 4). Again
a certain course is enjoined either as an act of reciprocation to God for
the like (Polyc. 1 irdWas ftdo-ra^e 10s Kai o-e o Kjjpios, ib. 6 p-aKpoOvprjo-are ¦
ovv p,er dXX-r/Xii)v...<os Kai o ©eos peO' vp.(3v) or as a means of obtaining a
like return from God (Polyc. 3 iravra viropiiveiv SeT, iva Kai avros Tipas
virop-eivrj, ib. 6 r<S eirio-Koirai irpocrexeTe iva Kai o ©eos vpiiv). Such expres
sions as these again are frequent outside the Curetonian letters; e.g.
Ephes. 2, 21, Smyrn. 9, 10, Philad. 10, n. Closely connected with
these are such turns of language as Polyc. inscr. eirio-KoVa> eKKAijo-ios
2,pvpvaiu>v, pdXXov iirco-Koirripevip viro ©eov k.t.X., Trail. S iroXXa yap
77'pTv Xeiirei iva ©eov prj XeiiriopeOa. With these compare Rom. 8 OeXijaart
iva Kai vpels OeXrjdrJTe (not in the Curetonian letter), Smyrn. 5 ov tivk
dyvoovvres dpvovvTai, p.aXXov Se ¦fjpvrjBrjO-av vir avrov, with the note on the
latter passage. Again there is the anacoluthic commencement of a
letter, as in Ephes. 1, Rom. 1. 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 (0) eVnv, and the like, as expletives,
sometimes with an unusual attraction as regards the gender ; Ephes. 9
rrjs p.rjxaMil'i I. X. os eo-nv oravpos, ib. 18 tov o-ravpov, o icrriv r/KavSaW
k.t.X., Rom. S SeVa XeoirdpSois o eo-nv crrpaTiomKov rdypa, ib. J dprov
©eov 6eXu> o icmv erdpg rov Xpiorov... to aip.a avrov o icrriv dydirrj aijiSap-
ros. With these compare Ephes. 17, 20, Magn. 7, 10, 15, Trail. 6,8
(twice), n, 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 Iva rd rpawopevi
crov eis irpoaunrov KoXaKevrys, rd Se aopara airei k.t.X. ; comp. Magn.
n, 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. 1 rrjv TroXvirXrjOaav vpav...diniXijlpa
iv 'Ovr/o-lpoi compare more especially Magn. 6 ev rois irpoyeypappevois
irpoo-oj7rois rd irdv irXJj^os iOewprjcra and Trail: I ioote p.e rd irdV irMJBof
v/acjv ev avT<3 uewprjcrai, and see the note, II. 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 11. p. 670 sq.), and that the Seven Epistles are only some four or

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 30 1
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
Episde 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
gruity. 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

302 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 fumisbes an instance of the
confusion, on which I have adverted above (p. 278), 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 Curetonian 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.'

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 303
Here the words in brackets are omitted in the Curetonian letter.
The thoughts which they contain do not indeed lie 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
(diripiprjo-ao-o'ai). 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 ypur brotherhood by treating them as brothers. If
i 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

304 ' EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
epistle do not call for any comment. The sequence of thought in the
Curetonian letter is preserved sufficiently 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 nie
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 uSs irapoSevovTa)] for even those (churches) which did not lie near to

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 305
my way according to the flesh (at p.r) irpoo-r/Kovo-ai p.01 rjj o'Sui rj} KaTa
o-apKa) 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 Trallians to obey their bishop, priests, and
deacons. He 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
stle (§ 3).
Though much knowledge is vouchsafed to him in God, yet he puts
limits to himself (ipavrdv p.erp<S). He will not boast, lest he perish by
boasting. He fears the praises of others, lest they should elate him.
He desires to suffer, 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).
Therefore 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
IG. 1. 20

306 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
the Epistle to the Trallians. We know of no reason why he should
make any allusion to his knowledge of heavenly things when writing to
the Trallians ; 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 ioth, 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 Epistle 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 Trallians of
whose spiritual danger he had personal knowledge and to whom nr
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.).
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

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 307
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. 1 ' 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. r/voi/tevr/
Kai eKXeXeyp-e'vr/ ev rrdOei cxXrfiiva) ; for it cannot be doubted (see II. p.
25 sq.) that this is the true reading in tbe Curetonian letters, as well as
in the Vossian. In these respects therefore no gain is effected, for no
difficulty is overcome, by setting aside tbe 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 beert 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 tbe 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
20 — 2

308 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
may give heed to you : my life for the life (avriip-vxov ty"*) °f 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
naeans 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 like manner he designates
Onesimus bishop of the Ephesians, and he charges them to love and to
imitate him (Ephes. 1). 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' (Rom. 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 77 Ka$oXiKrj eKK.X-qcria, ib. 13 ras irapp'evovs ras Xeyo*
/aeVas xwas)> Dui it will be shown hereafter that these difficulties have
arisen from a misunderstanding of the expressions used. On the other
hand we lose more than one expression indicative of a very early date,
which the Vossian Epistles contain (e. g. Smyrn. 8 ovre ftairri&w ovre
dydmnv iroieiv).
(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. 1, Rom. 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 eyu ypdcpa irao-ais rais eVxXti-
0-1'ais). 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. Polyc. h

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 309
Ephes. 1, Rom. 1). But, while the gain is thus inappreciable, the loss
is very serious. It will be seen, when the subject is discussed at length
in the next chapter, that the movements of the martyr 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

310 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
ages? 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 abridgement or mutilation of
the epistles of the Middle Form. But the further question arises; In
what interests or with what motive was the abridgement made?
The earliest opponent of the Curetonian letters, the English Re
viewer, who has been mentioned already (p. 269), 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 Ignatianae (p. 67) returned
an effective reply.
For Eutychianism we may substitute the word Monophysitism; for
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 abridgement may have been
transcribed by Monophysite hands. But the theory itself is sufficiently
refuted by these three considerations. (1) 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. 165 sq.) and Severus of Antioch
(p. 169 sq.), not to mention other anonymous advocates of Monophysite
doctrine (p. 186 sq.), persistently use the Middle Form of the Ignatian
Epistles; and there is no trace whatever in them of acquaintance with
the Curetonian Abridgement. They quote freely from all the seven
epistles; and even in the three epistles, wherever the two recensions

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 31 1
differ, their quotations are taken from the Middle, not the Short Form.
(3) So far from betraying Monophysite purposes, this abridgement 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. Smyrn. 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 ev ©e<3 r/piav Irjcrov XpioT<3, Ephes. 3 Ir/o-ovs Xpio-rds...rov irarpos
tJ yvaprj, Ephes. 7 ev dvOpidirtp ©eos, Ephes. 18 d yap ©eos r//u,<uv Tr/o-ovs d
XpioTos iKvcxpoprjBr) K.T.X., Ephes. 19 ©eov dv#pa>irivu)S cpavepovpivov
(altered into rov vlov <pavepovp.£vov), Rom. inscr. ev Tiyo-ov Xpio-r<3 rdi ®e<3
Tjpdiv, Rom. 3 o ydp ©eos r/poZv Iiyrrovs Hpio-rds K.T.X., Rom. 6 iiriTpedjare
poi piprjrr)v eivai tov irdf9ovs tov ©eov p.ov (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
interest 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. lviii, 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

312 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 abridgement 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 two1.
The date of this Syriac abridgement is a matter of inferior
moment ; nor is it ascertainable except within somewhat wide limits
of time. The earliest 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 abridgements of the two remaining epistles, which
are found in the later mss (S^), 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 ydp for Se, 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,
1 The Ignatian literature itself (in ad- reason can be assigned why so much and
dition to the Curetonian letters) exhibits no more should be given; (4) an extract
the following examples illustrating the phe- from the Epistle to the Ephesians with
nomena of curtailment : (1) n shortened modifications in Paris. Graec. 950 (see
and modified form of the Epistle to the p. 76) ; (5) the loose and modified quota-
Romans in Symeon the Metaphrast (see tions in the Arabic (11. p. 883 sq., see
11. p. 5) ; (2) the mutilation of the end of above, p. 262). I have not reckoned ra
the Epistle to Polycarp in the Latin this enumeration mere collections of ex-
Version (see above, p. 1 24) ; (3) the open- tracts, whether Greek or Syriac (e. g. those
ing of the Epistle to the Romans in a of S, described above, p. 89 sq.), which
Monte Cassino MS (see p. 123), where no present no extraordinary features.

THE CURETONIAN LETTERS. 313
the Syriac abridgement might have been made as late as the early
decades of the sixth century.
The terminum ad quern being thus fixed, we have next to search
for the terminus 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. 89 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 tbe fourth century when these letters
were forged (see above, p. 245 sq., p. 260), 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. 85). 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
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. 145), seems to have used
this Syriac Version (see p. 146). But the identity of the person
bearing the name John is not made out beyond dispute ; and even
if my identification 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 literary society, which gathered about Pam-
philus, 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 Did. of Christ. Biogr. s.v. ' Euse
bius of Caesarea' pp. 320, 326, 332). The Festal Letters of Atha-

;3J4 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
nasius 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 publi
cation 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 Alexandria, with Timotheus -(Elurus (see above, p. 168), and
with Severus of Antioch (see pp. 25, 174, 181). There is therefore
no difficulty in supposing that the version of Ignatius was made at the '
time suggested. 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 abridgement was made, but in the absence of prior testimony to
its existence we are tempted to place it more than a century later.

THE GENUINENESS.

HPHE 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 abridgements 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 valid. Doubtless
many minor difficulties, which critics had discovered, or imagined that

316 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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

1 Ussher's Works xvi. p. 92 'Inciderat vulneribus, abstersit saniem, foedeque
nempe bonus iste viator Hierosolymitanus hiulca plagarum ora manu tenera fasciavit;
in latrones quosdam Hierochuntinos, qui ferequeexanimemvestrotyporumjumento
ilium non spoliarant modo sed misere imposuit ; ac communi denique ecclesiae
etiam peneque ad mortem vulnerarant ; hospitio, non sine maximis impensis, com-
praeterierant saucium ac fere moribundum mendavit.' Later on in the same letter
nescioquot Parked, Coci,Salmasii,aliique (p. 93) Hall writes, 'Bis martyrium passus
nuperae sectae coryphaei. ..vestra unius Ignatius noster; tua demum opera, praesu
pietatis [pietas ?], optimi instar Samaritae, honoratissime, reviviscit.'
vinum oleumque infudit tarn patentibus

THE GENUINENESS.

317

and Bentley1 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
Saunaaise, who had already on the eve of Ussher's discovery mingled
in the fray (see above, p. 228), again declared himself against the
Ignatian letters (Adparatus ad Libros de Primatu Papae, Lugd. Bat.
1 Bentley's Works n. p. 19 ' The most
excellent Bishop Pearson had designed a
new edition of Ignatius's Epistles witjhan
amplecommentary. 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 ymac cocjJlc&NTa. [Smyrn. 1]' etc.
•Jn Monk's Life of Bentley 11. p. 44
(ed.2, 1833) it is stated on the authority
of a contemporary letter, that a rumour
reachea\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 story it would be impossible

to say. We may conjecture however that
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. 1, 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 Works
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.
2 Waterland's Works HI. pp. 239 sq.,
262 sq. (ed. Van Mildert).

3 1 8 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
1645, quoted by Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 42). He was followed im
mediately (a.d. 1646) by Blondel (Apologia pro Sententia Hieronymi
de Episcopis et Presbyteris praef. p. 39 sq.). These writers now saw no
course open to them but to reject the Ignatian Epistles altogether.1
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 Dissertations!
Quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis et Primaevu AntU
quitate adstruuntur etc. (Lond. 1651). Hammond's work provoked a
reply from the London Ministers entitled Jus Divinum Ministerii
¦Evangelici 'published by the Provincial Assembly of London' 1654.
An individual minister also, Dr J. Owen, in a preface to The Saints'
Perseverance (1654) replied to Hammond. This elicited a rejoinder
from Hammond, An Answer 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
writings do not need any further notice.
A few years later appeared the famous work of Daille' De Scripth
quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiocheni nominibus 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 discriminate. The spirit of Daille's work is the reverse
of this. It is characterized throughout by deliberate confusion. Though
at tbe 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
1 Thus for instance he writes (c. xxiii) ; man to whom they are fictitiously ascribed,
1 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.theirown names;

THE GENUINENESS.

319

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,
dvta re Kal *caT<o tov ftdpftopov kvkuctiv.
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

Let wives, says he, honour their husbands
as their own 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
scribat) that there are many of their women
ipho desire to see Mary 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... Bat
their names, being unbelievers, I have not
thought fit to set down in writing ; nay
far be it from me 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,
Mehander, 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 Daily's treat
ment here. He first quotes from the
Vossian text of Smyrn. 5 rd Se bvbpara
avTwv, Svra airurra, ovk (So^i poi (yypd\pai
k.t.X., and then confronts the writer (the
same writer, as he styles him) with his
own inconsistency by referring to Trail.
n, 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 i-dogi
poi eyypd'pai, ' I have not thought fit at
the present moment 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.

320 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
probably by some Latin author (pp. 283, 438, 443, 474 sq.)? or that
a reference to evangelical narratives or incidents not contained in the
Canonical Gospels (Smyrn. 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 Smyrn. 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 (/. v. A. p. 239), who accept the Curetonian letters as
genuine, appear out of place ; for with very few exceptions Dailies
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 Epistolarum S. Ignatii, 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, no where 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 champion 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' (Magn. 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

THE GENUINENESS. 321
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 Ignatianae. 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. 268 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.
1 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. /. p. xiv sq.) its fountain-head and learnt from Bishops
reports that he heard from an English Blomfield and Kaye, that Porson had once
bishop then living that 'Porson, 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-
obtter 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 been investigated by the recent the genuineness of the Ignatian letters.
IG. I. 21

322 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

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 Irenaeus 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 questioned 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 difference 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 sufficient 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 GENUINENESS. 323
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 (koX aXXas ocras e*x°pw
irap' r}piv).' These, he adds, are subjoined to his own letter; and he
recommends them to the attention of tbe 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 Smyrnseans and to Polycarp (see above, p. 222). 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 Smyrna. 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 Smyrnaeans 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 Syria' is illustrated by the Ignatian
letters themselves. The Smyrnseans 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. n, Polyc. 7, 8). This explains the ex
pression ml ra irap' vpwv ypdppara, 'your letter also.' In the Ignatian
letters indeed the writer contemplates Polycarp sending some one else
21 — 2

324 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
(Polyc. 8 tov rrep.irovTOi avrov UoXvKdpwov) ; whereas Polycarp himself
regards the possibility of his going in person (Phil. 13 eire iya) e'reoV
irip.djo> irpeo-ftevcrovTa ko.1 irepl vpw). 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 (Smyrn. 11 6 eorr peer ft evTrjv, comp. Philad. 10 irpeo-ftevo-at
eKei ®eov irpecrfteiav) ; and accordingly Polycarp in the passage just
quoted uses the same language (irpeo-ftevcrovTa) 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 Testament, 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. 128) abundantly
show. But Polycarp is not the only Christian writer of the second century
who bears direct testimony to the Ignatian letters. Irekletjs also,'
writing from fifty to eighty years later (a.d. 175 — 190), quotes from
Rom. ,4 (see above, pp. 135, 139); 'As one of our people said when
condemned (KaTaKpiQel?) to wild beasts, I am the wheat of God, and I am
ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread! The
quotation here is direct and obvious. Daille however (p. 267, 434 sq.)
contends that the allusion is not to the passage in the Roman Epistle
but to some traditional saying of Ignatius, urging that Irenaeus writes
not scripsit, but dixit (elire). He appeals moreover to Jerome's ( Vir.
III. 16) statement1, 'Cumque jam damnatus esset ad bestias, ardorej
patiendi, cum rugientes audiret leones ait, Frumentum etc.,' as showing
that the words were uttered by Ignatius at the time of the martyrdom.
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, II. 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 Peat'
made a concession to the views of Daille, son Vind, Ign. p. 189,
so'far as regards Jeromerwhich the pas-

THE GENUINENESS.

325

this account of Ignatius depends solely on the passage of Eusebius
in which Irenaeus is quoted (see above, p. 148, n.'p. 377). If therefore
he supposed the words to have been spoken at the time of the martyr
dom, he has misinterpreted the elirev of Irenasus, which in itself would
apply equally well to written as to spoken words, though here in ac
cordance with the general usage of Irenseus applied to the former'.

1 If the interpretation of this refer
ence as applying to a written docu
ment be open to any objections, they
must lie either (1) against the word, "say1
instead of 'write,' or (2) against the
tense, 'said' instead of 'says.' But on
neither point can they be sustained.
(1) The common usage of Irenaeus is a
direct answer to the objection on the first
head. There must be from 800 to 1000
quotations, chiefly scriptural, in Irenaeus
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 ypaxpei or typatj/ev or
ytypaipev. The nearest approaches in the
Greek are i. 8. 4 irepl Tijs...o-vl~vylas ypd-
<pav tipr) said of S. Paul, i. 9. 4 6...Sia twv
OpijpiKav arlxav yparpav ovrus of a con
catenation of Homeric verses, and v. 33. 4
eyy/Kupus eiripaprvpet of Papias ; and in
the parts preserved only in Latin, v. 8. 1
'non enim erant sine came quibus scri-
bebat,' v. 13. 5 'hoc quod scribit.' In
these Latin passages ' scribere ' probably
represents ypa<peiv ; but we cannot feel
sure of this, since in iii. 3. 3 evfaraXev...
ypaipriv (of Clement) is rendered ' scripsit
literas.' Besides these expressions we
have in scriptural quotations occasionally,
but not frequently, yeypairrai 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 teyei, e\eyev, <ptj-
ob, etprjKev, elirev, and in the Latin dicit,

dicebat, dixit, inquit, ait, refert, with other
parts of these same verbs. Sometimes
again these forms are varied by paprvpei,
pipvirrai, pepijvvKev, Siiryeirat, £irefibi)o-ev,
and the like. With these facts before us, we
are justified in maintaining that Irenasus
would almost certainly not have used
ypatpeiv, when quoting Ignatius, and that
he would most probably have used elveiv
or Xiyeiv or some similar word.
(2) The rationale of the tenses in in
troducing quotations is as follows ; (i)
The present ' says ' (Xiyei, a>r\o-lv, 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 (etprjKev) is used in
the same way as the present, and always
implies a written document, (ii) On the
other hand the aorist * said ' (elirev, itp-cj)
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 iv ttj
aijTjj &ri(TTo\5 elirovra of S. Paul (comp. i.
3. 1), i. 8. 5 raXws ovv elirev of John the
Evangelist, i. 19. 1 elirovra of Isaiah, i.
18. 1 eireSei^ev eliriiv of Moses as the au
thor of Genesis. Accordingly in i. 8. 5,
in a succession of references to S. John's
Gospel, Irenaeus uses indifferently \4yei,
rpijo-lv, elirev, trpij, etprjKev, etc. So again,
when quoting Justin, he employs the
aorist in v. 26. 2 ko\us 0 'lovcrrivos Zaj-n,
but the present in iv. 6. 2 Kal Ka\as Tov-
arivos...<prjo-iv. So likewise in i. 8. 2

326 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
The same remark applies also to the writer of the Roman Acts of
Ignatius (see below, n. p. 377 sq.), who certainly makes Ignatius utter
these words in the arena (§ 10), and who likewise derived his infor
mation from Irenseus 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 Irena;us suggests
two further remarks. (1) 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 ftaXXdpevo's or ftXijOeh
eh Brjpia but KaraKpiOeis 7rpos Or/pia, and this exactly represents the
position of Ignatius when he wrote the epistle. (2) Secondly; the
preceding context of the passage in Irenaeus (extant only in the Latin)
indicates a knowledge of the Ignatian letter to the Romans, as the
comparison shows :

irvp Ka\ aravpos, Brjpiav re avtrra-
aeis, [dvaropai, biatpeaeis,\ aKopirirr-
pol oareav, ovyKoiral peXav, dXf 07101
bXov rov aaparos .... eir e/xe ipxeoSta-
aav, povov Iva 'irjaov Xpiarov imrvpi
(§ 5)-

Propterea tribulatio necessaria est
his qui salvantur, et quodammodo
contriti et attenuati et consparsi per
patientiam verbo Dei et igniti apti
sunt ad convivium regis. Quemad
modum quidam, etc.
Here the three words ' contriti, attenuati, consparsi,' correspond to the
three o-Kopmo-poi, o-vyKoirai, dXea-p.oi, 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. 135)
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 Trail. 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 vere se putant disputare, quando magister
eorum putativus fuit ? Aut quemadmodum firmum quid habere possunt ab
we meet with iv t# elireiv and iv to) Origen's quotation of Ignatius (see
elprjKhai in contiguous clauses introducing above, p. 136) 'memini aliquera sancto-
two successive quotations. rum dixisse ' is a close parallel. .

THE GENUINENESS. 327
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. 10, Smyrn. 2 — 5, more especially the latter,
will be evident at once. Not only is there the same insistence on the
extension of to So/my, 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 (6-qpia dvOpoy-
iropopdja, d)v veicpoc/jo'pos). Nor again does it seem to me altogether
accidental that Irenseus in the context (§ 8) lays stress on love
as paramount (' praecipuum dilectionis munus '), just as Ignatius does
(Smyrn. 6 to yap oAov io-riv tuttis koi dydirrj, eov oioiv irpOKeKpirai :
comp. Magn. 1 irioreeos re koX aycraTjs 57s ov&kv TrpoKeKpiTai) — both writers
taunting these heretics with their neglect of it (Smyrn. 6 ?repi otyaVr/s
ov jneAei airois, ib. 7 crvvecpepe oe aoTots aya7rav) and both contrasting it
(as it is contrasted in 1 Cor. viii. 1) either tacitly or explicitly with know
ledge (yi/oSo-is) which was the boast of these heretics. Nor again is it
insignificant that Irenseus, both here (§§ 9, 10) and when he resumes the
mention of these Docetics a little later (v. 1. 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 Bid tovto
koI ihiaxdrjo-av 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. 1. 1 ' et firme et vere') which
Ignatius uses elsewhere when alluding to these heretics (Magn. 1 1 irpax-
dlvra aAij&os Kal fteftaivs k.t.X.). Nor again does it seem to be a mere
fortuitous coincidence, that both Ignatius (Smyrn. 7) and Irenasus (v. 2.
z, 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 Irenaeus 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
m 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-

328 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
phorus 'the God-bearer' (comp. Ephes. 9 WvTes ®eo<pdpoi  Xpioro-
cpopoi) in these words of Irenasus? '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 limbs 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 direXaftov to
iSiov p.eye6os koX aireKaTecrTaBrj auTois to i8wv o-a>p,aTeiov). In short the
passages in Irenasus 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
Polycarp. Here then is the answer alike to Daille (pp. 257 sq., 270 sq., 433
sq.), who maintains that Irenasus 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
(Les 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 Ijmatius 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 Irenasus 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 Justin 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

THE GENUINENESS. 329
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. 318). 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 Irenssus
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 Irenssus, 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
letters. Asia Minor and Gaul were closely related both politically and eccle
siastically, as mother and daughter. Irenssus 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 Smyrnaeans, 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. 129) 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, 3, 'They that were condemned
to the wild beasts endured dreadful tortures (KoAa'o-eis)...for the devil
(0' StajSoAos) devised many things against them,' may be compared with
Rom. 5 'Let evil tortures of the devil (/coAao-eis tov SiaftoXov) attack me,
etc'; and § 6 'that he might make perfect his own lot (tov 18W KXijpov
diraprta-ri)' with Philad. 5 'Your prayer shall make me perfect (drrapncrei)
unto God that I may obtain the lot (kXtJp<o) wherein I found mercy.'
So also the expression in § 7 BeoTrpeiri) Trpeo-ftvrrjv reminds us of Smyrn.
12 6Wpe7r«s irpeo-ftvTepiov. Again the account of Polycarp's moral at
titude § 7 to £vo-Ta0es corresponds with Ignatius' charge to this same
person Polyc. 4 evo-rdOei, and the description of his final achievement
§ 17 io-Tedja.vap.evov tov Trys dcpBapcrias o-ricpavov and § 19 toV rijs depBap-
0-1'as o-Tedjavov diroXaftoiv with Ignatius' exhortation to him Polyc. 2
vr)$e (os ©eov dOXrrnji- Td Bepa dtpBaprria. With these coincidences
it would be somewhat sceptical to question a knowledge of the Igna-

33° EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
tian Epistles on the part of the author or authors of this letter of the
Smyrnssans1. 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 Smyrnssans, as perhaps we might have expected ; but they are
noticeable. One or two of these are given above, p. 133. Other coin
cidences are the metaphor of 8poo-i£,eo-Bai 'to be sprinkled with dew,
refreshed' (§ 6, comp. Magn. 14), of the ' birth-pangs' of martyrdom (§ 13
docrirep wSivmv, comp. Rom. 6 o To/ceTos p.01 iix'iKeirai), of a 'woven crown' of
human beings (§11 eva irXegavres o-recpavov, comp. Magn. 13 dgioirXoKov
wvevpaTiKov o-recpdvov), of the 'fragrance' and the 'ointment' of Christ
(§ 10, comp. Ephes. 17). So again they have certain words and phrases
in common, as ava^ojTropeii' (§ 12, comp. Ephes. 1), evo-w eiSip-o^ (§ 11,
comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 6), Brjpimv ftopd (§ n, comp. Rom. 4), 01V0-
vopia ®eov (§ 10, comp. Ephes. 18), iviSpa of Satan (§ 4, comp. Trail.
8, Philad. 6), KXrjpos of martyrs (§§ 3, 7, n, comp. Rom. 1, Trail. 12,
Philad. 5), ireirio-Tevpevog 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 yvtjo-ios Xpio-ToC paSf-
rrj';, comp. Rom. 4 /xadfyrrys dXrjBr}<; tov Xpicrrov), and in both the prayers
of those addressed are asked that the petitioners may be crowned with
martyrdom (§ 17, Trail. 12, Rom. 4). In like manner there is a striking
resemblance of diction, though the subject is somewhat different,
between § 6 avoypBioBrj to o-iapdriov...Kal ty)v ioeav diriXafte ttjv irporepav,
and Smyrn. n direXaftov to tStov piyeBos Kal direKaTeo-TdBrj avTOis to
tSiov croipdriov [cruipaTeiov].
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 Smyrnaean Church and of
her Gallican dependencies is of supreme importance in deciding the
question of their genuineness.
1 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-

THE GENUINENESS. 331
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 character1. 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
incident3; 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 contemporaries3. 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
129. 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. Cels. iii. 18 (quoted by Bemays,
the Christians. p. 53) demands the same immunity
2 It is however doubted by Baur Die for the Christians in this respect which
drei ersten Jahrhunderte p. 396. was accorded to certain Cynics {rav Ku-
3 The resemblance is noted by Aris- vikQv rives Srjpoo-la irpbs rovs iraparvyxa-
tides Op. II. p. 402, who speaks of the vovras SidXeyopevoi). The picture which
Cynics as tois iv r% UaXaiarlvrj Svo-aefsio-i Dion Chrysostom (Orat. 8, p. 276 sq., ed.
irapuir\r)iru>i tous rpoirovs, 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
Bemays (p. 31) remarks on the strict same place and on a similar occasion.

332 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Christians1.
We are concerned solely with his ideas respecting the Christians and
their doings. His knowledge of the two chief languages of Christenr
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 tov iv Hvpia SeOeWa,
comp. Ephes. 1 SeSe/teVov drrd Svptas). After some vicissitudes and
wanderings he 'thoroughly mastered the marvellous wisdom of the Chris
tians in Palestine, associating with their priests and scribes (tois Itpim
ko.1 ypappjxrevcriv airdiv).' So apt a scholar was he, that he rose to pre
eminence as their 'prophet and band-leader and synagogue-convener'
(irpoajrjTrj<i koX BiacrapxiT; Kal g\>vayu>yevs). 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
(irpoo-TaTTiv) . 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 called2 — and orphan children might be seen waiting
about the doors of the prison ; while their officers (01 ev TeXei ai/rov), 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 (\dyoi iepol avrav eXeyovro) : 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-
1 Bernays seems to have shown that stands. In the former he alludes to the
Lucian's satire was aimed directly at the order of widows (1 Tim. v. 9); and it is
Cynics and only glanced incidentally at worthy of notice that Ignatius himself
the Christians. salutes the widows at Smyrna (Smyrtt. 13
2 This is the force of ypfdia xipo-s see the note II. p. 323 sq.), from whom
rivas. So again lower down (§ 41) we probably when a. prisoner there he had
have SiadrjKas rivds. In both cases Lu- received attentions similar to those which
cian uses technical terms of the Chris- the widows are represented by Lucian as
tians, which he only imperfectly under- paying to Peregrinus.

THE GENUINENESS. 333
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 (<cal
KaTa<JjpoKoOo-t toC Bavdrov) and the greater part of them give themselves
up voluntarily (eKovres aiirovs iiribiboaaiv ol iroXXoi).'
Peregrinus was ultimately released. After other vicissitudes he went
forth again on his wanderings, drawing ample supplies from the Chris
tians (iKavd icpdciia e^ow tous xpioTiavovs), ' by whom he was attended
as by a body-guard (v<j> <5i> 8opv<popovp.evo<;), 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 (tC. . . io-BCwv tc3v aVopprfroov airois). 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 (biaBrJKas nvas) and admonitions and laws : and certain
of his companions he nominated (ixeiporovrjae) 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 (irpocp-qTrp; ko.1 Biacr-
dpxjj% xal ^waycoyevs), 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

334. EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 Cie-.
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 phcenix 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 p. 167 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 Baur1
and Renan2. 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 11. Christus p. he is silent on this subject.
137 sq., republished \n Drei Abhandlungen 2 See especially Les 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, L a-
shows. In Die drei Ersten fahrhun- glise Chrltienne p. 4651 Marc Aurllc
derte p. 395 sq. when discussing Lucian, p. 376.

THE GENUINENESS. 335
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. 275) ; 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
many.' 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. 133 sq.)1.
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. 134) 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
removed. ' Towards the middle of the third century Origen again furnishes us
with precise evidence (see above, p. 136). Besides two direct quota
tions (Rom. 7, Ephes. 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
1 To the coincidences quoted above tullian (see de Anim. 55); and the Igna-
(p. 135) from the 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 constitutos, sed in this father also. Thus the parallels in
Dei'; comp. Polyc. 7 xptariavbs eavrov the one tend to confirm the inference
liovolav ouk txii dX\a 0e£ o^oXafet. This drawn from the parallels in the other.
document is closely connected with Ter-

336 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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. 274, 276).
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 however
we have one quotation, though not by name, in Peter of Alexandria
(see above, p. 137). 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. 136).
Eusebius of C^sarea 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. 276) 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. 137 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

THE GENUINENESS. 337
(t a.d. 828), adds to his Chronography a Stichometria or list of the
Books of the Old and New Testament with the number of oti'xoi or
verses in each. This list comprises three divisions : (1) The Canonical
books universally received by the Church (0etai ypacpai eKKXrjo-iat,dp.evai
koi KeKavovurpevai). (2) ' Those which are disputed ' (oo-ai armXeyovTai).
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 Testaments (oo-a diroKpvtpa Tfjs
TraXaias, 00a ttJs veas airoKpvcpa.).
Under this third head the Old Testament list is made up of such
books as Enoch, the Twelve Patriarchs, Eldad and Modad, etc., ending
with 10. Of Zachariah the father of John, 500 verses.
11. Of Baruch, Habakuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel, spurious works
(^eu8e7riypaoia).
In like manner the New Testament list, which will be found above
(p. 213), ends,
6. Of Clement the First and Second (Epistles)1, 2600 verses.
7. Of Ignatius, Polycarp, the Shepherd, and Hermas.
On this passage DaiHe" (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 reputa
tion. Therefore his opinion reflects the feeling 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
condemn at one breath all the writings of the three Apostolic Fathers,
Clement2, Ignatius, and Polycarp, though not a single writer before
¦b 1 The text, as read by Pearson ( Vind. Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons p.
Ign.o. 128), ran KXrjpevros X/3j but no 122.
explanation could be given of these 31 2 Inconsistently with the conjecture
books. Pearson therefore (p. 130) con- mentioned in the last note, Pearson
jectured, ' Quid si pro AB legamus AB... (p. I54sq.) maintains that in the instances
et duas Clementis Epistolas intelliga- of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, not
mus'? His conjecture has since been the extant Epistles but a SiSaxn or
1 confirmed by manuscript authority ; see SiSao-KaXla in each case is meant (see,
IG. I. 22

338 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
(iKKpiTav) 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. 213) as authoritative against
his adversaries. It is therefore certain that whatever else he may have
meant by including Ignatius among the Apocrypha, he cannot have
intended to condemn the Ignatian letters as spurious. But again,
(iii) The classification itself shows that 'apocryphal' (diroKpvoja)
here is not a synonyme for 'spurious.' The writings under discussion
are classed either as (1) 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).
Again the Shepherd of Hermas is quoted as in some sense Scripture by
Irenasus and others, and was treated as such in some churches (see
Harnack Proleg. p. xiv sq.). So likewise 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
above, p. 250 sq.). He supports this Clement we know; but no record is, pre
view by an appeal to another list of served of any ascribed either to Polycarp
canonical and uncanonical books found in or to Ignatius. We must therefore sup-
some MSS (Barocc. 206, Reg. Paris. 1789; pose (what indeed the inversion of its
see Cotelier Patr. Apost. 1. p. 197 (1724), position suggests) that some ill-informed
Hody de Bibliorum Textibus p. 649, transcriber added the word bioanaWn. in
Westcott History of the Canon, p. 550), the two latter cases.
which includes among the Apocrypha The fact that our author (whether
Ka'. AiSao-KaXla KX-qpivros Nicephorus or another) separates 'the
Kp. 'lyvariov SiSao-KaXla Shepherd' from 'Hernias' betrays his
Ky. LXoXvKdpirov SiSao-KaXla. ignorance of some at least of the writings
Of such a work bearing the name of of which he speaks.

TPIE GENUINENESS. 339
therefore are excluded by name from the Canon in this Stichometria.
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. 103). But probably the notice in Nicephorus refers to some
wider use, known to him either directly or indirectly. It is indeed
plain that diroKpvcpa 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 diroKpvcpa does not necessarily imply spuriousness,
though it frequently connotes this idea. Hence Nicephorus himself in
the Old Testament list, as quoted already (p. 337), when he wants to
describe certain writings as forgeries, uses another word, xj/evSeiriypacpa.
The term drroKpvcpa, 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
ypdppara o' ovx eiXio-crav diroicpvcpa (Ammon. S.V. ypdppa). As referring
to Christian books, the word passes through the following stages of
meaning. (1) 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.) oiv Tiva cr<dt,eTai iv diroKpv<poi<s ... iv ovoevl tojv cpave-
pav ftiftXiav yey pappeva...ev tivl diroKpvtpip tovto cpeperai (of Isaiahs
being sawn asunder), Comm. in Matt. x. § 18 (Op. in. p. 465) d owi/p
e8i'Sa£e paprvpiov, (us dlpai, ypacorj prj <pepop.evrj ev tois koit/ois Kai oeorj-
pevpevois ftiftXiois, eocds Se oti iv diroKpvcpoi'; cpepopievy (of the murder
ofZacharias the son of Barachias), Didym. Alex. Fragm. in Act. p. 1669
(ed. Migne) iireiSij Se ovk elprrrai irov iv Tats oeor/pocrievpevais
pi/JAois, iv drroKpv<pois Xeyerat otl iv tco irapaoeicrip (of the translation
of Enoch). (2) But, inasmuch as such books were especially affected
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. 1 dp.v6rjTov irXrjBos diroKpvdjiov koX voBwv
ypatpav as otjtoi errXaorav, Tertull. de Pudic. 10 'inter apocrypha 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
22 — 2

340 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
and were placed in the hands of the initiated alone ; see Clem. Strom. \.
15 (p. 357) ftiftXovs diroKpvdjovs TavSpds TOvSe ol ttjv Upo8tKov pxriovrK
aipecriv ai^owi KeKrrjcrBai, 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 Prologus Galeatus classes such books as the Wisdom of Jesus the Son
of Sirach ' inter apocrypha,' adding in explanation ' non sunt in Canone';
and that in the so-called Decretwti Gelasii (Credner zur Geschichte da
Kanons 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 Nicephorus1. If so, Nicephorus must
have appended to his Chronology this pre-existing document 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 Nicephorus himself.
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.

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.
1 See Credner /. c. p. 100 sq.

THE GENUINENESS. 341
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 Personality of the Writer ; and (vi) The Style and
Diction, of the Letters.
(i) Historical and Geographical Circumstances.
The condemnation 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 believed 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 question1. 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
populace (see Friedlander Sittengeschichte Roms 11. pp. 127, 142, 188,
222)". After his second Dacian triumph in a.d. 106 he celebrated
1 Les Evangiles p. 486 ' Ce fait [the corporibus amor laudis et cupido victoriae
existence of these letters] sufnt pour cerneretur. Quam deinde in edendo libe-
prouver la realite du martyre d'lgnace ralitatem, quam justitiam exhibuit, omni
etc.'; see also p. x sq. affectione aut intactus aut major. Im-
2 The language in which the younger petratum est quod postulabatur ; obla-
Pliny (Paneg. 33, 34) commends Trajan turn quod non postulabatur'. The in
fer these exhibitions is highly instructive; human savagery of this wholesale blood-
' Visum estspectaculum... quod ad pulchra shed does not for a moment trouble the
; vulnera contemptumque mortis accende- panegyrist. The emperor is lauded be
ret, cum in servorum etiam noxiorumque cause he gave the people more of it than

342 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
I
games which lasted a hundred and twenty-three days, and in which
about n,ooo 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, as a favour to the people, to release persons
condemned to wild-beasts ; but, if they are of such strength or skill that
they would make a worthy spectacle for the Roman people, he ought to
consult the emperor1. 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 emperor2.'
This passage implies, (1) That persons condemned to wild-beasts,
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 cases3.
they asked for. Pliny's panegyric was hiberi possint, principem consulere debet.
written before the Dacian triumph, and he Ex provincia autem in provincial trans-
is therefore referring to the earliest years duci damnatos sine permissu pnncipis
of Trajan's reign. non licere divus Severus et Antoninus
1 Not for leave to send them to Rome, rescripserunt '.
as Hilgenfeld supposes (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. 3 Renan (Les Evangiles 0. 487, note 1)
Theol. xvn.p.99), but for leave to release writes, 'Si ejus roboris vel artificii sint
them, as the context shows. ut digne populo Romano exhiberi possunt,
2 Digest, xlviii. 19.31 ' Idem [Modes ti- Digeste I.e. Cette coutume ne com-
ntu] libro tertio de Poenis. Ad bestias menca d' etre abolie que par Antonin .
damnatos favore populi praeses dimittere Hereis a double mistake ; (i)Tnepracu
non debet ; sed si ejus roboris vel arti- which was abolished or rather restnc
ficii sint ut digne populo Romano ex- by the rescript in question, was the pra

THE GENUINENESS. 343
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 probabilities 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.
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-
tice of sending these human victims into 198 — A.D. 211, during which period they
another province to meet their death, were joint emperors. Zahn (/. v. A.
and had nothing to do with sending them p. 65) is correct on the first point, but he
to Rome. (2) The Antoninus meant is explains the emperors as Antoninus
not Antoninus Pius or M. Aurelius, as (Pius) and (Septimius or Alexander) Se-
Renan evidently supposes, but Antoninus verus. Hilgenfeld falls into the first error
Caracalla, the son and colleague of Seve- (Apost. Vdter p. 216) and into the second
rus, and therefore dates between a.d. (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 99). -

344 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
vincial without rank or position, a religious fanatic, whose delusion
would soon be scattered to the winds like 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 ot ko.1 evepyerovp.evoi ^ei/jous y'cvovrai (see II. p. 213)1. A
prisoner smarting under his grievances naturally dwells on the dark side
of the picture. It does not occur to him to reflect what interpretation
will be put upon his impulsive utterances by critics in their study some
centuries afterwards.
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. 129 sq.). The chief passage, which has been translated
already (p. 332 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 2, crowd about the prison doors at early dawn
for admittance. The officers of the Christian brotherhood bribe the
1 Perkin Warbeck in captivity writes 2 The fidelity of the picture is shown
thus to his mother ; ' Ma mere, je vous by this touch. The widows in the ancient
prie, que me voelliez envoier un petit de Church had charge of the orphans and
argent pour moi aidier, ann que mes would therefore be accompanied by them;
gardes me soient plus amiables en leur comp. Hermas Vis. ii. 3 Vpaim) ok vovSi-
donnant quelque chose ' (Gairdner's Life rrjcrei Tas xvPas "<d T0"s op<pavois, and see
and Reign of Richard the Third p. 385). the note on Smyrn. 12 (11. p. 3")-

THE GENUINENESS. 345
keepers and thus are 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. 332 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
view. 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. 3 1, Phil. i.
12 sq.). But even to the close of the era of persecutions, when the
rapid growth of the Church 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. 1) 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 (ets pio-BairoSocriav tS>v cn-paT<.ci>T<iV), so that
his condition maybe alleviated (see 11. p. 213). Accordingly we find
in the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas (about a.d. 202), that two of the
martyrs, 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., n 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

346 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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, history 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,
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 Gods 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 me"
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 s3'>
373).

THE GENUINENESS. 347
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
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?2
1 Froude's Bunyan p. So sq. ' His was again allowed to go abroad through
gaoler, not certainly without the sanction general connivance. He spent his nights
of the sheriff, let him go where he pleased; with his family. He even preached now
once even so far as London  Friends, and then in the woods.' Offor's Works
in the first place, had free access to him, of John Bunyan (1862) 1. p. xc ' His
and strangers were drawn to him by re- Majesty continued to keep him a prisoner
putation ; while the gaol was considered for preaching more than six months after
a private place, and he was allowed to he had licensed him to preach ! ! '
preach there, at least occasionally, to his 2 ' About a year before he [John Bun-
fellow-prisoners  This was not all. A yan] was set at liberty, he received a very
fresh and more severe Conventicle Act popular work, written by Edward Fowler,
was passed in 1670. Attempts were made a Bedfordshire clergyman, who was soon
to levy fines in the town of Bedford. after elevated to the see of Gloucester...
There was a riot there. The local officers In the almost incredibly short time of
refused to assist in quelling it. The shops forty-two days, he, in jail, composed an
were shut. Bedford was occupied by answer consisting of 118 pages of small
soldiers. Yet at this very time, Bunyan quarto, closely printed... Of some of Mr

348 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
From the circumstances of the condemnation and captivity 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 Maeander, he did not con
tinue along the valley of the Maeander, 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
referred to the exegetical and historical bearings of this fact (see
above i. pp. 2, 33 sq., and below, 11. pp. 2, 211, 241, 251, 262, 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. 383, 480 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
majorityof critics — eventheablest — until quiterecent times, notwithstand
ing that Eusebius had represented the matter correctly (H. E. iii. 36 rr]v &'
'Aoias dvaKopiSrjv). Only when the spuriousness of the Antiochene Acts
came to be generally acknowledged, was the journey by land recog-
Fowler's sentiments he says, "Here are fiance permitted to Bunyan ?
pure dictates of a brutish, beastly man, * The most original and valuable part
that neither knows himself nor one tittle of Zahn's important work Ignatius vm
of the Word of God"... "I know none Antiochien relates to this point (p. 15°
so wedded thereto as yourselves, even the sq.) ; but so far as I have observed, it has
whole gang of your rabbling counterfeit been entirely ignored by the opponents
clergy ; who generally, like the ape you of the genuineness of these Ignatian
speak of, lie blowing up the applause and letters. Zahn indeed treats the subject
glory of your trumpery, " etc. Offer's chiefly on the negative side, as answering
Works of John Bunyan p. lxxx sq. objections ; but it has also the highest
Is there anything half so incredible in the positive value, as exhibiting a mass ol
attitude and treatment of Ignatius, as undesigned coincidences which cannot fan
this liberty of action and license of de- to influence opinion when duly weighed

THE GENUINENESS. 349
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 n. 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 ' (ov'x <os irapoBevovra), and adds
that ' even those which did not lie on his route (ai prj irpocnjKovo-ai poi
•j-j) o'8(3 ttJ Kara o-dpKa) went before him from city to city (/cara itoXlv pe
irpoijyov).' No natural interpretation can be put on these words 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 (Ephes. 1, 2, Magn. 2, 6, Trail. 1). 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.' (eKpavyacra peragv mv, iXdXovv px.yd.Xrj cpiovrj k.t.X.). But even
this language is not quite clear, as the words peragv 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, peragv <Lv iXdXovv 'in the midst of what I was
saying' (see the note, 11. p. 267) \ Again in § 6 he writes, 'I thank
1 Bunsen makes strange havoc of this He translates iKpavyaaa pera^v av, ' Ich
expression (Ignatius v. Antiochien p. 72). schrieb einen Brief, als ich unter ihnen

350 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
my God that I bear a good conscience among you (eijo-weioyds eipi
iv vplv), 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 ' (imnKoXovOrjo-av
p.oi). But it appears from the context that these two persons were enter
tained 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.
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
inferential. 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
war,' and he accordingly suggests that the very words occur (§ 6), apparently
the words which follow, rip iirurKoira forgetting that this letter purports to nave
irpoo-ixeTe k.t.X., may refer to a charge been written from Troas.
given in the Epistle to Polycarp, where

THE GENUINENESS. 35 1
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.
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. r, 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. 1). 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. 1, 5, 6)\ Of two
1 The name Onesimus was not un- which the Christians were chiefly re-
common in the ranks of society from cruited; see below, II. p. 32. ¦ Daille

352 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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
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 (evx°riat '"'o.pape'ivai avrdv) 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. n, Smyrn. 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 Smyrnseans 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 Jaannis pp. 226, 244 sq.;
see below, 11. 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. i3>
(p. 316) assumes that the Onesimus of the Onesimus of Melito, whose existence
Ignatius is the Onesimus of S. Paul, and shows the frequency of the name and
accordingly finds an anachronism in these therefore the futility of his argument
epistles. He seems to have overlooked respecting the Ignatian Onesimus.

THE GENUINENESS. 353
Polyc. 8). In both passages he speaks of her as ' that name beloved by
me (to iroBrjTov p.01 ovopa).' The name Alee, though rare, is especially
connected with Smyrna in an inscription, as I have pointed out (ii.
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 ' (Mart. Polyc. 1 7 t6V too 'Hpco'Soo irarepa, doeXrpdv
Se'AXiojs). 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 (§ 17), 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 Smyrnaean 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 ttjv totj 'EttitpoVou crvv oXm t<3 oikw aoi^s
xal tw TtKvav). As I have pointed out in the note on the passage (11.
P- 359)) we should not improbably treat too eWpdVou 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 ' (iiriTpoiros) in connexion
IG. I. 23

354 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
with Smyrna. Moreover the expression itself suggests relations which
a forger was not likely to invent. Salutations are sent not only to her
own 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 Smyrnseans, 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 Smyrnsean 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. dell'
Istit. Archeol. 1867, p. 48, dapnvs asiaticvs, quoted in Devit Lexic.
Forcell. Onomast. s. v. Daphnus) as borne by a native of proconsular
Asia. 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 Smyrnssans, 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, Smyrn.
ri, Polyc. 7), and he speaks of this altered state of things as an answer
to the prayers of the Philadelphians and Smyrnseans. 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 ' (dirrjyyeXr,) to him (Philad.
10); in another that it had been 'shown' (iorjXcdBrj) 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, Denzinger 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 con
demning the letters on the very ground that recourse is had to super
natural 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. 351). Thus we find that they were entertained first at Philadelphia
(Philad. n) and then at Smyrna (Smyrn. 10, 13). As he had already

THE GENUINENESS. 355
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. 350 sq.). It appears also that, though Philo and Agathopus
were kindly received by the Philadelphians generally, yet 'certain persons
treated them contumeliou sly ' (aVip.ao-avTes). The party which showed
its hostility to Ignatius himself was not likely to entertain any cordial
feelings towards his followers. Of the coincidence 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. 375,
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 Smyrnaeans, both in the epistle addressed to
the Smyrnsean 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
Smyrnsean 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 Smyrnseans the object in sending a delegate is distinctly
stated (Smyrn. n o-vyxaprjvai allots k.t.X.), but nothing is said about
the qualifications of the person to be sent. In the Epistle to Polycarp
on the other hand the object of the mission is mentioned in such vague
terms (Polyc. 7 Iva... Bogdo-rj vpuov ttjv doKvov dydirrpi) 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
 tne Epistle to the Smyrnseans. 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
23 — 2

356 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
of his hurried departure from Troas (§ 8). On the other hand in the
case of the Smyrnsean letter, likewise written from Troas, there is no
indication that his sojourn there was drawing to a close. Again, in the
Smyrnsean letter there is mention of the Ephesian Burrhus as still
remaining with him and acting as his amanuensis (Stnyrn. 1 2). In the
letter to Polycarp there is no such mention. Burrhus seems to have
left him meanwhile'.
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. 383 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 Igna
tius is here represented as a condemned man, sent to Rome, not like
S. Paul, to be tried on appeal, but to be executed as a criminal2. 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 Flavius 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
1 See Zahn, I. v. A. p. 282. xarcUpiTos, but 5o0\os, is illustrated by
2 Kraus (Theolog. Quartalschr. 1873, Digest, xlviii. 19. 29 'Qui ultimo sup-
p. 131) attempts to controvert the correct plicio damnantur, statim et civitatem et
view maintained by Uhlhorn, that Igna« libertalem perdunt ; itaque praeoccupat
tius was sent to Rome for punishment as hie casus mortem et nonnunquam longum
a condemned criminal. He is fully an- tempus occupat, quod accidit in perstmu
swered by Wieseler Christenverfolgungen eorum qui ad bestias damnantur ' (quoted
p. 120 sq. The language of Ignatius in by Wieseler p. 133).
Rom. 4, where he calls himself not only

THE GENUINENESS. 357
herself also own niece of Domitian1. 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
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 like 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
1 On the subject of Flavius Clemens dix p. 257 sq. This is the subject also
and Flavia Domitilla, and generally on the of two recent articles by Hasenclever,
spread of Christianity among persons of Christliche Proselyten der hoheren Stdnde
rank in Rome at this time, see Philip- im ersten Jahrhundert, in Jahrb.f. Pro-
pianso. 2isq., Clement of Rome, Appen- test. Theol. 1882, p. 34sq., p. 230 sq.

358 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
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 (n. p. 203).
Again ; the writer evidently assumes throughout that the Roman
Christians are aware of his present condition, and might already be
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 ' (§ 10), 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. 416 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 (Polyc. 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. n)>
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. Phil. 1, 9> x3/
before setting out for Rome. Elsewhere (Philippians p. 38) data are
given from which it appears that the journey from ¦ Philippi to Rome

THE GENUINENESS. 359
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 Csesar,
was proclaimed imperator, and was associated in the tribunician power
(see below 11. p. 397). 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. 473)- 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) Theological 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 two-fold, positive and negative.
We shall have to consider alike what the author says and what he leaves
unsaid. In the present case, as we shall see presently, the writer's silence
is not less eloquent than his speech.
(i) The positive side of the investigation yields results of real
importance. The author has before him a particular heresy or heresies
which he attacks relentlessly from all sides. Anticipating the issue, we
may say that the heresy is one, and that it is a type of Gnostic Judaism,
the Gnostic element manifesting itself in a sharp form of Docetism.
(a) This Gnostic or Docetic element is the chief object of attack,
and gives their predominant doctrinal colouring to these epistles. The
Docetism which is here assailed was thorough-going. For the man
Christ Jesus it substituted a mere phantom. The human descent, the
human birth, the baptism, the trial, the judgment, the crucifixion, the
passion, the resurrection, all alike were unreal, were phantasmal. Hence
our author's emphatic repetition of the word truly (dXrjBS.%) ; ' He was
truly born', 'He truly died', 'He truly ate and drank', and the like
(Troll. 9, Smyrn. r, 2, 3, Magn. n). More especially he points to the

360 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
fact that Christ Himself after the resurrection invited the disciples to feel
and handle Him, so as to convince them that He was not an unsubstan
tial ghost (Smyrn. 3). These persons therefore denied the flesh and
blood of Christ ; they evacuated the passion ; they found a stumbling-
block in the cross (Ephes. 18, Magn. 9, Philad. 3, Smyrn. 1, 5, 6).
The true believers are they who accept the reality of Christ's humanity.
who take refuge in His flesh, who rejoice in His passion, who are nailed
to His cross (Ephes. inscr. ev rrdBei dXrjOivw, Magn. n, Trail. 2, 8,
Philad. inscr., 5, Smyrn. 1). Even impalpable, spiritual beings, like
the angels, cannot be saved unless they believe in Christ's blood
(Smyrn. 6). If Christ is mere semblance (to BoKelv), then everything is
semblance ; the martyr's own sufferings are semblance ; they themselves,
the heretics, are semblance (Trail. 10, Smyrn. 2, 4). Whosoever denies
Christ's flesh, denies Him altogether. Such persons are corpse-bearers.
Having no belief in the passion, they have no part in the resurrection
(Smyrn. 5). Hence the stress laid elsewhere on Christ's humanity, even
when there seems to be no obvious reason for such stress (see the notes
on Ephes. 18, 20, Rom. 7, Smyrn. 4).
(ft) On the other hand he denounces in hardly less severe language
Judaizing tendencies in the false teachers. He bids his readers put away
the old and sour leaven. He declares that it is inconsistent (arardi>) to
profess Jesus Christ and to live as Jews (Magn. 10). He warns them.
(herein treading in the footsteps of S. Paul) that if they so live they
forfeit all claims to grace (Magn. 8). He points out that even men who
are brought up in Judaism (meaning doubtless the Apostles and early •
disciples) had discarded tbe Jewish sabbath and adopted in its stead
the freedom, the spirituality, the hopes and associations, of the Lord's
day. Nay, the very prophets themselves looked forward to Christ; and
so, when He came, He raised them from Hades. It would therefore be
a retrogression and a reversal of the true order, if they who had not
been so brought up were to submit to the slavery of the law (Magn. 9).
Elsewhere again, he forbids his readers to listen to those who ' propound
Judaism', It is better, he adds, to listen to Christianity from one
circumcised than to Judaism from one uncircumcised (Philad. 6). He
describes his conflict with those who refused to accept in the Gospel
anything which they did not find in the ancient Scriptures. He declares
the superiority of the High-priest of the New Covenant over the priests
of the Old. He asserts that Jesus Christ is the door of the Father,
through whom patriarchs and prophets, not less than apostles, enter in.
The Gospel, he concludes, is the completion of immortality (Philai<
8,9).

THE GENUINENESS. 361
Is our author then denouncing two distinct heresies, a Judaic or
Ebionite, and a Gnostic or Docetic, in these respective passages ? Or
is he concerned only with a single though complex form of false doc
trine? A careful examination of the main passages will enable us to
answer this question decisively. Though in the Trallian and Smyrnsean
letters he deals chiefly with Docetism, while in the Magnesian and
Philadelphian letters he seems to be attacking Judaism (see 11. p. 173),
yet a nearer examination shows the two to be so closely interwoven
that they can only be regarded as different sides of one arid the same '
heresy. In the first place, it is a significant fact that our author uses the
same general terms when speaking of the one and of the other. Of the
Judaism and the Docetism alike he says that they are not ' the planting
of the Father' (Trail, n, Philad. 3); both alike are rank and noxious
weeds which his readers must avoid (Trail. 6, Philad. 3). The teachers
of the one and of the other are described as ' speaking apart from,
speaking otherwise than of, Jesus Christ' (Trail. 9, Philad. 6); both
alike are warned to ' repent unto unity ', ' to repent unto God ' (Philad.
8, Smyrn. 9). The Judaism and the Docetism equally are called
'heterodoxy' (Magn. 8, Smyrn. 6). In both cases equally he bids his
readers ' Be not deceived ' (Magn. 8, Smyrn. 6, Philad. 3 ; comp.
Ephes. 16) ; he charges them to 'flee division ' (Philad. 2, 7, Smyrn. 8) ;
and he tells them in identical language that he does not speak because
he accuses them of complicity in these errors (Magn. n, Trail. 8),
but because he wishes to 'forewarn7 them (Magn. 11, Trail. 8, Smyrn.
4). And generally it may be said that there is no perceptible difference
in his language when describing the position of the false-teachers in the
two cases with regard to the true believer and to the Church. These
facts furnish a strong presumption that he is describing the same thing
in the two sets of passages.
And this presumption becomes a certainty when we examine more
closely the passages in which Judaism is directly attacked.
In the passage in the letter to the Magnesians (§§ 8, 9, 10) the
author begins by warning his readers 'not to be led astray by hete
rodoxies nor by antiquated fables (pvBevpacrw tow iraXaidis) which are
unprofitable'; 'for', he continues, 'if to the present hour (pe"xPl
, vvv) we live in the observance of Judaic rites (Kara 'lovBdicrpAv), we
confess that we have not received grace,' i. e. that the merits of Christ's
death do not appertain to us, for we have chosen another way of
working out our salvation. By the expression 'antiquated fables' or
'myths' we are reminded of the language in the Pastoral Epistles;

o

62 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

' endless fables (p-vBois) and genealogies ' (1 Tim. i. 4), ' profane and
old wives' fables' (1 Tim. iv. 7), 'turning aside to fables' (2 Tim. iv. 4),
'Judaic fables and commandments of men that turn away from the
truth' (Tit. i. 14). Thus a closely allied form of Gnostic Judaism is
suggested, which taught by myths or fables — the main subject of these
myths being (as in the later systems of Valentinus and others) the
genealogy of angelic beings or emanations, which were intended to
bridge over the chasm between God and the World. Accordingly our
author goes on to convict these false teachers by the prophets whose
authority they themselves would accept. These very prophets antici
pated the dispensation of redemption and grace, and for this they
suffered persecution. They were inspired with this foreknowledge to
the end that unbelievers in these days might be convinced that there is
one God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, His
Word who issued forth from Silence and fulfilled His Father's good-
pleasure in all things. Thus here, as in the Epistle to the Colossians
(i. 15 sq., ii. 8 sq.), and again in the Pastoral Letters of S. Paul (1 Tim.
ii. 5), the true doctrine of the Logos Incarnate, as the one only link be
tween the Creator and the creature, the one only Mediator between God
and man, is tacitly contrasted with these many mediators whom the
angelologies and emanation-theories of these false teachers interposed
to span the gulf between the finite and the Infinite. Our author next
adverts to the fact that persons brought up in the practices of the law
had abandoned the observance of the sabbaths, and that even the
prophets had looked forward to Christ as their teacher. Incidentally
he mentions that Christ's death was denied by certain persons, obviously
meaning these Docetic teachers, as his language elsewhere clearly shows.
Then, after further charging his readers to put away the old and sour
leaven, and denouncing the inconsistency of Judaizing practices, he goes
on to inform them that he does not say these things, because he supposes
them to have gone astray in this way ; but he wishes to forewarn them
against the snares of false opinion. They must be fully convinced of the
birth and passion and resurrection of Christ, for these things truly and
certainly came to pass. Clearly therefore the false teachers, who
inculcated Judaism, inculcated Docetism likewise. Thus, though he
speaks only of one heresy, yet, having begun by denouncing Judaizing
practices, he ends by denouncing Docetic opinions. There is no
escape from this conclusion. The one cannot be disentangled from the
other -without the whole falling to pieces. They are web and woof of
the same fabric1. 1 See also the notes on the passage, II. p. 124 sq.

THE GENUINENESS. 363
In the other letter which deals directly with Judaism, the Epistle
to the Philadelphians, the inference is the same. In the opening he
congratulates his readers, because they ' rejoice in the passion and
resurrection of Christ without wavering, being fully convinced ' of it.
He urges them to be united with their bishop and presbyters. Then,
after eulogising their bishop (§ 1), he warns them to avoid division and
false doctrine, and to abstain from baneful weeds — not that he accuses
them of heresy, for hitherto they have kept themselves clear. They
must preserve the unity of the Church. The follower of heretical
teachers has no part in the passion (§ 2, 3). Therefore let them all
partake of one eucharist, as there is one flesh of Christ (§ 4). For
himself, he takes refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of Christ and in the
Aposdes as the presbytery of the Church, though at the same time he
loves the prophets who believed on Christ by faith and so have been
saved (§ 5). ' But if,' he continues, ' any one propound Judaism to
you, listen not to him.' Then after denouncing Judaism and condemn
ing the arts of the false-teachers as a breach of unity, he goes on to
describe a conflict which he had with these people at Philadelphia.
They had appealed to the archives, that is, the Old Testament
writings ; and, when he adduced these scriptures on his own side, they
questioned the interpretation. For himself, he says, his archives are
the cross, the death, the resurrection, of Christ. The priests of the
old dispensation are good; but the High-priest of the new is better.
The Gospel has this pre-eminence — the advent, the passion, the resur
rection of Christ1.
Here the stress laid on the flesh of Christ, on the cross and passion
of Christ — which again and again break in upon bis denunciations of
the Judaizing teachers — coupled with the opening congratulation to the
Philadelphians on their firm conviction on these points, shows that the
false teachers, whom he is denouncing, impugned the reality of these
facts. In other words their Judaism was Docetic or Gnostic*.
1 See also the notes on the passage, II. p. 356 sq.). All these writers are agreed
p. 256 sq. in regarding the heresy attacked in the
2 The Judeo-Gnostic character of this Ignatian letters as one. On the other
heresy was discerned by Bull, who how- hand Hiigenfeld (Apost. Vdter p. 23 r
ever wrongly connected it with Cerinthi- sq., Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 112
anism (see below p. 372, note 4). Among sq., 1874) supposes that the Judaism is a
the more important investigations of this distinct heresy from the Docetism, thus
question in recent times are those of treating the Ignatian letters in the same
Uhlhorn (Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol. 185 r, way in which he treats S. Paul's Epistle
P- 283 sq.), Lipsius (Ueber die Aechtheit to the Colossians. Zahn's investigation of
etc- P- 31 sq.), and Zahn (/. v. A. the Docetic element is the best.

364 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
In the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 8 — 23) we have a description
of certain heretical teachers. There is both a Judaic and a Gnostic
side to their teaching — the distinction of meats and the observance of
days on the one hand, the ' philosophy,' the angelolatry, and the asceti
cism on the other. Critics have attempted by violent and arbitrary*'
dealing to separate the one element from the other, and thus have
found two distinct heresies in this one passage. But the sequence of
thought and language is decisive against such treatment1. This epistle
probably belongs to the year 63 or 64.
In the Pastoral Epistles again we have another type of Judso-
Gnostic heresy, somewhat more advanced than the last. The false
teaching there is described as ' gnosis (or knowledge) falsely so called
(1 Tim. vi. 20).' It is a 'logomachy,' it is disputatious, it is empty
talking (1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 4, 20, 2 Tim. ii. 14, 16, 23, Tit. i. 10). It deals
in myths and genealogies (1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. i. 14, iii. 9). It inculcates
asceticism (1 Tim. iv. 3, 8, Tit. i. 15). Here is the Gnostic side., On
the other hand it is distinctly Judaic. Its champions profess to be
'teachers of the law' (1 Tim. i. 7, 8). The disputes are described as
'battles over the law' (Tit. iii. 9). Its myths are called 'Jewish'
(Tit. i. 14). Its adherents, at least a portion of them, are described
as 'they of the circumcision' (Tit. i. 10). Here again critics have
been found who would split up this heresy into two, thus separating
the two elements which the Apostle's language will not allow us to
separate. Again, the same treatment is tried for a third time on the Ignatian
letters. The necessity of this violent operation, thrice repeated, tells
its own tale. In all three cases, if we interpret our texts naturally, we
are confronted with forms of Judaic Gnosticism or Gnostic Judaism.
Thus they all alike illustrate the truth, which is sufficiently confirmed
from other quarters, that the earliest forms of Christian Gnosticism wen-
Judaic. I need not stop to investigate the reason of this fact, as the
subject has been fully discussed elsewhere s.
But accepting the Judaic character of this heresy, as an indication
of an early date, we have yet to deal with its trenchant Docetism.
What are we to say to this startling phenomenon ? Is it at all in
consistent with the Ignatian authorship ?
Impressed by the materialistic tendencies of our own time, we find
it difficult to realize the force and prevalence of the bias which in
the earliest ages of the Gospel led to Docetism. Yet it is a historical
1 See Colossians p. 73 sq., where the ' See Colossians p. 8rsq.
question is discussed.

THE GENUINENESS. 365
fact that for those first generations of Christians the true humanity of
Christ was a greater stumbling-block even than the true divinity. The
Oriental mind in its most serious moods was prone to regard matter as
the source of evil. Contact with matter therefore was a thing to be
shunned. The moral and spiritual supremacy of Jesus Christ was a
matter of history. This carried with it His claim to divinity in some
sense or other. But it was inconceivable that such a Divine being
should have been born as a man, should have eaten and drunk as a
man, should have suffered and died as a man. This gross admixture
with material things in this Divine personage was intolerable. The
only escape from the dilemma lay in Docetism. Christ's human life
was not real, but apparent ox putative.
This Docetic view of Christ's humanity would appeal to popular
Judaism — the Judaism of the Scribes and Pharisees — only so far as it
related to the passion. A suffering Christ was a stumbling-block in
the way of popular Messianic conceptions. But the human birth and
human Ufe of the promised King of the Jews presented no difficulty
here. Its affinities were rather with Essenism than with Pharisaism.
Docetism manifested itself in several forms. Irenaeus in one passage
(Haer. iii. 16. 1) enumerates three types of this heresy : (1) The man
Jesus was the mere receptacle of the Christ, who entered him at the
baptism and left him before the crucifixion. (2) The birth and the
death of Christ alike — His whole human life from beginning to end —
were apparitional, not real. In the passage before us indeed he speaks
only of the passion; but from other passages (iii. 18. 6, 7, iv. 33. 5,
v. 1. 2) it is clear that the Docetism of the persons here mentioned
extended to the whole life of Christ. (3) The Valentinian doctrine,
which conceded to Jesus Christ a body visible and capable of suffering.
This body however was not material. It was not of the substance of
the Virgin, but was only conveyed through her, as water through a
charmel. To these three we may add (4) another type of Docetism
mentioned elsewhere by Irenseus (i. 24. 4), and ascribed by him to
Basilides. According to this view Simon the Cyrenian was crucified
instead of Jesus. Jesus exchanged external shapes and appearances
with Simon, and stood by the cross deriding while the crucifixion
took place.
We may confine our attention to the two former and purer types of
Docetism. The remaining two, which are connected with the names
of Basilides (c. a.d. 130) and Valentinus (c. a.d. 150) respectively, are
modifications of Docetism properly so called and are later in point of
date. In the view ascribed to Basilides the Docetism resolves itself

366 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
into a trick of magic; while that of Valentinus or the Valentinians
betrays itself to be an after-thought by its highly artificial character, as
indeed the comparatively late epoch of Valentinus suggests.
(i) The first of the two earlier forms is especially connected with the
name of Cerinthus. Its characteristic is the separation of Jesus from Christ.
Cerinthus maintained that Christ descended on Jesus in the form of a
dove at His baptism. Jesus was truly born, truly lived the life in the
flesh, truly died. The Docetism therefore does not affect Jesus,
but is confined to Christ. Cerinthus flourished at the close of the
Apostolic age. A personal conflict of S. John with this heresiarch is
mentioned by Irenseus. It is even thought that S. John wrote his
Gospel as an antidote to this heresy.
(2) The second type of Docetism is clearly the same which is
attacked in the Ignatian letters. This type also appears on the confines
of the Apostolic age, if not actually contemporary with the Apostles
themselves. It is attributed to several heresiarchs by name.
(i) Simon Magus, we are told, maintained that the redeemer had
'appeared a man among men, when he was not a man, and seemed
to have suffered in Judsea, when he had not suffered ' (Iren. i. 23. 3).
He asserted moreover that he himself was this redeemer; and the
stress laid on the unreality of the passion is accordingly explained by
the further statement that Simon professed to have ' appeared as Son
to the Jews and as Father in Samaria and as Holy Ghost to the other
Gentiles' (Iren. i. 23. 1, Hippol. Haer. vi. 19). Thus he identified him
self with Jesus, to whom he assigned a purely Docetic humanity.
(ii) Sattjrninus, we are informed, ' taught that the Saviour was
without birth and without body and without figure, but that in semblance
he appeared a man ' (Iren. i. 24. 2, Hippol. Haer. vii. 28).
(iii) Marcion again was a pure Docetic. He too postulated a'
phantom body of Christ. With the human birth of the Saviour he did
not concern himself at all. Mutilating the beginning of the evangelical
narrative, he commenced his Gospel with the ' fifteenth year of Tiberius
Csesar' (Luke iii. 1), as if Jesus had appeared suddenly from heaven a
full-grown man. But with regard to the passion, with which he was
obliged to deal, he was explicit (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 42). He was
ready with an expedient to explain away the words in which the Saviour
challenges attention to the reality of His human body after the resur
rection ; ' Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as
ye see me having' (Luke xxiv. 39). 'Having', as he interpreted the
passage, here signifies ' having only as a spirit has,' that is ' not having.
' Quae ratio tortuositatis istius?' exclaims Tertullian (ib. c. 43). 'Wna-

THE GENUINENESS. 367
reason was there for such tortuous language as on this showing the
evangelist's words would be ? '
Our author however, whether Ignatius or another, cannot have
intended any of these particular heresies ; for they do not satisfy the
condition of being Judaic. Saturninus and Marcion are distinguished
by their direct opposition to Judaism ; while Simonianism lies alto
gether in another sphere. But the two earlier are sufficient evidence
for the fact that in the age of Ignatius this strongest and purest form of
Docetism was rife. Even if the doctrine here attributed to Simon
belong rather to the disciples than to the master himself, it will still
fall within our limits of time. So again Saturninus must have been a
contemporary of Ignatius. He is represented as a pupil of Menander,
and he is placed before Basilides in the sequence of heresiarchs. Thus
he must have flourished about a.d. 100 — 120. Simon was a Samaritan,
and Saturninus was a native of Ignatius' own city Antioch. Thus the
theological atmosphere, more especially in Syria and Palestine, was
charged with Docetism at this time.
But we have evidence also from another quarter. The Epistles of
S. John are obviously directed against some strong form of Docetism.
This heresy is distinctly attacked in the words of the First Epistle; 'Every
spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit which confesseth not J esus is not of God, and this is
the spirit of tbe antichrist whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and
now it is in the world already ' (1 Joh. iv. 3, 4). So again in the Second
Episde ; ' Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that
confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver
and the antichrist' (2 Joh. 7). This explains the otherwise strange
asseveration in the opening of the First Epistle; ' That which our hands
handled (e\pr)Xd<prjo-av)... declare we unto you,' with which passage we
may compare the words already quoted (p. 366), ' Handle me (i/fTjXaoir/-
o-are'/te) and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones' etc. (Luke xxiv.
39). The following passages also bear on this heresy; 'Whosoever
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him ' (iv. 15) ;
'Everyone that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God'
(v. 1); 'This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ'
' (v. 5). We may waive for the moment the question of the Apostolic
authorship of these epistles. The First is quoted by Papias (Eus.
HE. iii. 39) and by Polycarp (Phil. 7). Its testimony therefore is
sufficiently early for our purpose, whoever may have been the author.
It may be a question however which type of Docetism — the Cerin-
thian or the Ignatian — is here assailed. Tradition points to Cerinthus ;

368 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
and the stress laid on the confession of ' Jesus ' as the Christ seems to
indicate the severance which this heresiarch made between Jesus and
Christ. If we could accept the very ancient Western reading in i Joh.
iv. 3, ' Every spirit which dissolveth (o Xvei) Jesus,' for ' Every spirit
which confesseth not (pr] 6p.oXoyei) Jesus,' this would be decisive;
and, though this may not be the original reading, it perhaps represents
an early tradition. On the other hand the stress laid on ' the flesh,'
and on the testimony of the water and the blood (comp. Joh. xix. 34,
35), indicates rather the Ignatian type of Docetism ; for Cerinthus did
not deny the reality of the body or the passion of Jesus, but only the
participation of the Christ in this fleshly passion. When Polycarp (I. c.)
quotes the words of 1 Joh. iv. 2, 3, ' Whosoever confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist,' he doubtless applies it to
the type of Docetism which appears in the Ignatian letters, but this is
not decisive as to its original reference, since he would naturally apply
the words to the form with which he himself was familiar. On the
whole it is perhaps slightly more probable that Cerinthian Docetism is
attacked in S. John's Epistles ; and if so, the evidence only holds so
far as to show the strength of Docetic speculation generally at a very
early age.
From the foregoing discussion it will have appeared that the strongly
marked type of Docetism assailed in these letters, so far from being a
difficulty, is rather an indication of an early date L, since the tendency of
Docetism was to mitigation, as time went on.
(ii) The negative side of the subject remains to- be considered.
The author's direct statements have been examined ; and it is- time now
to cross-question his silence. He is obviously a polemical writer. He
takes a keen interest in the theological and ecclesiastical questions of
his day. Such a man has no power of deliberate, sustained self-repres
sion. Of him it may be said, as he himself says of others (Ephes. 15),
oY d>i> o-i-ya yuw/ceTai ' He is- revealed by his silence.' If he betrays no
interest in the controversies which agitated the Church in the middle
and latter half of the second: century, it may be inferred that he felt no
interest in them.
Now one main controversy which troubled the Church from the
middle of the second century onward, so as from time to time to
threaten its disruption, was the proper day and mode of celebrating
the Paschal festival. The main arenas of this struggle were the
Churches of Asia and the Church of 'Rome— the very churches
1 This point is justly insisted upon by Zahn /. v. A. p. 399.

THE GENUINENESS. 369
with which Ignatius is represented as in close communication. The
principal personage who figures in the first stage of this dispute is
none other than Polycarp, the chief friend and correspondent of Igna
tius. How irresistible must have been the impulse of our author to
declare himself on this burning question. Was the festival to be kept
always on the 14th Nisan or always on the same day of the week?
Was the precedent of S. John and S. Philip to be followed with the
Churches of Asia (Euseb. H. E. v. 24), or the precedent of S. Peter
and S. Paul with the Church of Rome ? He has much to say against
Judaism. The Quartodecimans were taunted by their opponents with
Judaizing. Must he not have exculpated himself, if a Quartode-
ciman? And would he not have assailed the opposite party, if not
a Quartodeciman ? Two centuries later the writer of the spurious
Life of Polycarp, bearing the name of Pionius, must needs represent
S. Paul as condemning by anticipation the practice of the Quarto
decimans (§ 2). Nay even in the latter half of the fourth century, when
the fury of the storm was altogether spent and the question had
been set at rest by the Council of Nicsea, the Ignatian forger of
the Long Recension cannot altogether hold his hands off this sub
ject (Philipp. 14). Yet here not a word, not a hint, which could be
turned to any use on either side. Is not the natural inference that
the writer lived before the controversy arose ?
Again; another controversy which concentrated upon itself the
interest of the Church in the latter half of the second century was
the Montanist. The theatre of this controversy was the very region
with which these epistles are concerned. The Churches of Procon
sular Asia and Phrygia were alive with synods and counter-synods
discussing the question. Philadelphia more especially, with which our
author corresponds, is mentioned in connexion with the Montanist
disputes, as the residence of Ammia a reputed forerunner of the Mon
tanist prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla (Anon, in Euseb. H. E.
v. 17V Has our author then no interest in these disputes? Does he
say nothing which betokens either approval or disapproval of this
' new dispensation ' ? Is there not a word which betrays his opinion
of these prophetesses ? Is there no mention at all of the Paraclete,
no reference whatever to the New Jerusalem? How is it that we
cannot put our finger on a single expression which decides his posi
tion respecting the two opposing views of the prophet's inspiration ? Yet
writing to the Philadelphians, he claims for himself that he was moved
to speak by the Spirit (§ 7). Why did he not seize with avidity the
opportunity of declaring himself on this leading question of the day ?
IG. I. 24

370 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
But again ; when we turn to the region of speculative theology, the
result is the same. Three great heresiarchs tower above the rest during
the last three quarters of the second century. If our author had written
during that period, we should have expected to find in a man of such
rigid and outspoken orthodoxy some reference or at least some hint
bearing on one or other of these more flagrant forms of heresy. But
there is nothing of the kind.
Basilides flourished during the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117 — 138),
but his sect maintained a somewhat vigorous life for some generations
after. He taught indeed in Alexandria, but he seems to have been
educated in Syria and the East. How is it that there is no allusion in
these letters to the Non-existent Being, to the World-seed, to the
Great Archon, to the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad, to the Threefold
Sonship, to the Abrasax, to the three hundred and sixty-five heavens,
to the prophets Barcabbas and Barcoph, to the ' Expositions ', to the
depreciation of martyrdom, to the compromise with idolatrous sacrifices,
to any book or any tenet of Basilides and the Basilideans ?
Again ; some years before the middle of the century Marcion
appears on the scene. Marcion was a native of Asia Minor, and he
taught in Rome. At Rome he came in contact with Ignatius' friend
and correspondent Polycarp, who then and there denounced him as
' the first-born of Satan' (Iren. iii. 3. 4). Thus he trod the very same
ground, as it were, with the author of these epistles. His reputation
was world-wide for good or for evil. His adherents were found in
most parts where Christianity had spread. For some generations later
the Marcionites were sufficiently powerful to call forth elaborate
polemical treatises from champions of orthodox Christianity. It must
therefore be regarded as a significant fact, that here too our author
betrays not the faintest sign of any knowledge of his doctrine or his
existence. There is no allusion whatever to his trenchant dualism,
to his ' antitheses ' , to his views of the conflict between the work of the
Creator and the work of Christ, between the Just God and the Good
God, between the Old Testament and the New, between the Apostles
of the Circumcision and the Apostle of the Gentiles; none to his
mutilated Gospel, to his tortuous exegesis, to his rigid asceticism. Yet
this silence is not explicable on the ground that our author's polemics
are concentrated on subjects alien to Marcion's theology. More than
once he discusses the relations of the Old Testament to the New, of
the prophets and patriarchs to the Gospel (Magn. 8, 9, Philad. 5, ai
Smyrn. 5, 7). More than once he aims his blows at a Docetism
identical in its main lines with the Docetism of Marcion (see above,

THE GENUINENESS. 371
p. 366 sq.). But in both cases the only antagonists whom he sees
before him are Judaizers, whereas Marcion was markedly Anti-judaic.
Yet his theological position leaves no doubt that on such questions
Marcion's views would have been even more intolerable to him than
those of his Judaic antagonists. How then is this silence to be ex
plained, except on the ground that Marcion was excluded from his
range of vision by the impervious barrier of chronology ?
Lastly; coeval with, and even prior to Marcion, Valentinus
emerges into prominence, as a heresiarch. Though a native of Alex
andria, he too taught at Rome (c. a.d. 140 — 160). Valentinus was the
parent of many teachers and many schools of Gnostic theology. The
Valentinian doctrine called forth refutations from all the ablest theo
logians of the time, notably Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, and
Tertullian. It was quite the most prominent among the heretical
systems of the early ages, which challenged the supremacy of the
Catholic Church. It was popular alike in the East and in the
West. It had an extensive literature of its own. Here at all events
we might expect some side thrust, even if there were no direct blow,
at a rank and wide spread heresy. Yet there is not a word about the
primal Bythos the Unutterable, about the successively generated pairs
of seons, about the Ogdoad and the Decad and the Dodecad, about
the sorrows and vicissitudes of Sophia Achamoth cast out of the pleroma
and stranded in the world of shadow, about the story of creation and
redemption, about the triple division of mankind into the spiritual, the
psychical, and the material, about any of the fantastical myths of this
highly imaginative system of speculative theology.
One passage however has been alleged by impugners of the
genuineness of these letters, as containing a direct attack on Valentinian
doctrine and therefore betraying a gross anachronism. No student of
the Ignatian controversy will need to be reminded of the passage
Magn. 8 6 <pavepuiaa? eavroV 8ia 'Irjaov Xpio-Tou tou vlov avrov, os icrriv
auTou Xdyos aiStos otjk otto o-iyrjs irpoeXBav, 'Who manifested Himself
through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Eternal Word not having
proceeded from Silence '; for so it is read in the common editions.
This passage furnished assailants, such as Blondel and Daille", with
their strongest argument. The writer, it was urged, is clearly referring
to the Valentinian doctrine of emanations which was not propounded
till after the death of Ignatius. Pearson, replying to this objection
(Vind. Ign. ii, 5), laid stress on the fact that in the earliest accounts of
the Valentinian doctrine Logos is not said to be generated immediately
from Sige, another aeon being interposed. Bythos and Sige are there
24 — 2

372

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

represented as begetting Nous and Aletheia, who in turn beget Logos
and Zoe. This answer however was far from decisive. Irenaeus
(i. n. 5) and Hippolytus (Haer. vi. 29) state that the Valentinians
disputed among themselves about the place which Bythos and Sige
should occupy in their system. Moreover Cyril of Jerusalem1 and
Didymus of Alexandria2 report Valentinus as making Sige the imme
diate parent of Logos ; while the Valentinian TheodOtus, as quoted by
Clement of Alexandria3, speaks of Sige as 'the mother of all the
emanations (tw TTpoftXrjBevrojv) from Bythos', probably however meaning
nothing more than that she was the first parent of the whole race of
seons. Still less happy was the solution adopted by Pearson (p. 384 sq.)
and Cotelier (ad loc.) and by other more recent writers, that the passage
is directed against the Ebionites, the ' procession from silence ' being
thus regarded as equivalent to the denial of the pre-existence of the
Son * ; though this solution had one slender foot-hold of truth in the
fact that our author in the context is plainly seen to be attacking
Judaizers. Nor was Pearson successful in his attempt to show (ii. 7)

1 Catech. vi. 17 (p. 98, Touttee) 0 Ova-
Xevrlvo%...q>ijo-iv on 6 tsv8os...iyivvi)ae
2.iyrjv Kal diro rrjs 2.iyr]S ireKvoirolei Aoyov'
tov irap "'EXXtjo'iv Aids ovros xetyw rov
rrj d5e\07} piyvvpAvov riKvov ydp eti/at
rov \>v6ov iXiyero 1) 21717. In the text
which Pearson had before him, the words
were read ireKvoxoiei Xoyov rov Tap' "EX-
Xrjaiv Aids' ovros x^pw T°v k.t.X., and
he conjectured Xoya 'ad modum vel simi-
litudinem Jovis' (Vind. Ign. p. 402 sq.),
though he mentions the reading X670K in
an Oxford MS. See the next note.
2 De Trin. iii. 42 (p. 992, Migne) Ou'a-
Xevrlvov. . .pZdov . . . dvairXaoapivov roibvSe,
on & ltvdos eyivvqaev r-rjv Siyr/v, ck 5i
ravTTjs rexvoiroiijo-apivov \byov riva tov
irap "EX\i?<ri Aids k.t.X., quoted by Chur
ton (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 403, note),
who- remarks 'Quo sensu intelligendus
sit iste Xo70s tis tou irap' "EXXrjoi Aids ne-
scire me non diffiteor', and then offers a
tentative explanation. It is clear however
from the whole context that the passage
of Didymus is not independent of the
passage of Cyril. He must therefore
have misread or misheard (for he was

blind) the words of Cyril or Cyril's au
thority, as the substitution of rexvoToui-
aap.ivov ' having artificially invented' for
ereKvoirolijae shows, and his text must
have wrongly connected the words.
3 Exc. Theod. 10 (Op. 11. p. 976, Pot
ter) 'H rtiyrj, rpaalv, pr/ri]p ouiro iranTW
rdv rrpoptX-qdivrav viro rov fiadovs (fivBovl)
k.t.X. The same is probably the meaning
of the authority quoted by Epiphanius
Haer. xxxi. 5 (p. 169) aliri) di r) h tou
irarpbs Kal rrjs ciyijs rerpis' avOpuwot,
iKKXijcrla, Xoyos, ^utJ. Pearson suspects
a lacuna in this passage of Epiphanius,
Vind. Ign. p. 402.
4 This same interpretation had been
suggested by Petau (de Theol. Dogm. iv.
p. 163, Antwerp. 1700); but he says
nothing of » polemical reference to the
Ebionites. Pearson's view is controvert
ed by Bull Defens. Fid. Nie. iii. 1 (Works
v. p. 476 sq.), who supposes the Cerin-
thians to be intended. The Docetism of
Cerinthus however was, as I have pointed
out, different in character from that of
these heretics.

THE GENUINENESS.

373

that, even if Valentinus were intended, the statement could not be
regarded as an anachronism, since the errors of this heresiarch might
have been known even to Ignatius. With greater effect he and others
after him maintained that this Sige was by no means a creation of
Valentinus ; that it was borrowed from heathen cosmogonies ; that it
was found in a cosmical genealogy as early as the Comic poet Anti-
phanes ' ; and lastly that Gregory Nazianzen (in a very loose and highly
oratorical passage, it must be confessed) gives Sige a place in the
systems of Simon, Cerinthus, and others (Oral. xxv. § 8, i. p. 460),
while Irenaeus himself (Haer. i. n. 1) states that Valentinus borrowed
his theory with modifications from earlier Gnostics. The discovery of
the treatise of Hippolytus has confirmed the justice of this reply. In
one passage (vi. 22) this scourge of heretics speaks of 'that Silence on
which the Greeks are always harping' (1) vpvovp.evrj iKeivrj irapd tois
"EAX770-1 o-iyrj) ; in another (vi. 21) he states that Valentinus founded
his system on that of Simon ; and in a third (vi. 18) he quotes a passage
from the Great Announcement, attributed to Simon himself but probably
written by one of his followers, in which his primary power or emanation
is styled Sige".

1 Iren. Haer. ii. 14. 1 'Antiphanes in
Theogonia '. From the context we may
infer that the passage to which Irenaeus
refers under the name Theogonia was taken
from the 'ko>pohlri\s yoval of this poet,
as Grabe suggested. Meineke (Fragm.
Com. 1. p. 318 sq.) begs the question,
when he impugns the explicit and de
tailed statement of Irenaeus on the ground
that Sige or Silence was first introduced
by the Neoplatonists and Gnostics.
2 Card. Newman (Essays I. p. 249)
writes of this supposed reference to the
Valentinian Sige; 'This was the only
point discoverable in the text of the
shorter Epistles which really had to be
reconciled with the maintenance of their
genuineness. Illud non negaverim, says
Voss, si locus hie sit sanus et haec desumpta
smt ex haeresi Valentiniana, actum vi-
deri de Epistolis Ignalianis. Accordingly
Pearson devotes as many as forty-six
folio columns of his great work to solve
the apparent difficulty, at the end of
which he says, Quatuor asserliones attuli,

omnes exploratae veritatis, ita tamen com-
paratae, ut si vel una earum vera sit, ea
unica omnem argumenti adversariorum
vim elidat (p. 390). And after Pearson,
Bull devotes another series of twenty
columns to complete the explanation'. [I
might add that Matt, de Larroque (see
above, p. 321) occupies a hundred pages
or more of his work in refuting Pearson
on this point.] 'In our time the difficulty
has solved itself; and consistently with
the arguments of those Anglican divines.
From the newly discovered work on
Heresies, commonly attributed to Hip
polytus, etc'
Card. Newman correctly regards this as
the one real point of difficulty ; but the
solution is different from and much more
satisfactory than that which he adopts.
Hi motus animorum atque haec cer-
tamina tanta
Pulveris exigui jactu compressa qui-
escunt.
A handful of critical small dust has
quieted this conflict of giants.

374 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
At all events it ought to have been clear from the context that, if
there be any polemical reference in the words, the heresy assailed cannot
be the Valentinian, for the whole argument is directed, as I have
already shown, against Judaizing Gnostics, and Valentinus was the
very opposite of this. But the whole objection collapses, now that the
true reading of the text is discovered. The words di'Sios ouk must be
struck out, as I have shown elsewhere (n. p. 125 sq.), alike on grounds
of external authority and of intrinsic probability. Venema (H. E. Saec.
ii. § 12,, quoted by Jacobson on the passage) with a true appreciation
felt that the sense required the negative to be omitted, even when there
was no known authority for the omission. I pointed out as early as
1868 (see below, 11. p. 127) that this was the true reading, as being the
best supported, and it has been, since adopted by both the recent
editors of Ignatius, Zahn (1876) and Funk (1878).
But so corrected, the passage wears a very different aspect. No
longer a polemic against Valentinus, it employs language closely resem
bling the terminology of Valentinianism and other Gnostic systems of
the second century. Thus it points to a pre- Valentinian epoch ; for no
writer, careful for his orthodoxy as our author plainly is, would allow
himself the use of such suspicious language, which seemed to favour the
false systems then rife. Nor does this expression stand alone. Else
where the language of the writer is coloured with a Gnostic and more
especially a Valentinian tinge. Thus the pleroma was a very favourite
Gnostic term ; and in the Valentinian system more especially it had a
prominent place. Yet our author addresses the Ephesian Church as
' blessed through the pleroma of God the Father ' (see 11. p. 23), and in
similar language he salutes the Trallian Christians 'in the pleroma'
(see 11. p. 152). So too, when he tells the Trallians (§ 1 ; comp. Ephes.
1) that they possess a right mind 'not by habit but by nature', he
makes a distinction constantly heard on the lips of Valentinians and
other Gnostics, who thus distinguished themselves as superior to other
professed Christians (n. p. 153). Again, when he uses the word
' straining ' or ' filtering ' of the advanced Christian (Rom. inscr.,
Philad. 3), he adopts a significant and favourite term of the Valentinian
vocabulary (see 11. p. 193). And lastly, when he speaks of 'matter'
(Rom. 6 ; comp. ib. 7 cpiXoijXov) as the source of temptation and so of
evil, he is trenching upon Gnostic ground. All these expressions point
in the same direction. He could use this language and indulge these
thoughts, because they had not yet, at least in any marked way, been
abused to heretical ends. And we may perhaps even go a step further.
Will not the suspicion cross our minds that Ignatius may have moved

THE GENUINENESS. 375
more or less in the same circles, out of which Valentinianism after
wards sprung ? This suspicion is somewhat strengthened by another
incidental fact. Among his companions was a much younger man,
Agathopus by name, apparently a deacon of his own Church of Antioch.
Now we find Valentinus writing to one Agathopus. Was he the same
man, as many have supposed? For more on this subject, see the note,
ii. p. 280. (iii) Ecclesiastical Conditions.
Under the head of ecclesiastical arrangements our first consideration
will be the form oi government which is revealed in these epistles. This
is the ground which has been most fiercely contested by the combatants
in the Ignatian controversy, at least in its earlier stages.
The name of Ignatius is inseparably connected with the champion
ship of episcopacy. 'Every one', he writes, 'whom the Master of the
house sendeth to govern His own household we ought to receive as
Him that sent him; clearly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as
the Lord Himself (Ephes. 6). Those 'live a life after Christ', who
' obey the bishop as Jesus Christ' (Trail. 2). ' It is good to know God
and the bishop ; he that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God ; he
that doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop serveth the
devil ' (Smyrn. 9). He that obeys his bishop obeys ' not him, but the
Father of Jesus Christ the Bishop of all '; while on the other hand he
that practises hypocrisy towards his bishop ' not only deceiveth the
visible one but cheateth the Invisible' (Magn. 3). 'Vindicate thine
office ', he writes to Polycarp, ' in things temporal as well as spiritual '
(Polyc. 3). 'Let nothing be done without thy consent, and do thou
nothing without the consent of God' (Polyc. 4). Then turning from
Polycarp to the Smyrnaeans he charges them, ' Give heed to your bishop,
that God also may give heed to you ' (Polyc. 6). Writing again to these
same Smyrnseans he enjoins, 'Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus
Christ followed the Father ' (Smyrn. 8). ' As many as are of God and
of Jesus Christ ', he writes to another church, ' are with the bishop '
(Philad. 3). The members of a third church again are bidden to be
' inseparate from [God,] Jesus Christ, and the bishop, and the ordinances
of the Apostles ' (Trail. 7). The Ephesians again are commended,
because they are so united with their bishop, 'as the Church with
Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ with the Father '. ' ' If, he adds, ' the
prayer of one or two hath so much power, how much more the prayer of
the bishop and of all the Church ' (Ephes. 5). ' Wherever the bishop
may appear, there let the people (rrXrjBos) be, just as where Jesus Christ

376 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
may be, there is the universal Church' (Smyrn. 8). Consequently 'Let
no man do anything pertaining to the Church without the bishop ' (ib.;
comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 7). ' It is not lawful either to baptize or to
hold a love-feast without the bishop; but whatsoever he may approve,
this also is well-pleasing to God, that everything which is done may be
safe and valid' (Smyrn. 8). Those who decide on a life of virginity must
disclose their intention to the bishop only; and those who purpose
marrying must obtain his consent to their union, that ' their marriage
may be according to the Lord and not according to concupiscence'
(Polyc. 5). In giving such commands he is not speaking from human
suggestion, but ' the Spirit preached saying, Do nothing without the
bishop' (Philad. 7).
The prominence and authority of the office are sufficiently clear
from these passages. Its extension may be inferred from others. He
plainly regards himself as bishop of Antioch, for he describes himself as
' the bishop belonging to Syria ' (tov iirCo-Koirov Hvpias Rom. 2) ; and he
speaks of the. Antiochene Church, when deprived of his presence, as
having no other pastor but God, no other bishop but Jesus Christ (Rom.
9). He mentions by name the bishops of Ephesus (Ephes. 1), of
Magnesia (Magn. 2), and of Tralles (Trail. 1) ; and he refers anony
mously to the bishop of Philadelphia (Philad. inscr., 1). Not only in
the letters addressed to the Smyrnseans (§§ 8, 12) and to himself, but
elsewhere also (Magn. 15), Polycarp is spoken of as bishop. Writing to
the Philadelphians likewise, he says that the churches nearest to Antioch
have sent thither bishops to congratulate the Antiochenes on the restora
tion of peace. It is plain therefore that in those parts of Syria and Asia
Minor at all events, with which Ignatius is brought in contact, the
episcopate, properly so called, is an established and recognised institu
tion. In one passage moreover he seems to claim for it a much
wider diffusion : ' The bishops established in the farthest parts (oi m-
o-Koiroi ol Kara rd irepara opio-Bevres) are in the counsels of Jesus Christ
(Ephes. 3).
In all such language however there is no real difficulty. The strange
audacity of writers like Daille", who placed the establishment of episco
pacy as late as the beginning of the third century, need not detain us;
for no critic of the Ignatian Epistles, however adverse, would venture
now to take up this extreme position. The whole subject has been
investigated by me in an Essay on 'The Christian Ministry"; and
1 See Philippians p. 181 sq. The Old count of the origin of episcopacy precisely
Catholic Langen, Geschichte der Rbmi- similar to my own, as set forth in this
sihen Kirche 1881, p. 95 sq., gives an ac- Essay. I do not know how far Card.

THE GENUINENESS. 377
to this I venture to refer my readers for fuller information. It is there
shown, if I mistake not, that though the New Testament itself con
tains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized episco
pate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable
episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet
there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years of the
Apostolic age ; that this development was not simultaneous and equal
in all parts of Christendom; that it is more especially connected with the
name of S. John; and that in the early years of the second century the
episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more especially in
Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its extension in the
regions east of the ^Egaean at this epoch be resisted, I am at a loss to
understand what single fact relating to the history of the Christian
Church during the first half of the second century can be regarded as
established; for the testimony in favour of this spread of the episcopate
is more abundant and more varied than for any other institution or event
during this period, so far as I recollect. Referring to the Essay before
mentioned for details, I will content myself here with dwelling on some
main points of the evidence.
Irenaeus was a scholar of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a scholar of S.
John. Irenssus remembered well the discourses of his own master, as
Polycarp did those of the Apostle. Both these fathers delighted to
recall such reminiscences of their respective teachers. Irenaeus was
probably the most learned Christian of his time. He certainly had an
acquaintance with heathen, as well as with sacred literature. He had
travelled far and wide. He was bom and schooled in Asia Minor; he
resided some time during middle life in Rome; he spent his later years
in Gaul. He was in constant communication with foreign churches on
various subjects of ecclesiastical and theological interest. The inter
course between Gaul and Asia Minor more especially was close and
constant. An appreciation of the position of the man is a first requisite
to the estimate of his evidence. Historic insight is the realization of
the relations of persons and events.
The view of Irenseus respecting the subject before us is unmistake-
able. The episcopate, as distinct from the presbyterate, is the only
Newman would agree with me in my myself responsible for the interpretations
historical investigation ; but he uses Ian- which others (whether friends or oppo-
guage (Essays i. p. 251 sq.) which has nents) have put upon my language or
many points of contact with mine. I for the inferences which they have drawn
need hardly say here, what I have said from my views.
on other occasions, that I do not hold

378 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
episcopate which comes within the range, not only of his personal'
acquaintance, but even of his intellectual and historical cognisance.
This is so far the case that he entirely overlooks the identity of the
terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' in the New Testament1, which later
fathers discerned. This appears from his mode of handling the interview
with the Ephesian elders at Miletus, who are called ' presbyters ' in one
place and 'bishops' in another (Acts xx. 17 irepdjas eis vE<£eo-ov pereKaXi-
craTo totjs irpeaftvTepovs t^s iKKXrjcria?, ver. 28 to> iroipviio iv <5 ipds to
irvevpa to ayiov eBero eVto'K07roi>s). Ignorant of the New Testament
usage, he regards S. Paul as ' summoning the bishops and presbyters
who were from Ephesus and the other neighbouring cities * (Haer. iii. 14.
2 ' convocatis episcopis et presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis
proximis civitatibus '). To this father accordingly it is an undisputed
fact that the bishops of his own age traced their succession back in
an unbroken line to men appointed to the episcopate by the Apostles
themselves. To this succession of bishops he appeals again and again,
as the depositaries of the Apostolic tradition, against the Gnostic and
other false teachers. ' We can enumerate those ', he writes, ' who were
appointed bishops by the Apostles themselves in the several churches,
and their successors even to our own day, who neither taught nor recog
nised any 'such madness as these men maintain '. Since it would be a
tedious business, he continues, to enumerate the successions of all the
churches, he singles out the Church of Rome founded by the Apostles
Peter and Paul. Accordingly he gives the sequence of the Roman
bishops from the Apostolic age to Eleutherus who occupied the see when
he wrote. From Rome he turns to Smyrna, and singles out Polycarp
who had ' not only been instructed by Apostles and conversed with
many that had seen Christ, but had also been appointed by Apostles
in Asia as bishop in the Church of Smyrna' (aAXoi Kal viro diro-
crroXiav Karao-raBel'S eis rrjv 'Acriav iv rrj iv %pvpvr) iKKXijcria imo-KOiros),
' whom ' he adds, ' we ourselves have seen in our early years ' (iv r§
rrpiarrj rjpwv r/XiKia). To this Apostolic tradition ' all the churches in
Asia bear witness, and [especially] the successors of Polycarp to the
1 On this identity of the terms in the old age, as well as of office. In this wider
New Testament see Philippians p. 95 sq. sense the irpeo-^vrepoi, ' the elders, are
After the establishment of the episcopate the primitive fathers (irrespective of office),
proper the designation irrlo-Koiros is con- whose views of Christian doctrine and
fined to it. A bishop may still be called practice are especially valuable by reason
irpto-pirepos, but a presbyter is not now of their proximity to the Apostles ; e.g. m.
called conversely iirlo-Koros. In Irenaeus 2. 2,iv. 26. 2, 5, v. 5. 1, v. 36. 1, 2. Ontne
for instance TrpeofUjrepos has a very wide other hand he always employs HlnmH'
significance, being used of antiquity or of with precision of the episcopal office alone.

THE GENUINENESS. 379
present day (ko.1 ol pixpi vvv SiaBeBeypevoi rdv lioXvKapirov) '. So also the
Church of Ephesus, where John survived to the time of Trajan, is a
trustworthy witness of the Apostolic tradition (Haer. iii. 3. 1 sq.). Later
on again he writes, ' We ought to listen to those elders in the Church
who have their succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who
together with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure
gift of the truth according to the good pleasure of the Father' (iv. 26.
2). In a third passage also, speaking of the heretical teachers, he
writes, ' All these are much later (valde posteriores) than the bishops to
whom the Apostles committed the churches, and this we have shown
with all diligence in our third book ' (v. 20. 1). After every reasonable
allowance made for the possibility of mistakes in details, such language
from a man standing in the position of Irenseus with respect to the
previous and contemporary history of the Church leaves no room for
doubt as to the early and general diffusion of episcopacy in the regions
with which he was acquainted.
The notices in Irenseus are further confirmed by the language of his
contemporary Polycrates. Polycrates was himself bishop of Ephesus,
and the letter of which fragments are preserved (Euseb. H. E. v. 24)
was written by him to Victor bishop of Rome, consequently between
the years a.d. 189 and a.d. 198 or 199. He there mentions his 'hoar
head' (7roAias) and speaks of himself as 'numbering sixty-five years in the
Lord ' (egrJKovTa irevre errj ex<nv iv Rupiu>). Even if this period dates from
his birth and not from his conversion, he must have been born within
about a quarter of a century after the death of the last surviving Apostle,
who passed his later years in the Church of Ephesus where Polycrates
ruled. He appeals to the tradition of his relatives with some of whom,
he says, he associated on intimate terms (irapdBoaiv tu>V crvyyevwv pov,
01s ko.1 iraprjKoXovBrjcrd Ticriv airwv). He adds that he had had seven
relatives bishops, so that he himself was the eighth bishop of his kindred
(e7TTa pev 770-av o-uyyei'eTs pov iiriaKOiroi, iyid Se oySoos) . In an earlier part
of the same fragment he mentions Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna,
Thraseas. as bishop of Eumenia, Sagaris as bishop apparently of Lao-
dicea (%dyapiv iir'icTKOtTov . . .os ev AaoSiKeia KeKoip-qrai) , and inferentially
also Melito as bishop of Sardis (iv %dpBecri, irepipivcov rrjv dird twv ovpavdiv
inaKOTrnVy. Altogether this fragment, not occupying more than an
octavo page in all, is charged with notices testifying to the early and
wide spread of the episcopate in these regions of Asia Minor.
A passage in Clement of Alexandria also points in the same direc
tion. In the well-known story of S. John and the young robber, for
1 See the note on Polyc. inscr (11. p. 332).

380 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
the truth of which he vouches, Clement represents the Apostle during
his later life, when he resided at Ephesus, as going about on invitation to
the neighbouring nations (iirl t<£ irXrjo-idx<°Pa ™v iBvwv) to appoint
bishops in some places, to establish whole churches in others, and' to
ordain certain clergy in others (Quis Div. Salv. 42, p. 959 Potter).
This Clement had travelled far and wide, and had received instruction
from six or more different Christian teachers in Greece, in Italy, in
Egypt, in Palestine and Syria and the farther East; among whom was
one called by him an ' Ionian ', that is, a native of these very parts of
Asia Minor (Strom, i. 1, p. 322). In accordance with this statement
also the author of the Muratorian Canon (about a.d. 170 or later)
speaks of the aged Apostle as writing his Gospel 'at the urgent
entreaty of his fellow-disciples and bishops ' (Canon Muratorianus p. 17,
' cohortantibus condescipulis et episcopis suis ', ed. Tregelles).
It will be sufficient here to have called attention to these passages of
more general reference. Notices of particular bishops in early times
will be found collected together in the Essay to which I have already
referred. One such person alone deserves special mention here. Poly
carp, as we have seen, is more than once designated bishop of Smyrna
in these Ignatian Epistles. So also he is described both by Irenasus and
by Polycrates in the passages already referred to. But we have
more direct testimony to his episcopate even than these witnesses.
Only a few months at the outside, probably only a few weeks, after
these Ignatian Epistles purport to have been written, he himself
addresses a letter to the Philippians. The heading of the letter, indi
rectly indeed, but plainly enough, indicates his monarchical position. He
does not write 'Polycarp and the other presbyters', but 'Polycarp and the
presbyters with him' (see 11. p. 905), though even the former mode of
address would not have been inconsistent with his episcopal rank. As
it is, the position assigned to him in this passage corresponds exactly
with the representations in the Ignatian Epistles, as for instance in
Philad. 8, where ' the council of the bishop ' (o-vveSpiov tou e7rio-;cdVov)
is equivalent to ' the bishop together with his presbyters as assessors
and counsellors '.
Nor again is there any real difficulty in the extended area over
which the Ignatian letters assume the episcopal constitution to prevail.
I have given reasons in my Essay for believing that the spread of the
episcopate was not uniform throughout Christendom, and that some
churches, as for instance Philippi, had not yet adopted it. But through
out Asia Minor and Syria, so far as we know, it was universal. Probably
also this was the case in the farther East. So likewise, if the Gospel

THE GENUINENESS. 381
had already been carried into Gaul1, as seems fairly probable, the
Gallican Churches would naturally adopt the organization which pre
vailed in the communities of Asia Minor from which they were spi
ritually descended. Again, though there are grounds for surmising that
the bishops of Rome were not at the time raised so far above their
presbyters as in the Churches of the East, yet it would be an excess of
scepticism, with the evidence before us, to question the existence of the
episcopate as a distinct office from the presbyterate in the Roman
Church. With these facts before us, we shall cease to regard the
expression, Ephes. 3, ' the bishops established in the farthest parts (rara
to irepara) ', as a stumblingblock. At the most it is a natural hyperbole,
not more violent than the language of S. Paul when, writing to the
Thessalonians only a few months after their conversion, he declares that
their faith is ' spread abroad in every place ', so that it is superfluous for
him to speak of it (1 Thess. i. 8)2.
It should be observed also that the conception of the episcopal
office itself is wholly different from the ideas which prevailed in the
later years of the second century. There is not throughout these letters
the slightest tinge of sacerdotal language in reference to the Christian
ministry3. The only passage in which a priest or a high-priest is men
tioned at all is Philad. 9 ; ' The priests likewise are good, but the
High-priest is better, even He to whom is entrusted the holy of holies,
who alone hath been entrusted with the hidden things of God, being
Himself the door of the Father, etc' Here a careless exegesis has
referred the priests to the Christian ministry; but the whole context
resists this reference. The writer is contrasting the Old dispensation
with the New. He allows the worth of the former, but he claims a
1 See Galatians p. 31 on the proba- ayyiXXerai iv 8Xa rip Koapq : comp.
bility that European Gaul is meant by xvi. 19 1) yap bpav iiraKoi) els irdvras a<pl-
Galatia' in 2 Tim. iv. 10. Moreover, Kero.
if S. Paul himself went to Spain, as there * Nothing can be farther from the
is good reason to believe he did, it is not truth than the view of Heumann who, as
likely that a country lying intermediate represented by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec.vn.
between Italy and Spain would remain p. 36, ed. Harles), argues that these
long without the Gospel. Irenseus, writing epistles must have been written after the
soonafterA.D. i75,speaksof'thechurches age of Cyprian, ' probatque judicium
established in the provinces of Germany Dodwelli (Diss. Cyprian, vii. § 13 et 33)
(Veppavlais) and Iberia ('Ifsijplais) and non esse ovum ovo similius quam Igna-
atnong the Celts ' (i. 10. 2), thus bearing tianae totam Cypriani de episcoporum
witness to the wide spread of the Gospel auctoritate ratiocinationem. ' Theessen-
north of the Alps and west of Italy in his tial difference between the two views is
pointed out in my Essay, pp. 250 sq.,

time,

So too Rom. i. 8 ij irlaris vpiav Kar- 258 sq

o

82 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

superiority for the latter (igaiperov Be ti ey« to. £7jayyeXiov...TO Se euavye-
Xwv dirdpTio-pi ianv dcpBapcrias). Plainly therefore by the 'priests'
Here is meant the Levitical priesthood, the mediators of the Old Cove
nant; while the High-priest is Christ, the mediator of the New1. Nor
again is there any approach even to the language of Irenseus, who,
regarding the episcopate as the depositary of the doctrinal tradition of
the Apostles, lays stress on the Apostolical succession as a security for
its faithful transmission. In these Ignatian Epistles the episcopate, or
rather the threefold ministry, is the centre of order, the guarantee * of
unity, in tbe Church. ' Have a care for union ' is the writer's charge to
Polycarp (Polyc. 1); and this idea runs throughout the notices (Ephes.
2 — 5, 20, Magn. 6, 13, Trail. 7, Philad. inscr., 3, 4, 7, 8, Smyrn. 8, 9).
Heresies are rife; schisms are imminent. To avert these dangers,
loyalty to Church rulers is necessary. There is no indication that he is
upholding the episcopal against any other form of Church government,
as for instance the presbyteral. The alternative which he contemplates
is lawless isolation and self-will. No definite theory is propounded as
to the principle on which the episcopate claims allegiance. It is as the
recognised authority of the churches which the writer addresses, that
he maintains it. Almost simultaneously with Ignatius, Polycarp ad
dresses the Philippian Church, which appears not yet to have had a
bishop, requiring its submission ' to the presbyters and deacons ' (Phil.
5). If Ignatius had been writing to this church, he would doubtless
have done the same. As it is, he is dealing with communities where
episcopacy had been already matured, and therefore he demands obe
dience to their bishops.
It is worthy of notice likewise that, though the form of government
in these Asiatic Churches is in some sense monarchical, yet it is very
far from being autocratic. We have seen already that in one passage
the writer in the term ' the council of the bishop ' (Philad. 8) includes
the bishop himself as well as his presbyters. This expression tells its
own tale. Elsewhere submission is required to the presbyters as well as
to the bishop (Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 2, 7, Trail. 13). Nay sometimes
the writer enjoins obedience to the deacons as well as to the bishop and
presbyters (Polyc. 6; comp. Magn. 6, Trail. 3, Philad. 7, Smyrn. 8).
The ' presbytery ' is a ' worthy spiritual coronal ' (a^ioirAoKou irvevparuiov
o-recpdvov) round the bishop (Magn. 13). It is the duty of every one, but
especially of the presbyters, ' to refresh the bishop unto the honour of
1 See below, II. p. 274. DaiUe" (p. sq.). The right view is also taken by Bull
383) goes wrong on this point. Pie is (Works ix. p. 575) and by ^aur '
corrected by Pearson (Vind. Ign. p. 532 sprung d. Episcopats p. 173)-

THE GENUINENESS. 383
the Father [and] of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles' (Trail. 12). They
stand in the same relation to him ' as the chords to the lyre ' (Ephes. 4).
If obedience is due to the bishop as to the grace of God, it is due to
the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ (Magn. 2). If the bishop
occupies the place of God or of Jesus Christ, the presbyters are as the
Aposties, as the council of God (Magn. 6, Trail. 2, 3, Smyrn. 8). This
last comparison alone would show how widely the idea of the episcopate
differed from the later conception, when it had been formulated in the
doctrine of the Apostolical succession. The presbyters, not the bishops,
are here the representatives of the Apostles.
There is yet another feature in the notices of the episcopate in the
Ignatian letters which deserves remark. Of a diocese, properly so called,
there is no trace. It is quite a mistake to suppose that Ignatius is called
'bishop of Syria' in Rom. 2 (see the note 11. p. 201). Episcopacy has
not passed beyond its primitive stage. The bishop and presbyters are
the ministry of a city, not of a diocese. What provision may have been
made for the rural districts we are not told. The country folk about
Ephesus or Smyrna were probably still pagans, not only in the original
sense of the word, but also in its later theological meaning. This fact
however can hardly be used as a criterion of date, as it would hold
throughout the second century, and no critic would now think of
assigning a later date than this to the Ignatian letters.
One point especially calls for a notice when we are considering the
unequal development of the episcopate in different parts of Christendom.
Of the seven letters bearing the name of Ignatius, six are addressed to
Asia Minor, the remaining one to Rome. The six are full of exhorta
tions urging obedience to the bishops ; the letter to Rome is entirely
free from any such command. Indeed, if Ignatius had not incidentally
mentioned himself as 'the bishop of or 'from Syria', the letter to the
Romans would have contained no indication of the existence of the
episcopal office. It is addressed to the Church of Rome. It assigns
to this church a preeminence of rank as well as of love (inscr.). There
are obviously in Rome persons in high quarters so influential that the
saint fears lest their intervention should rob him of the crown of mar
tyrdom. With all this importance attributed to the Roman Church, it
is the more remarkable that not a word is said about the Roman bishop.
Indeed there is not even the faintest hint that a bishop of Rome existed
at this time. To ourselves the Church of Rome has been so entirely
merged in the Bishop of Rome, that this silence is the more surprising.
Yet startling as this omission is, it entirely accords with the information
derived from other trustworthy sources. All the ancient notices point

384 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
to the mature development of episcopacy in Asia Minor at this time.
On the other hand, all the earliest notices of the Church in Rome point
in the opposite direction. In the Epistle of Clement, which was written
a few years before these Ignatian letters purport to be penned, there is
no mention of the bishop. The letter is written in the name of the
Church ; it speaks with the authority of the Church. It is strenuous,
even peremptory, in the authoritative tone which it assumes; but it
pleads the authority not of the chief minister, but of the whole body1.
The next document emanating from the Roman Church after the as
sumed date of the Ignatian Epistles is the Shepherd of Hermas. Here
again we are met with similar phenomena. If we had no other infor
mation, we should be at a loss to say what was the form of Church
government at Rome when the Shepherd was written". Thus the con
trast between Asia Minor and Rome in the Ignatian letters exactly
reproduces the contrast to be found elsewhere in the earliest and most
authentic sources of information. This contrast moreover admits of
an easy and natural explanation. As S. Jerome said long ago, the
episcopal government was matured as a safeguard against heresy and
schism. As such it appears in the Ignatian letters. But Asia Minor
was in the earliest ages the hot-bed of false doctrine and schismatical
teachers. Hence the early and rapid adoption of episcopacy there.
On the other hand, Rome was at this time remarkably free from such
troubles. It was not till the middle of the second century that heresi
archs found it worth their while to make Rome their centre of opera
tions. The Roman Church is described in the Ignatian letter as
' strained clear from any foreign colour ' of doctrine. Hence the epis
copate, though doubtless it existed in some form or other in Rome,
had not yet (it would seem) assumed the same sharp and well-defined
monarchical character with which we are confronted in the Eastern
churches. But what explanation could be given of this reticence, if the
Ignatian letters were a forgery ? What writer, even a generation later
than the date assigned to Ignatius, would have exercised this self-
restraint ? The Church of Rome is singled out by Hegesippus and
Irenseus in the latter half of the second century for emphatic mention
in this very connexion. The succession of the bishops of Rome is with
them the chief guarantee of the transmission of the orthodox doctrine.
Much mention of the Church of Rome and yet no mention of the
Bishop of Rome — this would be an inexplicable anomaly, a stark ana
chronism, in their age8.
1 See S. Clement of Rome, Appendix, 2 See Philippians p. 219 sq.
p. 252 sq. a Yet with a bold disregard of all his-

THE GENUINENESS. 385
Renan has remarked that apocryphal writings betray themselves by
the prominence of a 'tendency.' Applying this test to the Ignatian
Epistles he pronounces them spurious, ' always excepting the Epistle to
the Romans.' 'The author wishes to make a great stroke in favour of
the episcopal hierarchy1.' This touchstone is altogether fallacious. In
all great crises of the Church, ecclesiastical leaders manifest, cannot
help manifesting, some tendency. The utterances of Luther or of Pio
Nono are marked by this feature as strongly as the False Decretals, and
even more strongly than the Ignatian Epistles. Moreover Renan's test
is condemned by his exception ; for it is demonstrable, I believe, that
the Epistle to the Romans issued from the same pen as the other six
letters (see pp. 301, 410 sq., 413).
From the ministry of men we turn to the ministry of women;
and here a notice in these letters, as commonly interpreted, seems to
point to a later date than the age of Ignatius. In Smyrn. 13 the saint
sends a salutation to ' the virgins that are called widows ' (ras irapBevovs
ras Xeyoph/a's xVPa*)- This is generally supposed to imply that at the
time when the letter was written the order of so-called widows was
composed chiefly or solely of virgins. I have pointed out however in
the notes on the passage (11. p. 322) that the language of ancient
writers elsewhere suggests a wholly different interpretation ; that it was
customary to speak of those widows who maintained a chaste widow
hood as 'virgins a second time,' 'virgins in God's sight,' and the like;
and that therefore the expression in Smyrn. 13 implies nothing more
than that these persons, though widows in common designation and in
outward condition, were virgins in heart and spirit. This is indeed the
only explanation of the passage unattended by serious historical diffi
culties, whatever date be assigned to the Ignatian letters. In no age,
however late, in the history of the Church was the 'viduatus'
composed solely or chiefly of virgins. Even in Tertullian's time
(de Virg. Vel. 9) only one virgin here and there had been admitted into
the order, so that he regards a 'virgo vidua' as a monstrous irregularity;
and no one now would place the Ignatian Epistles as late as Tertullian.
From the ministry of the Church we turn to its liturgy. And
here our evidence is chiefly negative. The absence of any references
to a developed ritual in the public services of the Church is an argument
toric probability Baur unhesitatingly af- (Ur sprung d. Episcopats p. 184). So too
firms that these Ignatian letters were Schwegler Nachapost. Zeitalter 11. p. 1 78.
forged in Rome itself about this time x Les Evangiles p. xix.
IG. I. 25

386 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
in favour of the early date, though not a strong argument, since the
omission might be accidental.
One notice however has a more direct and positive bearing as an
indication of the writer's age and deserves special attention. In S. Paul's
time (a.d. 57, 58) the eucharist was plainly part of the agape (1 Cor.
xi. 17 sq. ; comp. Acts xx. 7). The Christian festival, both in the hour
of the day and in the arrangement of the meal, was substantially a
reproduction of Christ's last night with His Apostles. Hence it was
called 'the Lord's Supper' — a name originally applied to the combined
eucharist and agape, but afterwards applied to the former when the
latter had been separated or even abolished. On the other hand in
Justin Martyr's time (about a.d. 140) the two were no less plainly
separate (Apol. i. §§ 65, 67), the eucharistic celebration apparently taking
place in the early morning. When was the change brought about ?
The notice in the letter of the younger Pliny (Plin. etTraj. Epist. 96)
throws some light on the subject. It is plain from his language that
these festivals of the Christians had begun to provoke unfavourable
comments. The stigma of 'Thyestean banquets' and 'GLdipodean
pollutions ' was already fastened or fastening upon them. What was to
be done in order to disarm criticism ? The eucharist was the core of
Christian worship : this at all events could not be sacrificed. On the
other hand the agape was not essential, though valuable in itself as a
bond of brotherhood. A severance therefore was the obvious course.
The eucharist was henceforward celebrated in the early morning, whereas
the agape continued to be held, like other social meals, in the evening.
It is not quite clear from Pliny's language (see above, p. 52 sq.), whether
this severance had actually taken place before Pliny interposed with his
enquiry into the affairs of the Christians, or whether it was the immediate
consequence of this interposition ; though the former seems the more
probable alternative. But anyhow it is a reasonable inference from his
language, that the severance was due to these charges of immorality
brought against the Christian festivals in the age of Trajan and to the
persecutions ensuing thereupon. When the eucharist was cut adrift
from the agape, the agape might be discontinued, as circumstances
dictated. As a matter of fact, we learn from Pliny's language that it
was suspended in Bithynia in the age of Trajan, and we know from
history that it was finally abandoned throughout the Church, though at
a much later date.
Now in the Ignatian Epistles there is an expression which can only
be interpreted naturally as implying that, when they were written, the
eucharist still formed part of the agape. ' It is not permitted,' says

THE GENUINENESS. 387
the writer, 'without the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love feast'
(Smyrn. 8 ovk igdv icmv ^copis tou eVio-KoVou ouYe ftairn^tiv ovre dydrrrjv
iroieiv). In such a connexion the omission of the most important function
in the Christian Church — the eucharist — is inconceivable. Therefore the
eucharist must be implicitly contained in the agape. The expression
here in fact is equivalent to the ' tinguere et off err e', which are mentioned
by Tertullian (de Exh. Cast. 7 ; comp. de Virg. Vel. 9) as the chief
functions of the priestly office (see below, 11. p. 313). It is true that the
eucharist has been mentioned previously in this Ignatian letter ; but the
previous mention does not dispense with its presence here. A sentence
has intervened. Moreover the form of the expression suggests that
these particulars, ' baptizing and holding an agape,' are not particulars
superadded to the eucharist, but are intended to be comprehensive in
themselves. He does not write 'Neither again is it permitted,' but
absolutely 'It is not permitted1.' Here then we have a valuable in
dication of date. Whether Ignatius was martyred before or after the
persecution in Bithynia to which Pliny's letter refers (a.d. 112; see
above, p. 56, and below, 11. p. 532), it is impossible to decide without
further evidence. Nor again have we a right to say that the severance
between the agape and the eucharist took place at Antioch or in Smyrna
at the same time as in the Churches of Pontus and Bithynia. But
there can be little doubt that the union of the two did not generally
survive the persecution of Trajan, and when Justin wrote, some thirty
years later, the severance seems to have been complete everywhere.
(iv) Literary Obligations.
An important criterion of date in the case of an unknown author
may in many cases be found in his quotations or plagiarisms2, and
generally in his literary obligations, whether acknowledged or not, to
those who have gone before him. In the present instance however the
direct evidence under this head is exceptionally meagre. The author of
1 The Ignatian interpolator in the tainment (otrre irpoo-tpipew ovre Bvalav
fourth century felt the necessity of a irpoo-Kopl^eiv owe Sox^ iirireXetv),' where
mention of the eucharist here, but the the oblation and sacrifice signify the
eucharist was no longer a part of the eucharist, and the entertainment (Soxn) is
agape and the primitive custom in this a synonyme for the agape (see the note,
respect had passed out of memory. Ac- II. p. 312).
cordingly he substitutes other words: 'It 2 The Ignatian writer of the fourth
is not lawful without the bishop either century betrays his date very clearly by
to baptize or to make an oblation or to his plagiarisms; see above, p. 249 sq.
offer sacrifice or to celebrate an enter-
25—2

388 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
these epistles — whether Ignatius or another — is a man of an essentially
independent mind. We should not therefore look for many quotations
or adaptations; and, as a matter of fact, his obligations are confined
to the Scriptures, with the exception of some slight coincidences with
the Epistle of S. Clement, on which no stress can be laid1. But the
Scriptural references afford evidence of the highest value, though for the
most part negative.
A primary test of age in any early Christian writing is the relation
which the notices of the words and deeds of Christ and His Apostles
bear to the Canonical writings. Tried by this test the Ignatian Epistles
proclaim their early date. There is no sign whatever in them of a
Canon or authoritative collection of books of the New Testament,
The expression ' It is written ' (yeypairrai) is employed to introduce
quotations from the Old Testament alone (Ephes. 5, Magn. 12). In one
passage it is evidently used by Ignatius, in controversy with his Judaizing
opponents, of the Old Testament as distinguished from the New (Philad.
8). In this same passage ' the archives ' (apxela) are opposed to 'the
Gospel' (to eiayyeXiov), as the Old Testament to the New (see the
notes, 11. p. 270 sq.). Such language is highly archaic. Nor does it
stand alone. There are frequent references to the facts of Christ's life,
the miraculous incarnation, the baptism, the crucifixion, the resurrection,
etc. There are even Gospel sayings embedded in these letters, though
not directly cited, e.g. Polyc. 2 ' Be thou prudent as the serpent in all
things and harmless always as the dove ' (Matt. x. 6), thus showing that
the writer was acquainted with some of our Canonical Gospels. But
there is not so much as a single reference to written evangelical
records, such as the ' Memoirs of the Apostles ' which occupy so large a
place in Justin Martyr. Still less is there any quotation by name from
a canonical Gospel, though such quotations abound in Irenasus. It is
important also to observe that some incidents of Christ's life seem to
have been derived either from oral tradition or from apocryphal written
sources. This is the case with the saying in Smyrn. 3 'Take hold,
handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' — language
corresponding to but different from Luke xxiv. 36 sq., which refers to
the same event (see 11. p. 294 sq.). DaiHe- (p. 338 sq.) ventured to affirm
that this quotation showed the late date of the Ignatian writer, because
it was unworthy of an Apostolic father to quote from apocryphal
1 e.g. Ephes. 15 compared with Clem. to Clement's Epistle in Rom. 3 (s®
Rom. 27 (see II. p. 70). On the other above p. 357 sq., and II. p. 203).
hand there seems to be a tacit reference

THE GENUINENESS. 389
writings. No reasonable critic now would for a moment use such an
argument. An evangelical saying not found in the Canonical Gospels
is rather suggestive of an early date, when oral tradition was still active
and the evangelical narrative was not yet confined within any well-
marked boundaries. The same is true, though not to the same extent,
of the exaggerated account of the star at the nativity in Ephes. 19,
where again it is impossible to say whether the writer was drawing upon
oral tradition or upon some unknown written narrative (see 11. p. 80 sq.).
Again there is good reason for surmising that the words, ' He that is
near the sword is near God,' in Smyrn. 4 were adopted or adapted from
some evangelical saying current in earlier times (see the note 11. p.
299 sq.).
The same holds good also of the Apostolic Epistles. Though the
writer is evidently acquainted with several of S. Paul's Epistles, he
never directly quotes any one. Addressing the Ephesians however
(Ephes. 12), he says that this Apostle makes mention of them in every
letter (ev irdo-r] ejnoroXij pmnpovevei vpwv). These words are a stumbling-
block to Daille (pp. 351, 352), who argues that the statement is ' most
clearly false,' and therefore the writer was 'anything rather than
Ignatius' (nihil. ..esse minus quam Ignatium). False indeed it is, in
the sense of being hyperbolical. As a matter of fact, S. Paul mentions
the Ephesians in six of his thirteen epistles (see below 11. p. 65) and he
refers to individual members of the Church of Ephesus in two others
(Col. iv. 7, Tit. iii. 12). But the question for us is not how true or how
false the statement is; but whether it was more likely to be made by an
early than a late writer. And to this question I think there can only be
one answer. The Pauline Epistles were not, we have reason to believe,
bound up in one volume so as to be convenient for reference, when
Ignatius lived. We have no right even to assume that just the same
epistles — neither more nor fewer — were accessible to him which are
accessible to us. And this being so, he was much more likely to have
indulged in such a statement than a writer situated like ourselves.
I would ask any reader, who desires to apprehend the full force of
these arguments, to read a book or two of Irenaeus continuously, and
mark the contrast in the manner of dealing with the Evangelical narratives
and the Apostolic letters. He will probably allow that an interval of
two generations or more is not too long a period to account for the
difference of treatment. If, reading the two documents side by side, he
is not himself impressed with the wide gulf which separates them, his
opinion is not likely to be affected by any arguments of others.
Directly connected with this subject is the reference in the Igna-

390 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
tian Epistles to New Testament personages. No little difficulty has
been occasioned by the fact that the writer, addressing the Ephe
sians (§ 12), adverts to their connexion with S. Paul, but is silent
about their connexion with S. John. As I have explained in the notes
(11. p. 64), there was a special reason why S. Paul should be mentioned,
which did not apply to S. John. It is as one who, like Ignatius
himself, had been received by the Ephesians on his way to Rome and
to martyrdom, that the Apostle of the Gentiles is singled out for
mention. The difficulty however — such as it is — affects not the genu
ineness of the Ignatian Epistles but the credibility of the tradition of
S. John's sojourn at Ephesus during his later years. So far as it has any
bearing at all on the Ignatian question, the omission of S. John's name
is rather favourable to the genuineness of these letters than otherwise.
In the age of Irenseus (Haer. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4) and Polycrates (Euseb.
H. E. v. 24), when the traditions of S. John's residence at Ephesus
were rife in the Church, the temptation to a forger writing to the
Ephesians to say something about him would be almost irresistible.
Even the later Ignatian writer of the fourth century cannot withstand
this impulse. In the previous chapter (§11) Ignatius mentions the
obedience of the Ephesians ' to the Apostles '. This Ignatian interpo
lator must needs give their names, Paul, John, and Timothy.
But the reticence of the writer with regard to Ignatius himself would
be still more remarkable if these letters had been a forgery. A forger
generally betrays himself by his too great eagerness to claim the highest
authority for his utterances. Ignatius was well known as an 'Apostolic'
father. He was the friend of S. John's disciple Polycarp. The writer
of these epistles has occasion to mention S. Peter and S. Paul by name
(Ephes. 12, Rom. 4). He speaks also generally of those Apostles with
whom the Ephesians were connected (Ephes. n), thus by implication
referring to S. John. Polycarp is directly addressed in one letter and
mentioned by name in two others (Ephes. 21, Magn. 15). While
thus moving about among Apostles and Apostolic men, how could
our supposed forger have resisted the temptation to affiliate the
hero whose mask he wears on one or other of these Apostles,
and to throw some light on his spiritual parentage and relations?
Yet so far is this from being the case that these letters contain
no suggestion of any connexion between the writer and the Apostles,
that on the contrary he is placed in direct contrast with them (Trail 3,
Rom. 4), and that in consequence grave doubts have been entertained
by critics whether Ignatius was in any strict sense an ' Apostolic ' father
after all (see above, p. 30).

THE GENUINENESS. 391
(v) Personality of the Writer.
Objections have been taken to the Ignatian letters on the ground
that the character of the writer, as he represents himself, is inconsistent
with the position of an Apostolic father. Objections of this class rest
for the most part on the assumption that an Apostolic father must be a
person of ideal perfections intellectually as well as morally — an assump
tion which has only to be named in order to be refuted.
Thus, for instance, offence has been taken at the angelology of the
author of these epistles. He represents himself in one passage as
possessing an exceptional insight into the mysteries of the unseen world,
a knowledge of the orders and dispositions of the angels, which he fears
to communicate to his readers lest it should be too strong meat for them
(Trail. 5). In another passage likewise (Smyrn. 6) he speaks in such a
manner as to show that such speculations had a great fascination for
him. But what then ? He only shared the mystical tendencies of his
age. The air was full of angelology at this time. Jewish and Christian
writers alike abound in fantastic reveries respecting the angelic hosts —
reveries which are stated with as much definiteness and precision as if
they enunciated scientific facts1. We need not stop to ask whether such
speculations are edifying or the reverse. It is sufficient for our purpose
to point out that, though far from uncommon in other ages, they were
especially characteristic of the first and second centuries. It is recorded
of a later divine who is the very type of calm and judicious reasoning,
that when asked on his death-bed how his thoughts were occupied, he
replied that he was ' meditating the number and nature of angels, and
their blessed obedience and order, without which peace could not be in
heaven — and oh that it might be so on earth'2. Why should that be
thought incredible at any time in an Ignatius, which was true of a
Hooker in the solemnity of his dying hours ?
Another ground of objection is the extravagant humility and self-
depreciation, which the writer assumes. He declines to place himself
on the same level as the Apostles (Rom. 4, Trail. 3). He will not set
himself up as a teacher of others (Ephes. 3). He does not regard him
self even as a disciple (Ephes. 1, Trail. 5, Rom. 5); he is still only a
probationer. His discipleship will only then be complete, when his life
is crowned with martyrdom (Rom. 4, Polyc. 7 ; see 11. p. 31). Nor is this
1 See II. p. 164 ; comp. Colossians pp. of Jesus the Messiah II. p. 745 sq.
89, 101, 103, no, and the notes on i. 16, 2 Walton's Life of Hooker (Hooker's
ii-i8. See also Edeisheim Life and Times Works 1. p. 85, ed. ICeble).

392 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
all. Again and again he speaks of himself as the last of the Antiochene
Christians, as ashamed to be called one of them, as not worthy to
have a place among them (Ephes. 21, Magn. 14, Trail. 13, Rom. 9,
Smyrn. n).
This language may surprise us. It may appear to savour of fanati
cism or of unreality. It may be thought to fall short of the true saintly
temper. These however are points which we need not discuss. The
only question, which we have here to ask, is whether such language was
more likely to have been used by a false impersonator of Ignatius than
by Ignatius himself. And we are constrained to answer in the negative,
What forger, desirous of exalting Ignatius in the eyes of his readers,
would go out of his way to make him vilify himself? There is also one
point worthy of notice in connexion with this subject The only church
to which he does not use this language of self-depreciation is the Phil
adelphian. It is also the only church in which he had encountered
opposition. Not only had he been assailed himself (§§ 7, 8) ; but his
opponents had carried their hostility so far as to treat his followers,
Philo and Agathopus, with contumely (§ n). Writing to the Philadel
phians therefore, he could not compromise his position by any words of
self-humiliation. The case is somewhat analogous to S. Paul's attitude
towards the Galatians, as distinguished from his language addressed to
churches in which his authority was undisputed. But what forger would
have possessed the insight, or have exercised the self-restraint, which
this exceptional treatment in the Philadelphian letter supposes ?
Moreover this humility is explained, at least in part, by language
which Ignatius uses of himself on one occasion (Rom. 9). Like S. Paul
he describes himself as an eKrpwpa, a sudden, violent, immature birth.
Like S. Paul also he had 'found mercy' (r)Xerjpai). It was the sense of
an unwonted, unexpected rescue from a previous state of unbelief, or of
immorality, or of both, which overwhelmed him with thanksgiving and
stung him with reproaches1. In the light of this fact the extravagance
of his self-depreciation no longer wears an appearance of unreality. It
is the intensely sincere outpouring of a sensitive conscience brooding
over a painful memory.
Exception has been taken also to the extravagant eagerness for
martyrdom which these letters betray. Such fanaticism, it is urged, is
inconceivable in an Apostolic father. On this subject something has
been said already (p. 38 sq.). It seems to me impossible to question
that the cause which Ignatius had at heart — the cause of Christ— gained
1 For more on this subject see above, p. 28, and below, H. p. 229 sq.

THE GENUINENESS. 393
incomparably more by his death, than it could have gained by his life.
If so, he was far wiser than his critics. But, if the end was thus praise
worthy, who shall blame the means ? He had not courted death in the
first instance. His condemnation was not his own choice. But once
condemned, he would not accept his life back as a concession. The
acceptance of a pardon would have been the acknowledgement of an
offence. But let us grant for a moment that this eagerness for martyr
dom was fanatical, was unreasonable, was culpable in the highest de
gree. What ground have we for assuming that an Apostolic father
would escape liability to error — more especially when that error was an
exaggeration of zeal, an excess of self-devotion? It is a well-known
fact that during the age of persecution not a few Christians threw them
selves in the way of martyrdom. The heathen satirist Lucian tells us
(de Morte Peregr. 13; see above, p. 1 30) that in their contempt of death
the greater number surrendered themselves voluntarily (l/covTes awovs
ra-iSiSoWiv 01 iroXXoi). We have ample evidence from other quarters
that this courting of martyrdom was by no means uncommon. In the
Letter of the Smyrnceans on the death of Polycarp (§ 4) mention is made
of certain persons who delivered themselves up voluntarily to death.
One of these, Quintus, recanted at the last moment, and this recantation
gives occasion to the writers of the letter to condemn the practice,
which obviously was far from uncommon. Of another, Germanicus, who
is highly commended by them, it is recorded that he actually did what
Ignatius expresses his intention of doing (Rom. 5) ; he drew the wild
beast to him by force, that he might be released the sooner from the
miseries of life (§ 3). The bold and defiant conduct of the martyrs at
Vienne and Lyons again (Euseb. H. E. v. 1, §§ 9, 49) shows the temper
in which the Christians faced death in the age of the Antonines. In
the later persecutions, those of Decius and Diocletian for instance, it
was very common for zealous enthusiasts thus to challenge martyrdom1,
and the sober sense of the Church was again and again needed to
rebuke and discourage this spirit, which tended to degenerate into a
fanaticism of self-immolation.
But as regards Ignatius, one point deserves special attention. As
the objection is often stated, we might suppose that this inordinate
thirst for martyrdom appeared throughout all the seven letters. As a
matter of fact, the charge is founded on the Epistle to the Romans
alone. Of the six remaining epistles two say not a word about mar
tyrdom, though in one of these he speaks of his chains (Magn. 1), while
1 For more on this subject see Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 477 sor

394 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
in the other he alludes to his approaching death indirectly (Philad. 5)
in language which we should be at a loss to interpret if we had no other
sources of information. The other four do indeed mention martyrdom
(Ephes. 1, 3, Smyrn. 4, 10, n, Polyc. 7, Trail. 3, 4, 10, 12) incidentally
as the desired consummation of his life ; but in one only out of the
four — the Trallian Epistle — is it referred to with anything like emphasis;
But for the exceptional treatment in the letter to the Romans there was
an exceptional reason. His fear lest the intervention of influential
Romans should procure a reversal or mitigation of the sentence
obliged him to dwell on the subject and betrayed him into a very
natural exaggeration of language. Here again we are constrained to
ask what forger, bent on enforcing his own view of martyrdom, would
have observed these proportions, thus gagging himself during the
greater part of his work.
The Ignatian letters do indeed present a picture of an unusual per
sonality. But it is a picture much more explicable as the autotype of
a real person than as the invention of a forger.
(vi) Style and Character of the Letters.
The attacks on the style and character of the letters need not detain
us very long. Such arguments can at best be reckoned as make
weights, and have not an appreciable value in themselves. The attack
was led by Blondel (p. 40 sq.) and followed up by Daille' (pp. 377 sq.,
405 sq.), whose arguments have been repeated by later writers. The
images, it is argued, are forced and unnatural, the language is con
fused, the diction is bombastic. Thus the letters are altogether un
worthy of an Apostolic father.
But assuming that these criticisms are just, why should not Ignatius
have been guilty of all these faults ? What security did his position as
an Apostolic father give that he should write simply and plainly, that
he should avoid solecisms, that his language should never be disfigured
by bad taste or faulty rhetoric ? As a matter of fact however, not a
few of these charges have arisen from a misunderstanding of his words.
Thus Blondel (p. 41) complains of the confused simile in Polyc. 6 to
ftdiTTicrpa vpwv juevero) oSs oirXa, rj ttiotis cos irepiKecpaXaia k.t.X. VJV.W1
enim,' he asks, ' fides, dilectio, patientia, conferunt jam per bapttstna
armato V His language convicts him of ignorance that in this passage
oVAa does not mean 'arms' but 'shields' (see the note 11. p- 3S3>
Then again both Blondel (p. 40) and Daille- (p. 406) attack the passage
in Ephes. 9 owoSoi TraWes, Beocpopot. ko.1 vaocpopoi, xpioro^opoi, ayuxpopoi,

THE GENUINENESS. 395
k.t.a., and it has also been assailed by more recent opponents. It is
clear however that the assailants have not entered into the spirit, pro
bably have not apprehended the meaning, of the metaphor. To the
Ephesians in the age of Ignatius, as I have shown elsewhere (n. pp. 1 7
sq., 55 sq.), this language would speak with singular force and aptitude,
owing to a fresh developement which the practice of bearing images
and sacred vessels in solemn procession had recently received in their
city. No metaphor therefore could have been more expressive or well-
timed. The same is the case with several other expressions to which
exception has been taken. Ignatius is not an easy writer. The ideas
seldom lie on the surface of the language. His images more especially
are almost always unusual and sometimes obscure. They require some
little patience to master their significance. In other cases they may not
commend themselves to the critical judgment. But what then? It
may not be considered very good taste for instance to draw out the
metaphor of a hauling engine (Ephes. 9) — to compare the Holy Spirit
to the rope, the faith of the believers to the windlass, and so forth
(Daille", p. 409). But on what grounds, prior to experience, have we any
more right to expect either a faultless taste or a pure diction in a
genuine writer at the beginning of the second century, than in a spurious
writer at the end of the same ?
The more special accusations under this head are fourfold : (1)
Elaborate Compounds; (2) Latinisms; (3) Reiterations; (4) Ana
chronisms. (1) On the first head little need be said. Even if the charges were
proved to the full, it would be no argument against the genuineness of
the letters. The writer would have been convicted of bad taste, but
bad taste is not forgery. The charge however has been much over
stated. With the exception of the accumulated compounds of epopo%,
more especially in the passage already quoted from Ephes. 9, and of the
derivatives of a|ios, which elsewhere occur with some frequency and
are accumulated in the opening of the Epistle to the Romans, it is not
probable that this feature would have provoked comment. It is
indeed in no way specially characteristic of Ignatius. The examples of
such compounds are more numerous, as Pearson has pointed out ( Vind.
¦Ign. p. 578), in the Epistle of Clement of Rome which (not reckoning
the Scriptural quotations) is about the same length as our seven Ignatian
Episties. Of the derivatives of <x£ios Pearson writes (p. 580 sq.);
''kgiaydirrrro? is used by Ignatius, but also by Clement of Rome; dgio-
¦BavpaaTOi, dgiopvrjpovevros, dgioirpeirecrTaTOS, dgiopaKapio-TOTarcrs, dgieiraivos,
are found in our author, but they are also found in Xenophon, in whom

396 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
we find these words besides, d^idyao-TOs, dlidicoooTos, dgiaKpoaros, dgitir-
aiveTos, d^iepaoros, agioftiwTO'S, dgioepyos, dgtoBearos, dfioKTijTos, d£ioAo-
yorrepos, dgioviKO<s, d£io7rioTos, dgiocrKeiTTO's, dgiocnrovSaoTO'S, dgiOTeKpapros,
dgiocpiXr)Tos, dgioxpewraTo^. Yet Xenophon, whose works abound in these
words, was judged by the ancient critics KaBapds tois dvopaa-i koI cra^s xal
evapyrys 'pure and perspicuous'; whose language the Graces themselves
seemed to Quinctilian to have framed and in which also he observes an
unaffected and agreeable style (jucunditatem inaffectatam).' This is a
direct answer to the objection in the form in which it is urged. But no
one would describe the style of Ignatius as 'pure and perspicuous.'
These Ignatian letters have indeed a vigour and a savour of their own,
but they cannot be credited with a ' jucunditas inaffectata.' The fact
remains that, though the words individually may be justified by classical
authority, yet they are piled, or rather tumbled, together in a manner
altogether ungraceful. But why should the style of an Apostolic father
not be ungraceful ?
(2) The Latin words used in these epistles need not detain us long.
They are four in all ; exemplarium in Ephes. 2, Trail. 3, Smyrn. 12,
and desertor, deposita, accepta, in Polyc. 6.
But why should not a genuine writer in the early years of the second
century have used Latin words as freely as a forger towards its close ?
It is only necessary to ask this question, and the objection falls to the
ground. Latin words certainly were used with great freedom by Greek
writers even earlier than the age of Ignatius. They abound in the
New Testament; they are not less frequent in Epictetus (see the note
on Polyc. 6, 11. p. 353). The purest writers among the Greek fathers
indulge in them without scruple. Pearson ( Vind. Ign. p. 576) points
to the fact that a single letter of S. Chrysostom (Epist. 14, Op. in.
p. 594) contains twice as many such foreign words as we find in the
whole of these Ignatian Epistles. Why then should these Latinisms
be denied to Ignatius ? The terms in Polyc. 6 are all military. They
are therefore very natural from the pen of one who was bound night
and day to a Roman soldier. The only remaining word, exemplarium,
was a common law term (see 11. p. 34). As such, it would readily be
picked up by a man in the position of Ignatius.
(3) Much again has been said about the reiterations in these letters,
as if this were an argument against their genuineness. But what are the
facts ? The letters are presumably written within a few weeks at most
— probably some of them on the same or successive days. They are
addressed to churches belonging to the same districts, exposed to the
same dangers, needing the same warnings. They are dictated to scribes

THE GENUINENESS. 397
and are intended to serve an immediate purpose. Probably the last idea
which crossed the mind of the author was that they could have any
permanent literary value. To himself, as to S. Paul, to say the same
things was not grievous, while to the several churches it would be
profitable. Is it any marvel if under these circumstances he occasion
ally repeats the same image more or less modified (e.g. Ephes. 4, Philad.
1)? If we compare any two of these epistles together, the repetitions
are not nearly so great as in the two epistles of S. Paul written at the
same time — the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians. It is a striking
and significant fact also, that, when he addresses himself to a new
audience, he introduces a wholly new set of topics. The Ignatian letter
to the Romans stands quite apart from the rest. This fact shows that
the repetition arises not from poverty of thought in the author, but from
similarity of circumstance in the persons addressed. If the epistles had
been a forgery, and the reiterations had arisen from want of originality,
they would have appeared not less in the Epistle to the Romans than in
the other letters. The same remark applies, though in a less degree, to
the Epistle to Polycarp. Indeed we may say generally that a forger,
who has his time altogether at his disposal and works with a literary aim,
is much more likely to avoid repetition than a person writing under the
conditions under which Ignatius is assumed to have written.
(4) A far more serious ground of attack than any of those which
have hitherto been dealt with is the charge of anachronisms in the
vocabulary of these epistles. If this attack could be sustained, we
should be constrained to confess that they were either spurious or inter
polated. For the moment it has seemed to yield signal triumphs to the
assailants ; but in every instance the victory has been reversed.
One such anachronism was discovered in the use of the word
'leopard' (Rom. 5 eVSeSe/xeVos Se'xa XeoirdpSots), which Bochart confi-
dendy asserted to have been unknown before the age of Constantine, thus
charging the supposed forger of these letters with ante-dating the word
by two centuries or thereabouts ; and the objection has been revived by
later antagonists. The question will be found treated at some length in
my note on the passage, 11. p. 212 sq. It is sufficient here to say that
Pearson at once proved the extravagance of this assertion by producing
an example of the word as early as Severus (c. a.d. 202) and thus con
victing Bochart of an error of a whole century at all events. I have
been able to carry the evidence much farther back. The word occurs
in a rescript of the emperors Marcus and Commodus (a.d. 177 — 180)
and also in an early treatise of Galen. In neither passage is there any
indication that the word is new, but on the contrary it is used as a

398 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
perfectly familiar term. The passage in Galen carries back, the direct
evidence of its use within about half a century of Ignatius. As a very
imperfect knowledge and casual research have enabled me to supply
these important passages which have hitherto escaped notice, it is not
unreasonable to surmise that in the extant literature of the intervening
period other examples may occur which have not yet been brought to
light. But even if no more evidence is forthcoming, the facts before us
are amply sufficient to refute the objection. For what is the state of the
case ? Half a century before Ignatius, Pliny uses language (N. H. viii.
17 'leones quos pardi generavere') which shows that the word, if not
actually created, was already on the eve of creation; while half a century
later than this date it is obviously a familiar word. The presumption
therefore is altogether in favour of its existence in the age of Ignatius1,
Where the remains of contemporary literature are so few and frag
mentary, intervals far longer than half a century constantly occur
between the producible instances of the use of particular words. One
example will suffice. The Ignatian letter to the Ephesians on any
showing was written before the middle of the third century when it is
quoted by Origen. Yet the next example, after this Ignatian letter, of
the use of the word draycoyeos in the same sense as ' a lifting-engine'i
(Ephes. 9), which the lexicographers produce, is in Eustathius (see 11.
p. 54), a writer of the twelfth century.
Another alleged anachronism is the expression ' Catholic Church'
as used in Smyrn. 8. ' Let no one', writes our author, 'do anything that
pertaineth to the Church without the bishop... Wherever the bishop
appeareth, there let the people (to irXrjBo<s) be ; just as where Jesus Christ
is, there is the Catholic Church' (coWep dirov av % Xpioros 'It/o-oSs,
e/ceT 17 KaBoXiKr) iKKXrjcria). The earliest extant example of the use of
the theological term ' Catholic Church ', meaning the orthodox and
apostolically descended Church, as distinguished from sectarian and
heretical communities, is in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (§16 eTnWwros
1 Strangely enough Daille had found ' which is a military band ' (0 inTiv <npn-
in this same sentence a wholly different tiutikov rdypa). So, he concluded, 'Ig-
anachronism. With characteristic au- natii simulator leopardorum quidem no-
dacity he asserted that in the age of men ad antiquitatis speciem retinuitj
Ignatius a certain company or regiment sed ne ob obscuritatem lectores turbaret,
of soldiers bore in common parlance the etiam interpretandum putavit, ac se ita
name of 'leopards', but that two centu- nimia diligentia ipse prodidit' (p. 3J3)'
ries later, when the Ignatian forger lived, This band of leopards is a mere figment
this sense of the word had become obso- of Daille's brain, for which there is not a
lete. He therefore felt himself obliged tittle of evidence.
to explain the term by the addition,

THE GENUINENESS. 399
rfs ev Itpvpvy KaOoXucrjs eKKXiyo-ias), and even here the recently disco
vered Moscow ms reads dyias with the Latin Version. It occurs also in
the Muratorian Fragment and in Clement of Alexandria. ' A period
therefore,' writes Cureton (Corp. Ign. p. 337), ' of full fifty years or more
must have intervened between the time when Ignatius wrote and the
first trace we find of the term Catholic Church.' Nor does Cureton
stand alone in advancing this argument.
This objection is founded on the confusion of two wholly different
things. (1) The word 'catholic' ((tafloXiKos) means neither more nor less
than ' universal.' It is found some centuries at least before the Christian
era. Both before and after the age of Ignatius it is commonly used by
classical and ecclesiastical writers alike ; e. g. ' catholic history ', ' a
catholic truth ', ' the catholic resurrection ', where we should say ' uni
versal history ', ' an absolute truth ', ' the general resurrection '. A few
examples are gathered together in my note on the passage (11. p. 310
sq.), where also I have discussed fully its meaning as employed by
Ignatius. It is clear that in this sense the word might have been used
at any time and by any writer from the first moment when the Church
began to spread, while yet the conception of its unity was present to
the mind. The idea involved in the epithet ' catholic ', so employed,
is as distinct in S. Paul's Epistles as it is in the ages of Tertullian and
Origen, of Athanasius and Basil ; and — the word itself being in common
use from the first — it is a wholly unimportant matter, as a chrono
logical test, whether a writer does or does not express the idea by this
epithet. (2) But at a later date 'catholic' came to connote other ideas.
The Catholic Church in this sense has a technical meaning. It implies
orthodoxy as opposed to heresy, conformity as opposed to dissent.
How it came to acquire this sense, I have explained elsewhere (n. p.
311)- In this later meaning a community in a particular city or district
is called the Catholic Church in that locality, as distinguished (for
example) from a Gnostic or Ebionite community there. In this sense,
and this only, has the term Catholic Church any value as a chrono
logical note.
Now clearly in the passage before us (Smyrn. 8) the word is used in
the former sense. Jesus Christ is here said to stand to the universal
Church, in the same relation as the bishop to the particular Church.
Similarly elsewhere (Magn. 3) the Father is styled ' the Bishop over all '
(0 Ttdvrw eTTio-KOTTos), as contrasted with Damas the bishop over the Mag
nesians. Here then ' the Catholic ' or ' Universal Church ' is opposed

400 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
to the Smyrnsean Church, the particular community over which Poly
carp presides.
But in the later sense of the term 'catholic ' such a contrast would
have been impossible. In the passage from the Martyrdom of Polycarp
for instance, which has been quoted already (assuming for a moment that
the reading is correct1), the Church in Smyrna over which Polycarp pre
sides is itself styled the ' Catholic Church '. It is so called in distinction
to the heretical or separatist bodies which had sprung up meanwhile,
Thus the two passages present a direct contrast, the one to the other,
in the use of the term.
The word therefore, as used in the Ignatian Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,
is not indicative of a later date. But we are entitled to go a step further
than this. The engine of the assailant recoils on himself. After the
word ' Catholic ' had acquired its later ecclesiastical sense of ' orthodox
and apostolic ', no writer could have employed it in its earlier meaning
without considerable risk of confusion. When ' Catholic ' was applied
alike to the universal Church and the particular Church, it could no
longer be used safely to designate the universal Church as contrasted
with the particular Church. The archaic sense therefore suggests an
early date for this Ignatian Epistle.
One other alleged anachronism deserves notice, if only on account
of the important issues which depend upon it. Not only does the name
' Christian ' occur several times in these epistles, but the derived word
' Christianity ' (xpio-Tiai>io-p:os) is also found in them (Magn. 10, Rom. 3,
Philad. 6). Supposing them to be genuine, this is the earliest occur
rence of the latter word, which next appears (about a.d. 156) in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp (§ 10). It has been contended however2, that
1 This point will be discussed in a setting aside the Apologists, how scanty
later chapter on the Letter of the Smyr- is the whole amount of extant Christian
nseans; see also 11. p. 311. literature during the first seventy years of
2 Lipsius Ueber den Ursprung u. den the second century; and if the Ignatian
aeltesten Gebrauch des Christennamens Epistles and the Martyrdom of Polycarp
1873. He contends that it may possibly are to be discredited and their testimony
have been invented at the end of Nero's rejected, because they represent believers
reign, though probably it arose after the as using the term familiarly among them-
destruction of Jerusalem (p. 19) ; and he selves, what a slender foundation remains
seems to regard the middle of the second for any induction after these are with-
century (to which date he assigns Justin drawn.
Martyr's Apology) as the turning point, The view of Lipsius is opposed by
when it began to be adopted by the Keim Aus dem Urchristenthum p. 174
Christians themselves, though even then sq. (1878), who however makes conces-
chiefly in relation to heathen charges and sions not warranted by the facts. oM
in apologetic writings (p. 8 sq.). But, also Wieseler Christenverfolg. p. 8 sq.

THE GENUINENESS. 40 1
the name Christian only came into common use during the last decades
of the first century; that a long time elapsed after its general usage
among the heathen before the Christians themselves adopted it; and
that the derivative xPL0"TiavL0~P-°s therefore must be placed later still.
To maintain these positions, it is necessary to reject the convergent
evidence of various independent witnesses.
(i) The Latin historians are explicit in their language. Tacitus
(Ann. xv. 44), describing the outbreak of the Neronian persecution (a.d.
64), speaks of the sufferers as those whom 'the common-folk called
Christians' (quos...vulgus Christianos appellabat). These words imply
that this was already a habitual designation. The tense, ' appellabat ',
as I have remarked elsewhere (p. 9 sq.), precludes tbe supposition that
Tacitus is infusing into the reign of Nero the experiences and the
language of his own day. The word ' vulgus ', the common-folk, more
over shows that the name was not only known at that time, but was in
all mouths. Tacitus is supported by Suetonius. Suetonius (Nero 16)
describes the Neronian persecution in the words, ' afflicti suppliciis
Christiani '. Whence came this agreement in using a term first coined
many years after the events recorded, when both writers had grown or
were growing Up to manhood ? Moreover Pliny, writing under Trajan
(a.d. 112), betrays no knowledge that it was a recent creation. He uses
the word again and again ; he speaks of the ' judicial investigations
respecting the Christians' (cognitionibus de Christianis), as if they had
been going on for a long period; he mentions persons who had ceased
to be Christians more than twenty years; and he asks whether the
'name itself, even though no crimes are proved against a person, is
sufficient ground for condemnation1.
(ii) The testimony of the historians is confirmed from a wholly
different quarter. A graffito has been found at Pompeii, which, if rightly
deciphered and interpreted, must be regarded as decisive. This inscrip
tion is given in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum iv. 679 s, with
all particulars respecting the decipherment. It cannot reasonably be
questioned that the traces of the letters give hristian, and the only
1 See above, p. go; 'ipsum nomen, si 2 See also Friedlander Sittengeschichte
flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia Roms in. p. 529. The interpretations
nomini puniantur ' Pliny had treated which de Rossi and others have put on
the name alone as a sufficient ground and the context, and on other inscriptions
Trajan approved (see p. 14 sq., p. 56). found in the same house, are too shadowy
Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 1 1 (p. 598) and fanciful to command assent. See on
Mkovo-itoIvvv i)pas, ovk dSUovs eivai Kara- this subject an article by V. Schultze
Xap6vm aXX' abro) p.6vtp rip Xpi(mavovs Christeninschrift in Pompeii in Zeitschr.
elvax rbv §lov iiiKelv iiroXap^avovres k.t.X. f. Kinlicngcsch. IV. p. 125 sq. (1881).
IG. I. 26

402 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
word of which these letters can have formed part is ' Christianus ' or
some oblique case of the same. It has been suggested indeed that this
may have been a proper name Christianus or Chrestianus; but no
such proper name is known to have existed, or indeed is probable in
itself, prior to the use of the word to designate ' a follower of Christ'.
Before a.d. 79 therefore — the year in which Pompeii was destroyed — the
name was sufficiently common to be scratched on the wall of an edifice
in a small provincial town by some passer by.
(iii) I have left to the last the evidence of early Christian writings, ¦
not because I entertain any doubt of the validity of this evidence, but
because it has been contested by others. No critical result relating to
the New Testament seems to me more certain than that the Acts of the,
Apostles was written by a companion of S. Paul. Again, few books in
the New Testament are better authenticated than the First Epistle of S.
Peter, which was known to Clement of Rome, to Polycarp, and to
Papias, which was never contested in the ancient Church, and of which
therefore it would be an excess of scepticism to question that it was
written by the Apostle whose name it has always borne.
The name is twice mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. The
earlier passage (xi. 26) contains an account of the preaching of Barnabas
and Saul at Antioch, about a.d. 44, concluding with the words, 'It came
to pass that... they taught a large multitude (ay\ov ucavoV) and that the
disciples were called Christians first in Antioch ' (xprjpaTio-ai re irparw iv
'AvTioxeia tovs paBryrds ^loriaj/oos) '. It has been commonly assumed
that the writer here states the name to have been given simultaneously
with the preaching of Paul and Barnabas in this city. It would indeed
be difficult to show any valid reason why this might not have been the
ease ; but it does not seem to be required by the language of the narra
tive itself. The mission of Barnabas and Saul had gathered together a
considerable church at Antioch ; the Gospel now for the first time
obtained a firm footing on heathen ground; and so the historian naturally
records in connexion with these incidents the fact that the name
Christian was first given in this city. But whether this was an immediate
or an ulterior result of the success of this mission, we are not told. The
word seems to have been in the first instance a nickname fastened by
1 The correct reading is irpwras, not that Euodius was reputed the first bishop
irpCn-ov; see Ps- Magn. 10. A later tra- of Antioch after S. Peter and according
dition ascribed the origin of the name to to the received chronology entered on ms
Euodius (see Joann. Malalas Chron. p. episcopate a.d. 42, so that he would
247, ed. Bonn. ; comp. Suidas p. 1675, ed. already be occupying the see at this time.
Bernhardy). This is explained by the fact

THE GENUINENESS. 403
the heathen populace of Antioch on the followers of Christ1, who still
continued to style themselves the ' disciples ' or the ' saints ' or the
'brethren' or the 'believers', and the like. The biting gibes of the
Antiochene populace which stung to the quick successive emperors —
Hadrian, M. Aurelius, Severus, Julian — would be little disposed to spare
the helpless adherents of this new 'superstition'. Objection indeed has
been taken to the Antiochene origin of the name on the ground that the
termination is Roman", like Pompeianus, Caesarianus, and the like.
But this termination, if it was Latin, was certainly Asiatic likewise, as
appears from such words as 'Acrcavos, Ba/cTpiavos, SapSiavos, TpaAAiaj/ds,
'Apeiavo's, MevavSpiavos, l%afteXXiavds 3. The next occurrence of the word
in a Christian document is on the occasion of S. Paul's appearance
before Festus (a.d. 60). It is not however put in the mouth of a
believer, but occurs in the scornful jeer of Agrippa, ' With but little
persuasion thou wouldest fain make mea Christian' (Acts xxvi. 28) 4.
The third and last example occurs a few years later. In the First Epistle
of S. Peter, presumably about a.d. 66 or 67, the Apostle writes ' Let
not any of you suffer as a murderer or a thief..., but if (he suffers) as a
Christian, let him not be ashamed but glorify God' (iv. 15). Here
again the term is not the Apostle's own, but represents the charge
brought against the believers by their heathen accusers. In the New
Testament there is no indication that the name was yet adopted by the
disciples of Christ as their own. Thus Christian documents again
confirm the statement of Tacitus that as early as the Neronian perse
cution this name prevailed, and the same origin also is indirectly sug
gested by these notices, which he directly states — not ' qui sese appel-

1 See Conybeare and Howson Life and was common not only among the heathen
Epistles of St Paul I. p. 148. but among the Jews '. I do not know why
2 So Baur, Renan, and others. Farrar it should not have been used commonly
(S. Paul 1. p. 296 sq.) adopts an interme- by the Jews at this time, more especially
diate course and contends that, ' though in a city with a mixed population like
t/kos and ivbs are Greek terminations ', yet Ccesarea. But two points may be noticed ;
'anus is mainly Roman', and ascribes (i) Agrippa, though a Jew, spent some
the origin of the name ' to the prevalence time in Rome in his earlier years, had
of Roman terminology at Antioch '. Simi- mixed largely with the heathen, was at this
larly Lewin Life and Epistles of St Paul moment speaking before a heathen audi-
'• P- 97- ence, and would be likely to use heathen
3 See Lipsius I.e. p. 13 sq., who has modes of speech; (2) S. Paul himself
satisfactorily disposed of this question. in his reply does not adopt the term
4 Lipsius, /. c. p. 4, objects to the Christian, but seems studiously to avoid
account in Acts xxvi. 28, 'The narrator using it.
assumes that the expression xPl0~™"t>s 26 — 2

404 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
labant Christianos ', but ' quos vulgus appellabat Christianos '. It was
a gibe of the common people against ' the brethren '.
Some apology is due for occupying so much space in controverting an
opinion which future generations will probably be surprised that any
one should have maintained. But the fact that it has found a champion
in an able and learned critic like Lipsius must be my excuse. One is
tempted sometimes to despair of the intellectual temper of an age in
which such a phenomenon is possible. But extravagances like this are
the price paid for the lessons which the critical activity of our time has
taught us.
The Epistles of Ignatius show an advance upon the language of the
New Testament in two respects. First ; The designation, which arose
as a scoff of the heathen, has been adopted as an honourable title by
the believer. The forty or fifty years which have elapsed since the
Neronian persecution give more than ample time for this adoption.
The believers gloried in suffering for 'the Name'1, and this term em
bodied the Name. They were indicted as ' Christians ', and they
exulted in the indictment. Secondly ; From the adjective xpiotwo's
have been formed the substantive xpio-Tiav«rp.os, and presumably there
fore the verb which is intermediate between the two, xPUJ"™v^ta' ' t0
live as a Christian '. These derivatives might have been formed at any
moment after the word xpio-Tiavos had finally established itself. Given
the opposition between "IouSaTos and Xpianavds, or between "HXXtjv and
Xpio-Tiara's, and remembering also that the words iovBai^eiv, lov&aiapos,
and eAA7ivi£eii/, eXXrjvicrpd's, existed long before the time of Ignatius,
and indeed before the Apostolic ageE, we shall regard the appearance of
Xpio-Tiavl£eiv, xpio-Tiavio-pds, in the reign of Trajan as a perfectly natural
phenomenon. Nor is it any surprise that, having thus appeared, it
should not be found again till the Letter of Smyrnaeans giving the
account of Polycarp's death which happened a.d. 155. The Christian
remains of the intervening period are scanty, and it is a mere accident
whether the word occurred or not in one of these.
Thus the style and character of these epistles suggest no valid
arguments against their genuineness. But the subject may be pur
sued with advantage further. Some characteristics furnish evidence
which tells in the opposite direction.
To this category belongs the allusiveness which marks these
1 See the note on Ephes. 3 (11. p. 37). aKprj tis eXXrivio-pov Kal icpoap'a™ «*'
2 The words iXX-qvitrpot (2 Mace. iv. tpvXiopov, shows how easily words of this
13) and lovSaio-pds (2 Macc.ii. 21, xiv. 38) form could be coined, where there was
both occur in the LXX. The first passage, a provocation.

THE GENUINENESS. 405
epistles from time to time. I have already had occasion more
than once to note passages where the writer assumes certain facts
which are not recorded in the letter itself. Of this characteristic
the notice of his personal intercourse with the Philadelphians perhaps
affords the best example. His language on this subject (Philad.
7, 8) is quite unaccountable, except on the supposition that the
facts to which he refers were known to the persons addressed. Thus
for instance there is the allusion to certain persons who ' desired
to mislead' him (§ 7), which springs from nothing and leads to nothing
in the epistle itself. There is again the account of the dispute
with the false teachers (§ 8), told graphically indeed, but altogether
fragmentarily, so that we are left largely to conjecture as to its import.
So likewise later in the same epistle (§ n) there is an allusion to those
who had treated his followers with disrespect at Philadelphia. In like
manner in the Epistle to the Romans (§ ro) he mentions incidentally
certain persons as having preceded him from Syria to Rome, but
he tells us nothing about them. Of this same character also is' the
reference in Ephes. 9 to ' certain persons ' as ' having passed through
from yonder place' (7rapoSeoo-avTds Tivas iKeiBev), where the place is
not named and the whole incident is wrapped in obscurity. Again
the expression in Rom. 8 ' the churches in front ' (rais epirpoo-Btv
ejocXijo-iais) is not without its value from this point of view. Here
the due orientation is observed, and the relative positions of the
writer and his correspondents with reference to Antioch are not
forgotten. But it is very unlikely language to have been invented
by a forger. It stands in direct contrast, for instance, to the blunder
of the Ignatian forger of the fourth century (Philipp. 8), who, for
getting that Ignatius is supposed at the time to be writing from Italy,
represents the return of Joseph and Mary with the child Jesus from
Egypt to Nazareth (Matt. ii. 19 — 23) as a 'return to the parts here
abouts' (iirl rd TijSe iirdvoBo's : see above, p. 261, and below, 11.
P- 779)- And here perhaps it may not be out of place to speak of the
conditional promise which Ignatius holds out to the Ephesians (§ 20),
that he will send them a 'second tract' (iv tw Sevrepw ftiftXiBiw o
piXXa ypdrpew vpiv), continuing the subject on which he has touched.
There is no reason to think that this promise was ever fulfilled. The
hurry of his subsequent movements (Polyc. 8), as it prevented him
from writing to other churches which had a prior claim upon him,
might well have stood in the way of its fulfilment. If this second letter
was ever written, it has been lost. In either case the notice is intel-

406 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
ligible, as the genuine utterance of a genuine man. But, as the device
of a forger to throw tbe reader off his guard, it is not so conceivable.
The later Ignatian interpolator, wise after the event, has cast out this
unfulfilled promise from the text, as a stumbling block.
Connected with this allusiveness is the impulsive and disjointed
character of the utterances. A forger, sitting down deliberately to
write this body of letters in the name of Ignatius and having some
deliberate purpose in view, would keep this aim distinctly before his
eyes and would leave no doubt about his meaning. What more
unlike the treatment of a forger for instance than such expressions
as Ephes. 12 irapoSos core twv eis ®edv dvaipovpevwv k.t.X., or Magn. 3
KaBw's eyvw Kai toos ayiovs Trpeo-ftvrepov; k.t.X., or Trail. 4 01 yap
Aeyor/Tes poi pao-riyovaiv pe k.t.X., OX Rom. 3 ovBeirore iftaaKavan
ovSevi k.t.X., or Philad. 5 irpocrdjvywv t<3 euayyeAiai k.t.X., or ib. 7 01
8 viroirTevn-avTes pe K.T.X., or ib. 8 Kai Aeyoi/Tos pov avrdis on Teypair-
rai k.t.X., or ib. 9 xaXoi Kai 01 lepeis k.t.X., or Smyrn. 5 ov riws
ayi/ooWTes k.t.X. ?
Again the style is anacoluthic. This also indicates a hastily written
letter rather than a deliberate literary forgery. Of these Ignatian
letters generally we may say that they consist either of short epigram
matic sentences, or (where greater continuity is attempted) of unfinished
paragraphs, the apodosis being forgotten in the string of subordinate
clauses attached to the protasis, or the grammar being broken in some
other way. In the opening of the Epistle to the Romans for instance
the protasis (§ I 'E7rei evgdpevos ®ew iirervxov IBeiv K.T.X.) is followed
by seven successive sentences, each hanging on to the preceding and
each linked by ydp, till the grammar is altogether dislocated and the
original idea of the sentence lost (see 11. p. 194). In like manner
in the Magnesian letter the protasis, which begins with § 2 'Emi
ovv, is lengthened out through four chapters, various topics being
meanwhile introduced and the apodosis altogether forgotten, until the
protasis is resumed again in the same word at the beginning of § 6
'Eirel ovv (see n. pp. no, 118). So too the Ephesian letter begins
with a participial clause (§ 1 'AiroSe£ap:e[/os k.t.X.), the finite verb
being forgotten in a string of subordinate clauses, so that the sentence
is never completed (see 11. pp. 28, 29, 31). Such imperfect sentences
as these are exactly analogous to the phenomena in S. Paul, especially
in the Epistle to the Ephesians which likewise was written amidst
the restraints of a captivity. In like manner also in the opening
of the Epistle to the Philadelphians the greeting runs on continuously
without any break into the main body of the letter by means of

THE GENUINENESS. 407
a relative (crvv t<3 eV«rK6Va>...6V iirCo-KoiTov eyfuv k.t.X.), so as to produce
a wholly ungainly and intractable sentence.
Before leaving the subject it is worth while also to direct atten
tion to the archaic character of many of the expressions. Such for
instance is 'the Work', to epyov (Ephes. 14, Rom. 3), as a synonyme
for the Gospel (see 11. pp. 68, 205); 'the Name', to oVop.a, Ephes. 3, 7,
Philad. 10, referring to Christ (see 11. p. 37) ; ' the Will', to BeXrjpa or
BeXrjpa alone (Ephes. 22, Rom. 1, Smyrn. 1, 11, Polyc. 8), meaning
God's purpose (see 11. p. 85) ; paBrjrn^ ' a learner', ' a disciple ' (Ephes.
¦ 1, Troll. 5, Rom. 5), signifying a follower of Christ (see 11. p. 31); and
similar modes of expression. Though some or all of these uses are not
without parallels in subsequent times, yet the frequency of such ex
pressions in these epistles can hardly be regarded otherwise than as
pointing to the primitive ages of the Gospel.

The facts then are these :
(1) No Christian writings of the second century, and very few
writings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well authen
ticated as the Epistles of Ignatius. If the Epistle of Polycarp be
accepted as genuine, the authentication is perfect.
(2) The main ground of objection against the genuineness of the
Epistle of Polycarp is its authentication of the Ignatian Epistles.
Otherwise there is every reason to believe that it would have passed
unquestioned. (3) The Epistle of Polycarp itself is exceptionally well authenti
cated by the testimony of his disciple Irenaeus.
(4) All attempts to explain the phenomena of the Epistle of Poly
carp, as forged or interpolated to give colour to the Ignatian Epistles,
have signally failed.
(5) The external testimony to the Ignatian Epistles being so strong,
only the most decisive marks of spuriousness in the epistles themselves,
as for instance proved anachronisms, would justify us in suspecting them
as interpolated or rejecting them as spurious.
(6) But so far is this from being the case that one after another the
anachronisms urged against these letters have vanished in the light of
further knowledge. Thus the alleged refutation of the Valentinian
doctrine of seons in Magn. 8 depends on a false reading which
recently discovered materials for the text have corrected. The supposed
anachronism of ' the leopards' (Rom. 5) has been refuted by the produc
tion of passages overlooked by the objector. The argument from the

408 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
mention of the ' Catholic Church' (Smyrn. 8) has been shown to rest
on a false interpretation which disregards the context.
(7) As regards the argument which Daille' calls ' palmary'— the
prevalence of episcopacy as a recognized institution — we may say
boldly that all the facts point the other way. If the writer of these
letters had represented the Churches of Asia Minor as under presbyteral
government, he would have contradicted all the evidence, which
without one dissentient voice points to episcopacy as the established
form of Church government in these districts from the close of the
first century.
(8) The circumstances of the condemnation, captivity, and journey
of Ignatius, which have been a stumbling block to some modern
critics, did not present any difficulty to those who lived near the time
and therefore knew best what might be expected under the circum
stances ; and they are sufficiently borne out by examples, more or less
analogous, to establish their credibility.
(9) The objections to the style and language of the epistles are
beside the purpose. In some cases they arise from a misunder
standing of the writer's meaning. Generally they may be said to rest
on the assumption that an apostolic father could not use exaggerated
expressions, overstrained images, and the like — certainly a sandy foun
dation on which to build an argument.
(10) A like answer holds with regard to any extravagances in
sentiment or opinion or character. Why should Ignatius not have
exceeded the bounds of sober reason or correct taste ? Other men in
his own and immediately succeeding ages did both. As an apostolic
father he was not exempt from the failings, if failings they were, of his
age and position.
(n) While the investigation of the contents of these epistles has
yielded this negative result, in dissipating the objections, it has at the
same time had a high positive value, as revealing indications of a very
early date, and therefore presumably of genuineness, in the surrounding
circumstances, more especially in the types of false doctrine which
it combats, in the ecclesiastical status which it presents, and in
the manner in which it deals with the evangelical and apostolic
documents. (12) Moreover we discover in the personal environments of the
assumed writer, and more especially in the notices of his route, many
subtle coincidences which we are constrained to regard as undesigned,
and which seem altogether beyond the reach of a forger.
(13) So likewise the peculiarities in style and diction of the

THE GENUINENESS. 409
epistles, as also in the representation of the writer's character, are
much more capable of explanation in a genuine writing than in a
forgery. (14) While external and internal evidence thus combine to assert
the genuineness of these writings, no satisfactory account has been or
apparently can be given of them as a forgery of a later date than
Ignatius. They would be quite purposeless as such ; for they entirely
omit all topics which would especially interest any subsequent age.
On these grounds we are constrained to accept the Seven Epistles
of the Middle Form as the genuine work of Ignatius.

Sylloge Polycarpiana.
We have seen that Polycarp (§ 13) replying to a request of the
Philippians, sends them a collection of the Epistles of Ignatius (see
above, pp. 128, 323). What letters then were comprised in this Sylloge
Polycarpiana, as following Ussher and Pearson we may conveniently
style it?
All the Seven Vossian Epistles, is the reply of Pearson and of most
critics who hold these to represent the genuine Ignatius. Six Epistles
only, is Ussher's answer to this question, the Epistle to Polycarp being
regarded by him as spurious. This condemnation of the Epistle to
Polycarp has been considered already (pp. 232, 301) and need not
trouble us again. Six Epistles only is also Zahn's answer (I. v. A.
p. 1 10 sq.) ; but with him the letter excepted is the Epistle to the
Romans, which he receives indeed as genuine but supposes to have
been circulated apart from the rest He even goes so far as to say
that a collection of all the Seven Epistles in one volume was probably
never in circulation among Greeks ('auf griechischem Boden'). With
this view I am unable to agree.
It seems highly probable indeed that the Epistle to the Romans
would be circulated separately as well ; for being, as I have said else
where (see above, p. 38), a sort of vade mecum for martyrs and con
fessors, it would have attractions for persons who would take little
or no interest in the other letters : but that it had its place also in the
Sylloge Polycarpiana I cannot doubt.
In the first place the a priori probability is strongly in favour of
this view. It was written during the martyr's stay at Smyrna, when
he was in some sense Polycarp's guest. It would probably have a
higher attraction for Polycarp than the others, for his letter to the

410 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Philippians shows the interest with which he watched all the incidefi||
bearing on the martyrdom. Of all the letters of Ignatius therefore!
except those addressed to the Smyrnseans and to Polycarp himself
it was the most likely to have been preserved by him. And this
inference drawn from a priori probabilities is borne out by his Own
letter. One of the closest coincidences which it presents to the
Ignatian Epistles is a parallel to the Epistle to the Romans (see above,
p. 128, and below, 11. p. 922).
Moreover, when, we follow the stream of testimony lower down.
tbe inference is the same. The letter of the Smyrnaean Church, giving
an account of Polycarp's death, presents a marked coincidence with
this Roman letter (see above, p. 129). So also when we step beyond
the borders of Polycarp's own church. Who after the Smyrnseans was
so likely to have possessed the Sylloge Polycarpiana as Irenasus the
disciple of Polycarp ? But Irenaeus, while showing a knowledge of
the other letters, directly quotes the Epistle to the Romans alone
(see pp. 135, 324 sq.). The phenomena also in the extant Letter from
the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, with which Irenaeus was connected,
bear out this same conclusion (pp. 133, 330). When again we travel
beyond the circle of Polycarp's spiritual relationships, the evidence
still points in the same direction. After Irenseus the earliest direct
quotations — in fact the only direct quotations during the Antenicenetage
— are found in Origen and Eusebius. But the Epistle to the Romans
and the other epistles are alike quoted by Origen (p. 136) and by
Eusebius (p. 138 sq.). It is difficult to resist this same conclusion
in the case of Ephrem Syrus (see p. 142), who was a younger con
temporary of Eusebius. It is certainly true likewise of Timotheus of
Alexandria (p. 165 sq.) and Severus of Antioch (p. 169 sq.) in the fifth
and sixth centuries.
Zahn however is impressed with the fact that, while some writers
quote only the Epistle to the Romans, others quote only from the
remaining epistles; and he can only explain this fact on the supposi
tion that the two were circulated separately (/. v. A. p. no). But it is
pertinent to ask in these cases, whether the explanation may not be
sought in the character of the writings themselves. Thus for instance in
Acts of Martyrdom and the like, we should expect to find resemblances
to the Epistle to the Romans. On the other hand in works relating to
ecclesiastical order or to doctrinal verity, such as the Apostolic Constitu
tions or the Dialogues of Theodoret or the Syriac collection of patristic
passages which have the force of canons (see above, p. 90), we naturally
look for quotations from the other letters but not from the Epistle to the

THE GENUINENESS. 411
Romans. This epistle contains nothing at all bearing upon ecclesi
astical order. There is not very much even of doctrinal significance
Jjeyond the expression § 6 ' the suffering of my God ', which, though a
favourite text with Monophysites, was viewed with suspicion beyond the
range of Monophysite circles. Theodoret (see p. 161 sq.)only quotes
^three of the seven epistles ; and all the passages quoted by him have a
-direct doctrinal bearing. It is therefore not only no surprise, but alto
gether natural that the Roman letter should have escaped quotation.
Moreover, if the erroneous heading 'Romans ' for 'Smyrnseans' (p. 162)
be a slip of his own, and not a blunder of a transcriber, this is almost
^conclusive evidence that the Epistle to the Romans formed part of his
collection. Again, Zahn adverts to the fact that the gnomologers of the
.seventh and following centuries, while quoting the other epistles, abstain
:from any quotation from Romans. These are mainly three — the two
sets of Sacra Parallela bearing the name of John Damascene (p. 204
:_sq.) and the Melissa of Antonius (p. 215 sq.). But in the first place
: these are not altogether independent authorities. Antonius for instance
:.runs on the same lines with the Parallela Vaticana (see p. 217). Se
condly; though all these writers had thirteen Ignatian Epistles before
them (if we include the Epistle to the Romans), yet the three together
-only quote seven out of the thirteen (Antonius, four; Par. Vat., five;
Par. Rupef, seven), so that five others besides the Epistle to the Romans
are altogether unquoted. Lastly; as Antonius and the Parallela Vati
cana quote the Epistle to the Trallians from the Long Recension, and
.as the Long Recension comprised the Epistle to the Romans, either
they or the earlier collectors of extracts from whom they borrowed must
have had this epistle in their collection. Zahn indeed has given reasons
for supposing that the Epistle to the Romans originally formed no part of
the collection in the Long Recension. If this were true, it would be a
strong argument for his view that Polycarp's Sylloge, on which this
Recension would naturally be founded, only contained six epistles and
omitted the Roman letter. But it has been shown above (p. 263 sq.)
conclusively, as I venture to think, that this view is untenable.
Again the order of the epistles in the Middle Form, as represented
^ by the Greek and Latin copies, seems to Zahn to indicate the same fact.
'The Epistle to the Romans in this collection (see the table, p. 222) is
embedded in the Acts of Martyrdom which forms a sort of appendix to
the letters; and hence he infers that this epistle had no place there
until the Martyrdom was added. But the more probable account of the
matter is suggested by a comparison with the Armenian Version of
this Middle Form. Doubtless it originally stood in the Greek collection

412

EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.

last, as it stands in this version of the seven genuine epistles; but
when, either simultaneously with or later than the addition of the six
spurious epistles, the redactor thought fit to append the Acts of Mar
tyrdom, its removal from its original place was a matter of obvious
expedience, since otherwise it would occur twice.
The Sylloge Polycarpiana therefore seems to have contained all the
Seven Epistles. But what was their order? The order in Eusebius
may be at once dismissed from our consideration. There is no reason ,
for supposing that it represents any manuscript authority. It is a
chronological sequence which he himself establishes on critical grounds
from an examination of the letters themselves. There remain the
Armenian and the Greek and Latin orders respectively. The Armenian
stands thus (see above, p. 85) ;
1. Smyrnaeans 5. Trallians
2. Polycarp 6. Philadelphians
3. Ephesians 7. Romans.
4. Magnesians
The Greek and Latin order only differs from the Armenian in trans
posing Trallians and Philadelphians. Of the two the Armenian order
claims the preference. Historically the Armenian Version can be
traced much farther back than the extant Greek and Latin copies (see
above, p. 85 sq.) Moreover its order is confirmed by the quotations in
the Parallela Rupefucaldina (p. 205 sq.), which belongs apparently to the
earlier half of the seventh century (see p. 210). In more than one in
stance several passages are quoted under the same title in this collection,
and we are thus enabled to compare the order ;

a. lxxvii. p. 772

c xlviii. p. 779

t. xxv. p. 785

Smyrnaeans

SmyrnaeansPolycarp

Ephesians

Ephesians

Ephesians

Magnesians

Magnesians

Trallians

Trallians

Philadelphians

Philadelphians

Either order is consistent with the sequence in Theodoret (p- i°2i
Smyrn. Ephes. Trail.), in Timotheus (p. 165, Smyrn. Rom.; p. i<>7>
Ephes. Magn.), in an anonymous Syriac writer (p. 187, Smyrn. Ephes.;,
THE GENUINENESS. 413
and in the Parallela Vaticana (p. 204, Smyrn. Polyc), though in these
cases the data are too slight for any safe inference. On the other hand
in Severus (p. 172 sq.) the order of quotation is different (Rom. Polyc.
Ephes. Magn. Trail. Smyrn.), but this was doubtless determined by
other considerations than the sequence of the epistles in his manuscripts.
The desire to place at the head of the extracts the favourite Monophysite
text Rom. 6 ' the suffering of my God ' would be paramount. So like
wise in an anonymous Syriac writer (p. 188 sq., Rom. Ephes.), where
the same motive has been active. Nor again can any inference be
drawn from the order in Antiochus (p. 197 sq.); for his are not direct
quotations, and he moves backwards and forwards at pleasure (e.g. p. 200,
Polyc. Ephes. Polyc). There remain the sequences in the two sets of
Syriac Fragments, S, (1. p. 90, 11. p. 677 sq.) and S2 (1. p. 91, 11. p. 684
sq.). The order of the former is Ephes. Magn. Trail. Polyc. Philad.
Smyrn. Magn. Trail. Polyc; of the latter, Rom. Ephes. Magn. Smyrn.
Hero. It is difficult to suppose that this represents the order of any ms.
The original sequence in the Syriac Version may be more safely
gathered from the Armenian which was translated from it.
The Sylloge Polycarpiana, as was natural and as we may infer from
Polycarp's language (see pp. 128, 323), began with 'the letters sent by
him [Ignatius] to us ', i.e. with the Epistles to the Smyrnaeans and to
Polycarp; and the others would be attached. The Epistle to the
Romans, as internal probability and external evidence alike indicate,
would close the Seven. For the intermediate letters the two main
authorities are agreed except in one point; and for the reasons stated
here the preference should probably be accorded to the Armenian. It
has moreover this further recommendation, that the letters written from
the same place Troas to the three cities on the same line of route,
Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, are kept together.
The results of this investigation have an indirect bearing of some
importance. Starting from Zahn's theory that the Epistle to the
Romans did not originally form part of the same collection with the
other six, Renan maintains the substantial genuineness of this one
letter, but rejects the rest (Les Evangiles pp. xvii, xix, xxi sq., xxxi,
488 sq.). He observes that, unlike the others, it is free from any sus
picion from advocacy of the claims of episcopacy. On this last point
I have already spoken (p. 385). It has been shown also that in diction
this letter is intimately connected with the others (p. 301), so that no
separation is possible. What Renan means by saying, 'Le style de
l'epitre aux Romains est bizarre, dnigmatique, tandis que celui du reste

414 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
de la correspondance est simple et assez plat ', I am altogether at a loss
to understand. What shall we say to such passages as Ephes. 9, n, 15,
Magn. 10, Trail. 4, 5, Philad. 8, Smyrn. 4, Polyc. 2, 3 ? Do not these
deserve to be described by the same two epithets, ' bizarre ', ' e'nigma-
tique ' ? Thus the internal evidence pronounces the seven epistles to
be homogeneous. This result is now confirmed by the investigation
of the documentary or external evidence, which resists the separation-
of the Epistle to the Romans from the rest. All the Seven Epistles
therefore must stand or fall together.

S. POLYCARP.

I.

POLYCARP THE ELDER.

IN the days of Bucolus the bishop there lived at Smyrna a certain
pious widow, Callisto by name, rich in worldly substance, but
richer still in good works. One night in a vision she saw an angel of
the Lord, who bade her go to the Ephesian Gate, where she would
meet two men, having with them a young lad called Polycarp. 'Ask
them', said the angel, 'if he is for sale; and when they say Yes, give
them the price which they demand and take and keep him by thy side;
the child is an Eastern by birth '. She arose and did as she was bidden.
It came to pass even as the angel had said. She brought the boy home
and reared him carefully; and as he grew up, she gave him charge over
all her substance.
At length it befel that she must leave home for a long time, and
she placed Polycarp as steward over her household. Beset by widows
and orphans and by all the needy of the neighbourhood, he dispensed
to everyone freely corn and wine and oil and whatsoever they asked, so
that the stores were emptied. After a time, when Callisto returned, one
of her servants met her and charged Polycarp with robbing her of her
substance; and she, full of anger (for she knew not that he had distributed
her goods in charity), demanded of him the keys of the store-rooms.
Then he, groaning and lifting up his voice, prayed to the Lord God
who replenished the vessels of the widow of Sarepta, entreating Him in
the name of Christ that this widow's stores also might be found full.
His prayer was answered. The miracle sunk deep into the heart of
Callisto. She treated Polycarp thenceforward as her son, and when she
died, she left him heir of all she possessed.
After Callisto's death, Polycarp grew daily in faith and godly living.
The love of knowledge and the fondness for the scriptures, which
distinguishes the people of the East, bore rich fruit in him. He offered
IG. I. 27

418 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
himself a whole offering to God, by prayer and study of the scriptures,
by spareness of diet and simplicity of clothing, by liberal almsgiving.
He was bashful and retiring, shunning the busy throngs of men and
consorting only with those who needed his assistance. When he met
an aged wood-carrier outside the walls, he would purchase his burden,
would carry it himself to the city, and would give it to the widows living
near the gate. The bishop Bucolus cherished him as a son, and he in
turn requited his love with filial care and devotion.
When he was of sufficient age, Bucolus ordained him deacon with
the approval of the whole church. As a deacon, he was rich in good
works and powerful in preaching, though such was his modesty that
Bucolus could with difficulty persuade him to speak in public. He
wrote many treatises and discourses and letters (o-vyypdppara ko.1 dpiX'uu
koi iirio-ToXai), which were destroyed by the heathen during the persecu
tion that arose upon his martyrdom; but their character may be seen
from his extant writings, especially from his Epistle to the Philippians. :
He also took care in his exhortations to recommend virginity, not as a
matter of necessity or of commandment, but as a state voluntarily
chosen and bearing the promise of a higher reward.
At length the time arrived when he should be promoted to a higher
office. His hairs were now whitening with his advancing years. His
age was sufficient, and his godly life was in advance of his age.
Bucolus therefore, seeing that he was a fit counsellor and fellow la
bourer, ordained him presbyter to the great joy of the whole church,
but with much reluctance on his own part.
The moment came at length when Bucolus must leave this present
world. It had been foretold him more than once in visions that he
would have one like Polycarp for his successor. At the hour of his
departure therefore he took hold of Polycarp's hand and pressed it oh
his own breast and face, to signify that the graces which reside in
these organs — the graces of heart and eyes and ears — were all com
mitted to him. This done, he cried ' Glory to thee, 0 Lord ', and fell
asleep. After he was laid in his grave, the bishops gathered together
from the neighbouring cities, and the church was thronged with crowds
from the towns and villages round about. Then a glory of heavenly
light shone about them all, and wonderful visions were seen by certain
brethren. One beheld a white dove in a circle of light hovering over
the head of Polycarp ; another saw him, before he had taken his seat,
' as if seated already. To one he appeared to have the form of a soldier
and to be girded with a belt of fire ; to another to be robed in purple, his
face gleaming with an unwonted light; while to a third, a holy virgin,

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 4 19
he seemed to be double his proper stature and to have a scarlet cloke on
his right shoulder, while a seal was on his neck which glistened like
snow. The eyes of all were fastened upon him, and when the passages
from Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, describing what is required
in a bishop were read, they said one to another that he was lacking in
none of these things. So then after the lessons were read and due
exhortation was made, when the deacons were sent to ask the laity
whom they would have, they cried out with one voice ' Let Polycarp be
our shepherd and teacher '.
Of his doings as a bishop many miracles are recorded. On One
occasion when he was at Teos, the bishop Daphnus complained of
the scarcity. But Polycarp invoked the name of Jesus Christ over the
empty barrels and immediately they were filled, so that there was grain
enough, not only for seed and for the supply of the house, but also to
give to others. On a later day he was in this same place; a small cask
of wine was miraculously replenished again and again through his inter
cession; a maid servant lightly laughed at this inexhaustible supply from
one little vessel; immediately the wine disappeared from it, and Polycarp
rebuked her for her levity. Another day he and his deacon Camerius
were lodging in a certain house on' one of his pastoral rounds. An angel
appeared at dead of night once and again, warning them to leave the
place. Camerius, heavy with sleep, refused to obey. The angelic warning
was repeated a third time — now not in vain. They rose from their beds
and left the house. They had not gone far, when the house fell to the
ground, and all the inmates were buried in the ruins. At another time a
fire burst out at night in Smyrna, spreading from a baker's shop. The
wonted means failed to quench the flames. Then the mayor, instructed
in a dream, sent for Polycarp. Polycarp looked up to heaven and
prayed, and the flames were extinguished in a moment. After this again
there was a terrible drought and famine in the city. It was only natural
that the mayor and the citizens, remembering what he had done for them
formerly, should again appeal to him for aid. Polycarp answered their
appeal. He gathered the clergy and laity together to the house of God.
There they all, led by the bishop, prayed earnestly to the God who
opened the heavens at the prayer of Elijah, when they had been shut
three years and six months. The petition was answered, and the rain
came. So ran the story of Polycarp, current at the close of the fourth
century, as it was told in the saint's life which professes to have been
written by Pionius. Unhappily it has no points of contact with auth
entic tradition. If it contains any grains of truth, we have no means of
27 — 2

420 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
sifting them from the huge heap of falsehood. Of the real Polycarp
we know very little — far too little to satisfy our interest, though some
what more than is known of any eminent Christian from the age of the
Apostles to the close of the second century.
The word 7roXvKapiros-, as an adjective, is found as early as the
Homeric poems (Odyss. vii. 122, xxiv. 221). Not unnaturally it is
applied as an epithet to the goddess Demeter (Anthol. Graec. 11. p. 95,
ed. Jacobs; comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Graec. 2175)'. As a proper
name, it appears not to occur in extant monuments and writings before
Roman times. A graffito on the walls of Pompeii (Inscr. Lat. iv. 2351)
has polvcarpvs fvgit. This, so far as I have noticed, is the earliest
extant occurrence of the name (comp. ib. 2470). It is more common
however in the age of the Antonines and later (Inscr. Att. in. 11 22,
1163, 1171, 1193, 1259). The first of these Attic inscriptions (a.d.
156 — 158) is nearly coincident with our Polycarp's death, as the Pom-
peian inscriptions must have been nearly coincident with his birth. So
far as we may trust the evidence from monuments hitherto discovered,
the name does not appear to have been at all common in Asia Minor
or the East, though it occurs in an inscription at Parium (Corp. Inscr.
Graec. 3654 e). Its geographical range however is wide ; for it is found
not only in Italy (Inscr. Lat. ix. 92, x. 2973) and Sardinia (ib. x. 7523),
but in Spain (Inscr. Lat. 11. 4342, 4463J2. An epigram also by Auto-
medon, who appears to have written during the first century of the
Christian era, is aimed at a certain bankrupt banker of Cyzicus who
bore this name (Anthol. Graec. 11. p. 191, ed. Jacobs). Applied to a
person it would describe what the Romans called ' homo frugi '. Hence
it is especially a slave's name, like Carpus, Carpophorus, Chresimus,
Chrestus, Eucarpus, Fructus, Fructuosus, Onesimus, Onesiphorus, Pan-
carpus, Symphorus, and the like (see Philippians p. 310). Thus in the
two Spanish inscriptions the persons named are both freedmen. Infthe
Pompeian inscription also, which is quoted above, the runaway Poly
carp mentioned there is evidently a gladiator or a slave — if the former,
then probably the latter also. On the whole the name is not very
common, like Onesimus or Chresimus, and (if the known inscriptions
1 In the Acta yoannis p. 129 (ed. Zahn) name has no reference to our Polycarp.
bearing the name of Prochorus, a woman 2 The Roman inscriptions in the collec-
Phora (Produce) is introduced, who has tion are as yet incomplete and without an
two sons Rhox (Grape, Vintage) and Poly- index. I have not found time to g°
carpus (Much-fruit, Harvest). Though through them.
the story is connected with S. John, the

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 421
may be taken as a criterion) was more frequent at Athens than else
where. In one of the inscriptions already referred to a Polycarp is
mentioned in connexion with a Daphnus (Inscr. Att. in. 1230) and in
another with an Agathopus (Inscr. Lat. 11. 4463) — both names occurring
in the Ignatian Epistles in connexion with the Smyrnsean Church (Ign.
Smyrn. 10, 13). The coincidence however must be regarded as for*
tuitous. In Garrucci (Dissert. Archeol. n. p. 172) it appears on a
monument in a Jewish Cemetery, noXyKApnofc] . n*.THp . k<m . kph[c]-
K6NTEIN& . MHTHp. etc.
After Polycarp's time it not unnaturally becomes more frequent in
Christian circles. Thus an epitaph in his own city Smyrna records a
namesake who was a subdeacon (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 9281 noAyK^pnco
vrroAiAKONGo). In the Syriac Martyrology again (pp. 4, 7, 10, Wright),
which probably dates about the middle of the fourth century (see ii.
p. 417 sq.), besides our Apostolic father (Feb. 23), three others bearing
the same name are mentioned as suffering martyrdom, one at Nicaea
(Jan. 27), one at Eumenia (Oct. 27), and one in a place of which the
name is not preserved (May 24). About a century after our Polycarp's
death a namesake, a bishop of Hadrumetum, and a person of con
sideration in the African Church, has a somewhat prominent place in
Cyprian's writings (Cyprian Op. pp. 437, 606, 650, 735, 766, ed. Hartel).
As important considerations depend on the date of Polycarp's birth,
we are fortunate in being able to fix it within a year or two on grounds
which must be regarded as satisfactory. At the time of his martyrdom
he speaks of himself as having ' served Christ fourscore and six years '
(Mart. Polyc. 9). The expression in the original (see n. p. 963) may
leave some doubt whether these eighty-six years should be reckoned
from his birth or from his conversion, though the former would be the
more natural interpretation*. But if the language is not decisive in
itself, the probabilities of the case hardly leave much room for hesita
tion. Polycarp had paid a visit to Rome shortly before his death ; and
during the martyrdom itself he shows very considerable activity for a
man advanced in age. This would be possible in a man of eighty-six ;
1 Halloix (///. Eccl. Orient. Script. I. p. supposes that he was bishop of Smyrna
587) was the first to interpret this expres- more than 70 years. Blondel is still more
sion not of his actual age but of the years extravagant and speaks of him as ' exactis
of his Christian profession; and he was in sacro ministerio annis Ixxxvi' at the
followed by Ussher (Ign. et Polyc. Mart. time of his death. Against all these
pp. iv, 61 sq.). In order to bring this in- excessive estimates Pearson with good
terpretation into harmony with the tradi- reason enters his protest ; Minor Theolo-
tions of Irenaeus and with the received gical Works u. p. 532 sq.
date of Polycarp's martyrdom, Ussher

422 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
but we could not add even a few years to his age without transgressing
the bounds of probability1. As tbe date of his martyrdom is now shown
with tolerable certainty to be about a.d. 155 or 1562, he must have been
born about the year 69 or 70.
His birth was thus coincident with a momentous epoch in the
history of the Church. Jerusalem was taken in the autumn ad. 70.
Before its fall the Christians had left the doomed city. While the
greater part retired beyond the Jordan and founded Christian colonies
at Pella and the neighbourhood, the principal leaders of the Church —
the surviving Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord — sought
a new home in proconsular Asia. Henceforward we find the head
quarters of Christendom no more at Jerusalem, nor even at Antioch,
but (for the time at least) in Ephesus. Here S. John fixed his abode
after his temporary banishment in Patmos. Here also — if an ancient
tradition may be credited — lived Andrew, the friend of John's youth",
a native, like himself, of Bethsaida, and a fellow disciple with him of
John the Baptist. Thus the two were linked together in the latest
years of their ministry, as they had been united in the first moment of
their conversion (Joh. i. 35). In this same neighbourhood also resided
a third fisherman Apostle of Bethsaida, Philip, whose name is especially
connected with Andrew's in the evangelical narrative (Joh. i. 44, vi. 7,
8, xii. 22). Philip died and was buried at Hierapolis in Phrygia. He
left three daughters, of whom two, like their father, died and were
buried at Hierapolis, while the third, ' having lived in the Holy Spirit ',
was laid to her rest in Ephesus4. This last fact would suggest that in
previous years Philip himself had resided in the same city with John,
Besides these three Apostles we read also of two other personal disciples
of Christ in these parts, Aristion and a second John, with whom, as
with the daughters of Philip, Papias had conversed respecting the
human life of the Saviour and the earliest days of the Church5.
1 The argument however cannot be 3 Canon Muratorianus p. 33 (ed. Tre-
pressed too far. We have seen a veteran gelles) ' revelatum Andreae ex apostolis
philanthropist undertaking (A.D. 1875) ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo
his seventh journey to Palestine at the nomine cuncta describeret '.
advanced age of 9r, publishing a detailed 4 The passages relating to Philip and
account of his visit (Sir Moses Monte- his daughters are, Papias in Euseb. H.E.
fiore's Forty Days' Sojourn in the Holy iii. 39, Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. in. 3r>
Land), and notwithstanding his active v. 24, Gaius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. #-c.
and arduous labours still living in the iii. 30. See Colossians p. 45 sq. for the
enjoyment of his faculties (a.d. 1884), confusion between Philip the Apostle and
though in his hundredth year. Philip the Evangelist.
2 See a subsequent chapter on the date. ' Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39'

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 423
If Polycarp's words have been correctly interpreted, they point to
another important fact. He was not a convert to Christianity, but was
born of Christian parentage1. This supposition is at all events con
sistent with the fact that he draws his quotations almost entirely, not
from the ancient Scriptures but from the writings of the Evangelists
and Apostles, thus presenting a direct contrast to Clement of Rome
and bearing testimony to his early Christian training. This view is not
contradicted by his own language, where he speaks of S. Paul as
praising the Philippians in all the churches at a time when ' we had not
yet known Christ (§ n)', for he writes in the name of the Smyrnsean
elders as well as of himself. Thus the first person plural here, as the
context shows, denotes the Smyrnaean Church, as contrasted with other
Christian communities, like the Philippian, founded at an earlier date.
But was Polycarp himself a Smyrnaean ? If not a Smyrnaean, was he a
native of proconsular Asia ? Or is there any truth in the Pionian story,
which represents him as a slave-lad brought from the farther East and
sold at Smyrna ? We must be content to ask this question, and leave it
without an answer. The story may contain possibly a true tradition in
this particular ; but its surroundings are not such as to entitle it to any
credit. In one respect however the Pionian legend seems to deserve
consideration. Polycarp is represented in it as a man of substance.
This agrees with notices in a more authentic document. In the Acts
of Martyrdom he is spoken of as possessing two servant lads, apparently
slaves (§ 6) ; and as this fact is only mentioned incidentally, it may
point to a larger household. Moreover the house and farm whither
he retires and on which he is apprehended (§§ 6, 7) would seem from
the narrative of the incidents to have been his own, though this is not
certain. The Pionian story insists with great emphasis (§§ 9, 14, 15) on his
celibacy. On the other hand a passage in the letter of Ignatius (Polyc.
5) has been thought by some to point to the opposite conclusion.
Ignatius there bids any one who chooses a life of virginity to beware of
arrogance, adding (as the words are commonly interpreted) that, ' if he is
better known ', becomes more famous, than the bishop, he is defiled by
that very fact. If this were the right explanation, it would imply that
the bishop himself could not lay claim to a celibate life. But reasons
1 The expression in Irenseus (iii. 3. 4), ing disciples, and may denote any syste-
forJ inoarbXav paOrrrevBels, might seem matic instruction in the doctrine and
at first sight to be opposed to this view ; practice of the faith ; comp. e.g. Justin
but paSr/rtbeiv is not confined to convert- Martyr Apol. i. 15, ii. 4-

424 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
are given in the notes on the passage (n. p. 349 sq.) for adopting a
wholly different interpretation of the words eav yvwo-Brj nXlov to«
eVio-KoVov, ' if his vow of chastity go beyond the ears of the bishop ', as
the context suggests. If this be the correct meaning, the inference falls
to the ground, and the point must be left undetermined. Under any
circumstances the conjecture that Alee, who is saluted in the letters of
Ignatius to Polycarp (§ 8) and to the Smyrnaeans (§ 13), was the wife of
Polycarp, has nothing to recommend it. The manner in which she is
mentioned in the account of Polycarp's martyrdom (§ 17) is alone
sufficient to set it aside. In this case, as in the similar instance of
Renan's conjecture that Lydia (Acts xvi. 14) was S. Paul's wife1, the
absolute silence of the writer about any such intimate relationship seems
fatal to the hypothesis. Silence is often a very precarious guide, but
here we may safely trust ourselves to its leading.
More important for our purpose, than these considerations of country
or rank or wealth or condition of life, are his Christian relationships :
first with the Apostles and earliest founders of the Church; secondly
with his contemporaries, the fathers of the sub-apostolic age ; and lastly
with his younger friends and disciples.
(1) It has been stated that coincidently with the birth of Polycarp,
proconsular Asia, the province in which Polycarp resided continuously
from the first moment when we have any authentic notice of his life,
became the spiritual centre of Christendom. Here S. John lived and
taught for more than a quarter of a century after the destruction of
Jerusalem, dying at length in extreme old age in. the early years of
Trajan's reign (c. a.d. 100) 2. The other Apostles and personal dis
ciples of Christ, who had migrated to these parts, were carried off first
one and then another by death, until at length (it would appear) he
was left alone3. Here he gathered disciples about him, ordained
bishops and presbyters, founded new churches, making Ephesus his
head-quarters, but visiting the neighbouring districts as occasion re
quired4. Of this circle of disciples Polycarp was the most famous.
1 Saint Paul -p. 148 sq. ros arch ttjs ILdrpov ttjs vrjirov perip\$ev [°
- Irenasus Haer. iii. 3, 4 p-ixpi tov Tpa'i- 'Iuiawijs] ^7rt rr)v "Hrpeaov, dir-rjei ira.po.Kn.-
avov xpovuv. Xob/x.evos Kal iirl rd irXijO-ibxaP't ™" &"">
3 Canon Muratorianus p. 33 'cohor- oirov piv iiriaKbTovs Karaorrjirw, oirov Se
tantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis ', oXas iKKXr/crlas appdaav, oirov U KXf/pif &»
where the 'condiscipuli (o-vppadr/ral) ' are yi riva KX-qpuxrwv rdv virb rov irvetiparos
those who like himself had been personal a-qpaivopivav, after which follows the well-
disciples of Christ. known story of the Apostle and the young
4 Clem. Alex. Quis Div. Salv. 42 (\x robber. Clement describes the city to
958) irreiSr) yap rov rvpdvvov TeXevrijoav- whose bishop S. John had entrusted tne

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 425
Long years afterwards it was his delight in old age to relate to his
younger friends what he had heard from eye-witnesses of the Lord's
earthly life, and more especially to dwell on his intercourse with the
Apostle S. John. His own disciple Irenseus speaks of his master as
having ' not only been taught by Apostles and lived in familiar inter
course with many that had seen Christ, but also ' as having ' received
his appointment in Asia from Apostles as bishop in the Church of
Smyrna' (iii. 3. 4). We need not press the plural. Tertullian (de
Praescr. 32) definitely names S. John as having appointed him to
this office ; and, though the co-operation of other Apostles cannot be
pronounced impossible on chronological grounds, it is at all events
not likely. On the other hand in S. John's case there is no improba
bility. Polycarp was thirty years old, or possibly more, before the
death of this last surviving Apostle. The examples of Timothy at
Ephesus in a previous generation, and of Damas in Magnesia (Ign.
Magn. 3) among his own contemporaries, or of Athanasius at a still
later epoch, bear testimony to the practice of placing young men in the
highest offices of the Church in the earliest centuries. When Ignatius
writes to Polycarp — presumably some ten years later — he can still
address him in language which is most appropriate on the lips of an
old man speaking to one who is many years, his junior. On the other
hand, the Pionian story is wholly irreconcilable with the statement of
Irenaeus, and indeed condemns itself. It speaks of his ' hoary head ',
the 'forerunner of old age,' when he is admitted to the priesthood;
young man, as ran. ruv ov paKpav iroXiav, age. But Polycarp can have been little
r]s Kal rovvopa Xeyovaiv tvioi. In the more than thirty, when S. John died. If
Chron. Pasch. p. 470 (ed. Bonn.) under therefore this person is rightly entitled
a.d. 101, after referring to the passage bishop of Smyrna, he must have been »
of Clement just quoted as an authority predecessor of Polycarp — Bucolus for in
fer S. John's activity in organizing the stance, if Bucolus is a historical person.
churches in Asia, the writer continues iv Antiochus Horn. 122 (p. 1813, ed.
$ xpwtp Kal b veavlaxos 6> irapiBero 6 Migne) tells this story of S. John and the
awiaroXos 'Iwdwris rip imsKo-wip 7,ptipvcis young robber, giving his authority, roiovrov
k.t.X. Whether this chronicler gave the ti evplcKopev irapa rip HI p-n. val ip- <p-n<rl
name Smyrna on the authority of one of yap irepl rov BeoXbyov 'lo>dvvov k.t.X. It
those earlier narrators whom Clement is not probable that Antiochus could have
mentions, or whether it was a conjecture got the story from Irenseus ; and we must
of his own, we cannot say. Halloix accepts therefore suppose with Halloix that he
his statement (p. 569) and identifies the obtained it from Eusebius (H.E. iii. 23)
bishop with Polycarp. Clement however and that he is guilty of a confusion, as
calls him not only 6 irpeafjbrepos, which Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius in the
might be a designation of office, but also same context in which he gives this story
0 irpeo§vrrjs, which must designate old from Clement of Alexandria.

426 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
and from the sequel of the narrative we should infer that a consider
able interval elapsed before he was finally raised to the episcopate
— not however by S. John, but by Bucolus. Irenaeus is easily recon
cilable with Ignatius ; but neither the one nor the other can be made
to harmonize with the Pionian account. If Polycarp was appointed to
the episcopate by S. John, he must have held the office more than
half a century. The other personal disciples of Christ with whom
Polycarp in early life was brought in contact are probably to be sought
among the persons known from other sources, more especially from
Papias, to have settled in these parts. But they may not have been
confined to this circle. If Polycarp really was born in Palestine or
Syria, his opportunities of intercourse with immediate hearers of Christ
might have been much wider.
(2) Among the contemporaries of Polycarp three names stand out
prominently as fathers of the sub-apostolic age, Clement, Ignatius, and
Papias. With Clement himself it is not probable that Polycarp ever
came into personal contact; but with his extant letter, written to the
Corinthians, he shows an intimate acquaintance. On the other hand,
for his personal intercourse with the other two we have direct evidence.
Ireneeus (v. 33. 4) speaks of Papias as 'the scholar of John and
companion of Polycarp ' (d 'lwdwov pev aKovo-njs-, UoXvKapirov Se eraipos
yeyov<us). This language is precise, but nevertheless it cannot be
accepted with absolute confidence. Eusebius (H E. iii. 39) criticizes
the statement that Papias was a disciple of the Apostle S. John; he
infers from the language of Papias himself that his master was not
the Apostle, but the Elder (rrpeo-ftv-epos) of the same name ; and he
therefore charges Irenseus with a confusion in this passage. If however
Irenaeus went astray on the one point, he may have gone astray on
the other also. The statement that Papias was a companion of Poly
carp might have been his own inference from the fact that they were
both disciples of the same master. But, whether Eusebius be correct
or not, it seems highly improbable that Polycarp and Papias should
have been unknown to each other. Being strictly contemporaries and
living at no greater distance than the interval which separates Smyrna
from Hierapolis, they could hardly fail — as the two most famous
Christian teachers in those parts — to have been in frequent communi
cation the one with the other.
The evidence for the connexion of Polycarp with Ignatius is open to
no such question. Ignatius, now on his way to Rome and to martyr
dom, halts at Smyrna, where he receives assiduous attentions from the
Smyrnreans and from Polycarp their bishop. In the letters which he

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 427
writes from Smyrna he speaks in affectionate terms of Polycarp (Ephes.
21, Magn. 15). Moving forward from Smyrna to Troas he despatches
thence two letters — one to the Smyrnsean community generally, and
another addressed especially to Polycarp but intended (as the closing
injunctions show) to be read publicly in the Church. The language
which he uses in the latter manifests his estimate of Polycarp's
character and work. After expressing his thanksgiving that he was
permitted to see Polycarp face to face, he continues as follows :
' I exhort thee in the grace wherewith thou art clothed to press forward
in thy race  Vindicate thine office in all diligence of flesh and of
spirit  Bear all men as the Lord also beareth thee. Suffer all men in
love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to unceasing prayers. Ask for larger
wisdom than thou hast  Bear the maladies of. all, as a perfect athlete 
Be thou prudent as the serpent in all things, and guileless always as the
dove  The season requireth thee, as pilots require wind, and as a storm-
tossed mariner a haven, that it may attain unto God. Be sober as God's
athlete  In all things I am devoted to thee  Stand thou firm as an anvil
when it is smitten. It is the part of a great athlete to receive blows and to
conquer  Be thou more diligent than thou art. Mark the seasons.'
The words were in some sense prophetic. Half a century rolled
away before the athlete received the crown of victory. Meanwhile he
had stood firm and immoveable, unshaken by the license of theologi
cal speculation within and undaunted by the terrors of persecution
from without. A recent writer describes him as ' ultra-conservative' '.
His was an age in which conservatism alone could save the Church.
Ignatius had rightly divined that he was the one man whom the season
demanded. Ignatius had charged Polycarp with the fulfilment of a task which,
owing to his hurried departure from Troas, he himself was unable to
execute. He had bidden him write to the churches lying eastward and
instruct them to send letters and delegates to Antioch (Polyc. 8). The
Smyrnseans themselves also were directed to write to the Antiochene
Church, and to place their letter in the hands of some exceptionally
trustworthy representative (Smyrn. 11, Polyc. 7). This business brings
Polycarp into correspondence with the Philippians. Ignatius, after
leaving Troas, had sailed to Philippi, where he had halted for a time.
Receiving from him the same instructions as the other churches and
acting under his directions about writing to Antioch, the Philippians
communicated with Polycarp, requesting that the Smyrnsean messenger
might carry their letter also to Antioch. Polycarp replies. He con-
1 Renan VEglise Chrclicnne \t. 433-

428 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
gratulates the Philippians on their attention to Ignatius and others on
their way to martyrdom (§ i), and urges them to imitate the faith
fulness and courage of the martyrs (§ 9). At the same time he sends
them, appended to his own epistle, copies of all the letters of Ignatius
which he had in his hands, including those addressed to himself and
his church ; and he asks them in turn to communicate to him any later
news which they may have respecting the martyr and his companions
(§ 13). He grants their request as to the despatch of their letter to
the Antiochene Church ; and he intimates that he himself may perhaps
go to Antioch with it in person1. Whether this project was ever carried
out or not, we have no means of ascertaining. The visits of Melito,
Abercius, and Pionius to the East2 show how readily Christian teachers
of proconsular Asia undertook these long journeys. These relations
with Ignatius were comprised within a few weeks in the late summer of
a single year, not long before or not long after a.d. no, and therefore
somewhere about the middle point of his long life.
(3) From his intercourse with his contemporaries we pass on to
his relations with a younger generation. During the remainder of the
century Asia Minor was the focus of activity in the Christian Church.
The famous writers of this period, Melito and Claudius Apollinaris
and Polycrates, would all probably have come under his personal
influence ; for they lived at no great distance from Smyrna and must
have grown into full manhood, or even attained middle age, before he
died. Nor would his influence be confined to the fathers of Asia
Minor. Some years before his death Justin Martyr came to proconsular
Asia. The scene of his Dialogue with Trypho is fixed at Ephesus ; and
a visit to this renowned disciple of the Apostles residing in a neigh
bouring city would naturally form part of his programme. Clement of
Alexandria again mentions among his many teachers one who lived in
these parts of Asia Minor3. It is not likely indeed that he can have
been personally acquainted with Polycarp, for his date is somewhat too
laLe ; but he must have visited these regions while Polycarp's influence
was still fresh, and the instructor whom he thus mentions anonymously
would probably have been directly influenced by this Apostolic father.
But of two notable men more especially we have direct information, as
students together under Polycarp, though their after-lives were parted
wide as the poles asunder — Irenaeus who stands out as the great
1 For more respecting this epistle see 169; for Pionius, Acta Pionii 4 in R<"-
11. p. 897 sq. nart Act. Mart. Sine. p. 190.
2 For Melito see Euseb. //. E. iv. 26 ; 3 Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 1 (p. 3«)»^'
for Abercius, Anal. Sacr. Soles/11. Hi. p. e?rl rrjs'EXXados 6 'Iuvikos.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 429
champion of orthodoxy against the Gnostic schools, and Florinus who
lapsing into more than one heresy called down upon himself the rebuke
of his old comrade. The description of those earlier days cannot be
given better than in the words of Irenseus remonstrating with his former
fellow-student after his defection ' ;
'These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are not of
sound judgment ; these opinions are not in harmony with the Church, but
involve those who adopt them in the greatest impiety ; these opinions even
the heretics outside the pale of the Church have never ventured to broach ;
these opinions the elders before us, who also were disciples of the Apostles,
did not hand down to thee. For I saw thee, when I was still a boy (irais
en av), in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring
prosperously in the royal court and endeavouring to stand well with him.
For I distinctly remember (oiapvrjpoveva) the incidents of that time better
than the events of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received from child
hood (ck irai&av), growing with the growth of the soul, become identified with
it ; so that I can tell the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to
sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his
manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he
held before the people (irpos to irXfjdos), and how he would describe his inter
course with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how
he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from
them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching,
Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word,
would relate altogether in accordance with the Scriptures. To these things
I used to listen at the time with attention by God's mercy which was be
stowed upon me, noting them down not on paper but in my heart ; and
constantly, by the grace of God, I ruminate upon them faithfully (yvrjaias).
And I can testify in the sight of God, that if that blessed and apostolic elder
had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his
ears, and would have said after his wont, ' O good God, for what times hast
Thou kept me, that I should endure these things,' and would have fled from
the very place where he was sitting or standing when he heard such words.
And indeed this can be shown from his letters, which he wrote either to the
neighbouring churches for their confirmation or to certain of the brethren
for their warning and exhortation.'
1 Quoted by Euseb. H.E.v. 20. In the III. p. 263 sq., s.v. 'Irenaeus'), shows
Contemporary Review, May 1875, p. 834, that it must be placed during the episco-
I had urged the probability that the pate of Victor, and therefore not before
Letter to Florinus was an earlier writing A.D. 189. This point however does not
than the extant work of Irenaeus On Here- materially affect the question of the time
sies, but the Syriac fragment xxviii (Ire- when the intercourse of Polycarp with
nffius 11. p. 457, ed. Harvey), as pointed Irenaeus and Florinus took place.
out by R. A. Lipsius (Diet, of Christ. Biogr.

430 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
This vivid picture from an eye-witness enables us to realize the
aged Polycarp surrounded by his youthful disciples. The place, says a
modern writer, was 'without doubt one of the terraces on the slope of
Mount Pagus, whence we descry the sparkling bay and its beautiful
girdle of mountains  An echo of Galilee thus made itself heard, at a
distance of a hundred and twenty years, on the shores of another sea1.'
The subsequent life of the narrator bears testimony to the wide
influence of Polycarp. The South of Gaul had been colonized originally
from the Eastern shores of the ^Egsean. Its Christianity came from
the same regions as its colonization. The Church of Gaul was the
spiritual daughter of the Church of proconsular Asia. Irenseus — the
first systematic champion of Catholic orthodoxy, as based on the
apostolic tradition and distinguished from the unbridled speculations
of the sects — the most competent of the fathers of the second century-
received his early education in Asia Minor, partly under the direct
influence of Polycarp. He became bishop of Lyons in a.d. 177, but
had already resided there some years. The see had been vacated on
this occasion by the death of the aged Pothinus, who fell in the per
secution which raged in the Churches of Vienne and Lyons under
M. Aurelius. Pothinus is stated in the contemporary account of his
martyrdom to have been over ninety years of age*. If this be true (and
at most the exaggeration can only be slight), he was a young boy when
the Apostle John died, and junior to Polycarp by some twenty years at
the outside. It is frequently stated that he too had migrated from
Asia Minor into Gaul; and though the statement is based on a mis
interpretation of a late authority3, the circumstance is highly probable in
itself. Of those whose names are given as sufferers in this persecu
tion two at least, Attalus of Pergamus and Alexander the physician
from Phrygia, were themselves natives of this part of Asia Minor, while
several others bear Greek names. The circular letter, giving an account
of these martyrdoms, was addressed 'to the brethren in Phrygia and
Asia' (Euseb. H.E. v. 1); and individual martyrs and confessors in
1 Renan VEglise Chritienne pp. 43R, Sanct. Jan. 26 (11. p. 694). The autho-
439. rity quoted is Gregory of Tours Hist.
2 Letter of the Gallican Churches % 24 Franc, i. 24 ¦ ' Beatissimus vero Irenaeus
0' 5i paKapios Ilo$eiv6i 6 rr)v SiaKovlav ttjs hujus successor martyris [Pothini], qui a
iiruTKOTrjs iv AovySobvip ireirio-revpAvos beato Polycarpo ad hanc urbem directus
inrep rh ivevr)KOvra erij rrjs ijXiKias yeyovds est etc. ' ; but the whole complexion of the
k.t.X. passage shows that the antecedent to
3 This statement is made by Routh, 'qui' is not 'martyris' but 'Irenaeus'.
following previous writers, Rel. Sacr. i. The statement is founded on Euseb. //¦•£¦
p. 328 ; see also the Bollandist Act. v. 5.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 431
this persecution likewise addressed various letters to these same parts
(ib. v. 3). Plainly therefore proconsular Asia was considered to be
hardly less interested than Gaul itself in these glories of the arena at
Vienne and Lyons.
With Pothinus we have reached the outer verge of authentic history.
But beyond these limits romance is busy with the fame and influence of
Polycarp in the West. Benignus, afterwards the patron saint of Dijof*,
was despatched by the aged bishop of Smyrna — so says the legend — ¦
together with his companions Andochius the presbyter and Thyrsus the
deacon, to evangelize Gaul. So far at least there is no improbability in
the story. These names might possibly have occurred in the docu
ments relating to the persecutions in Gaul under M. Aurelius (a.d. 177)
of which Eusebius has preserved large portions (H.E. v. 1 — 4). But
when we are told further that the converts of this Benignus — the three
twin brothers, 'sancti tergemini', Speusippus, Elasippus, and Mele-
sippus — suffered martyrdom at one time together with their grandmother
Leonilla and her comrade Ionilla, when we read that Benignus himself
was tried and condemned by the emperor Aurelian in person, and that
a succession of the most horrible tortures — enough to destroy ten
human lives — was inflicted upon him in the imperial presence, till the
emperor howled and raved like a maniac at their futility, we feel that
we have left the region of history and are breathing the atmosphere of
pure fable1.
1 Full information respecting the doings is established, have a certain interest as
of S. Benignus and his companions will illustrating the legendary fame of Poly-
be found in Tillemont Memoires in. pp. carp, and I have therefore given an ex-
38 sq,, 603 sq. ; comp. II. pp. 320 sq., tract in the next chapter. The emperor
343. For the ' Tergemini ', whose day is named in connexion with the martyr-
Jan. 17, see the Bollandist Act. Sanct. doms of these saints, as also of Benig-
Jan. 11. p. 73 sq. The three names are nus himself, is Aurelian. This however
variously written, but I have endeavoured would not have been a serious difficulty
to extract from the confusion the pro- in itself, as the names Aurelius and Au-
bable forms as given in the original story, relianus are frequently confused.
In the earliest form of the legend they are The day of S. Benignus is Nov. j .
Cappadocian martyrs, as they still appear The story of this saint's connexion with
in the Greek Mena;a; and their connexion Polycarp, and the legend of the Gallic
with Benignus and Polycarp, as the spi- Tergemini, are recognized in the Martyr-
ritual fathers of Gaul, is a later accretion. ologies of the 9th century, Florus-Bede,
The later Acts, sent by Warnaharius to Ado, Rabanus Maurus, Usuard, and
Ceraunius Bishop of Paris (c. a.d. 615), Notker. The day of the 'Tergemini'
ia which they are already transferred (rplSvpoi) is a day earlier (Jan. 16) in the
from Cappadocia to Gaul and this con- Greek Calendar than in the Latin.
nexion with Polycarp through Benignus

432

EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

Of the exact date when Irenseus and Florinus were fellow-pupils of
Polycarp we cannot speak with confidence ; but it was probably during
the later years of the old man's life. So far as our knowledge of the
chronology of Irenseus goes, it might be anywhere between about
a.d. 135 and a. d. 1501. The mention of the 'royal court' (eV tjj
ftao-iXiKy avXy) should lead to some more definite conclusion2; but we

1 Irenaeus in his Letter to Florinus
speaks of himself as irdis (ti &v at this
time. Elsewhere (Haer. iii. 3. 4) he de
scribes this intercourse with Polycarp as
taking place iv tJJ icpon-r) i)pj2v i)XiKla.
Renan (L'Eglise ChrUienne p. 439) de
signates him at this time ' un jeune Grec
d'une quinzaine d'annees'. Not very
differently R. A. Lipsius (I.e. p. 254),
arguing from the language of Irenseus
elsewhere (Haer. ii. 22. 4, ii. 24. 4) re
specting the successive stages of human
life, argues that ' the age of the irals will
commence. ..say about the 18th year',
and this age he considers to accord well
with the other expression irpiirri) rjXiKla.
But the expression is consistent with a
maturer age than this. In the Epistle of
the Gallican Churches (Eus. H.E. v. 1)
Ponticus (§ 53) is called iraiSdpiov tis irev-
reKaloeKa irwv ; and Constantine (Eus.
V. C. ii. 51) styles himself Kopidrj irals
when he observed the embitterment in
Diocletian towards the Christians, though
he must have been 30 years old or more
when the persecution broke out, and did
not go to reside at court till he was at
least 16. Polybius (xvii. 12. 5) speaks
of Flamininus as vios KopiSij 'very young',
because, as he explains, ' he was not more
than thirty years old'; and he uses this
same expression of Hiero (i.8. 3) who seems
to have been then close upon thirty-five,
and of Philopoemen(ii.67. 5) who was then
over thirty. Philopoemen was called p.eipd-
kiov by his contemporaries at this same
time; Plutarch Vit. Philop. 6. So like
wise Galen in one passage (Op. xm. p.
599) describes himself as vios tjjx i)XiKlav,
when he was entering upon his 29th year,
and in another (Op. xix. p. 15) as vios

iSv (ti, though he was in his 34th year at
the time.
But, even if this point were established
satisfactorily, we should still be at fault,
since the date of Irenseus' birth is not
determinable except within somewhat wide
limits. The subject has been discussed
with great care by R. A. Lipsius (I.e.
p. 253 sq.), who places it about A.D. 130,
It can hardly be placed later, if the story
in the Appendix to the Letter of the
Smyrnmans in the Moscow MS (see n. p.
986) be true, that Irenaeus was teaching
in Rome at the time of Polycarp's mar
tyrdom (a.d. 155); and there is no valid
reason against dating it some ten years
earlier, as I have done in the Contemfo-
rary Review, August 1876, p. 415. On
the whole we are obliged to confess that
with the evidence before us- only the very
roughest approximation to a date is pos
sible. 2 Dodwell and Grabe explain the refer
ence by a visit of Hadrian to Asia, which
the former places A.D. 122 and the latter
A.D. r27 or A.D. 129 (Grabe Proleg. Sect.
i, Iren. Op. II. p. 32 sq., ed. Stieren).
Recently discovered inscriptions show
beyond question that Hadrian was in
these parts (at Ephesus and at Laodicea)
in a.d. 129 (Bulletin de Correspmdmut
HelUnique 1883, p. 407). But even this
last date seems too early. On the other
hand the visits of L.Verus(A.D. 162 and in
subsequent yearsjare too late, asPolycarp s
death must now be placed about A.D. ij5-
Between Hadrian and L. Verus it has been
generally supposed that no emperor vi
sited the East. Reasons however will be
given in a subsequent chapter (on tbe
Date of the Martyrdom) for believing

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 433
have only a very imperfect knowledge of the imperial visits to Asia
Minor at this epoch, nor indeed is it quite certain that the expression
requires the actual presence of the emperor in these parts at the time.
We have caught three glimpses of the man at three different epochs
of his life — in youth as the disciple of S. John, in middle age as the
companion of Ignatius, in declining years as the master of Irenaeus.
But these three periods exhibit a continuous life. His days are 'linked
each to each by natural piety.' There is no dislocation here, as in the
life of Ignatius. He repeats with emphasis in extreme old age the
same lessons which he had learned with avidity in his tenderest years.
One incident more completes our knowledge of his career, till the
final catastrophe comes. In the closing years of his life he paid a visit
to Rome, where he conferred with the bishop Anicetus. They had
other points of difference to discuss, but one main subject of their con
ference was the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the
practice of S. John and the other Apostles with whom he had con
versed, for observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, the 14th
Nisan, without respect to the day of the week. On the other hand,
Anicetus could point to the fact that his predecessors, at least as far
back as Xystus, who succeeded to the see soon after the beginning of
the century, had always kept the anniversary of the Passion on a
Friday and that of the Resurrection on a Sunday, thus making the day

that Antoninus Pius was in Syria about Antoninus Pius. Even during his pro-
A.D. 154, 155, andheseemsto have visited consulate omens marked him as the
Asia Minor likewise (Joann. Malalas p. future occupant of the imperial throne ;
280, ed. Bonn.). But this date also is too Capitolin. Pius 3 ' Cum sacerdos femina
late. Massuet Diss, in Iren. ii. § 2 (n. p. Trallis ex more proconsules semper hoc
183, Stieren) considers that the expression nomine salutaret, non dixit Ave proconsul,
does not imply the presence of the impe- sed Ave imperator. Cyzici etiam de simu-
rial court in Asia, but signifies merely that lacro Dei ad statuam ejus corona trans-
Florinus was a courtier in high favour lata est.' Florinus may have belonged
with the emperor. Irenaeus however could to his suite, and Irenaeus in after years
hardly have expressed himself so, if he might well call the proconsul's retinue in
had meant nothing more than this. a loose way the ' royal court ' by anticipa-
As no known visit of a reigning em- tion, especially if Florinus accompanied
peror will suit, I ventured (Contemporary him to Rome on his return and con
tra/, May 1875, P- 834) to offer a con- tinued to serve him after his elevation to
jectural interpretation. About the year the sovereignty. Though not altogether
'36 T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of satisfied with this explanation, I have no
Asia (Waddington Pastes des Provinces better to offer. Inscriptions hereafter dis-
Asiaiiques p. 724). Within two or three covered may perhaps help us to a more
years ofhis proconsulate he was raised to satisfactory solution.
the imperial throne, and is known as
IG. I. 28

434 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
of the month give place to the day of the week. Neither convinced
the other, but they parted good friends. This difference of usage did
not interfere with the most perfect cordiality ; and, as a token of this;
Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the eucharist in his place,
About forty years later, when the Paschal controversy revived in a
more virulent form, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus, excommunicated
the Asiatic Churches, Irenseus, though himself an observer of the
Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor on this harsh and
tyrannical measure. An extract from his letter is preserved by Eusebius
(H. E. v. 24), in which this incident in the life of his old master is
recorded. To this visit to Rome Irenseus makes another reference in his extant
work, where the sterner side of Polycarp's character appears. If he was
prepared to treat leniently any ritual differences, such as the time and
mode of celebrating the Paschal festival, he was stubborn and uncom
promising in his dealings with the heresies. After speaking of the
succession of the Roman bishops, through whom the true doctrine had
been handed down to his own generation without interruption, Irenseus
continues (Haer. iii. 3. 4);
'And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who was not only taught by Apostles
and lived in familiar intercourse (avvavaarparpels) with many that had seen
Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as bishop
in the Church of Smyrna ; whom we too have seen in our early years (fo tj
irpaiTTj r/pav ijXiKiq), for he survived long and departed this life at a very great
age (koi irdw yr/paXeos) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having
ever taught these very things which he had learnt from the Apostles, which
the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To these testimony is
borne by all the churches in Asia and by the successors of Polycarp up to
the present time, who was a much more trustworthy and safer witness of the
truth than Valentinus and Marcion and all such wrong-minded men. He
also, when on a visit to Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many to
the Church of God from fo lowing the aforenamed heretics, by preaching
that he had received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which
was handed down by the Church, as the truth. And there are those who
have heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to
take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the
room without bathing, with the words ' Let us flee, lest the room should even
fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.' Yea, and Polycarp
himself also, when Marcion on one occasion (irore) confronted him and said
'Recognize us,' replied 'Ay, ay, I recognize the first-born of Satan.' So
great care did the Apostles and their disciples take not to hold any com
munication, even by word, with any of those who falsify the truth, as Paul
also said, 'A man that is a heretic, after a first and second admonition,

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 435
avoid; knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-
condemned' (Tit. iii. 10).'
At this epoch Rome was the general meeting point of Christendom.
Hither flocked Christian teachers, orthodox and heretical, from all parts
of the world. Here Polycarp might have fallen in with Eleutherus, at
this time or soon after acting as deacon under the bishop Anicetus —
the earliest recorded instance of an archdeacon — but destined himself
to ascend the papal throne the next but one in succession1. Here may
still have survived the author of the earliest Christian allegory, Hermas,
himself a slave by birth but brother to the immediate predecessor of
Anicetus in the Roman episcopate2. About this same time also —
within a few years earlier or later — among the foreigners resident in
Rome were Hegesippus, the earliest historian of Christianity, a native
of Palestine and a Hebrew by birth, who interested himself in the
succession of the Roman see, intent, like Irenssus in the next genera
tion, on showing the permanence of the orthodox tradition through the
cpntinuity of the Roman episcopate3; and Justin Martyr, a Samaritan
by race, the typical apologist of the Church, the champion of the Gospel
against Jew and Gentile alike4. Here also he would find his own earlier
pupil Irenaeus, the greatest Christian writer of his age, destined here
after to be the father of the Gallican Churches, but now apparently and
for some time afterwards residing in Rome5, where (though probably
several years later) he appears to have given lectures on his favourite
subject heresiology, and to have numbered among his hearers Hippo-
lytus the future bishop of Portus".
Heretical teachers likewise gathered in great force in the metropolis
of the world. Here taught, or had taught, Cerdon the forerunner of
the dualism of Marcion7. Here was established the renowned heresi-
1 Hegesippus in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22 residence in Rome.
yevopevos Si iv "Pupy Sio5oxi)i' irroiijo-apip 5 At all events the supplement to the
pixpis' AriKijnv, ov Suikovos yv'JZXebBepos. Mart. Polyc. 22 in the Moscow MS repre-
2 Canon Muratorianus p. 58 sq. (ed. sents him as being in Rome at the time of
Tregelles). The servile origin of the Polycarp's death (see 11. p. 985 sq.). Renan
author of the Shepherd appears from the (L'Eglise Chretienne pp. 447, 451) sug-
work itself, Hennas Vis. i. i, unless in- gests that Irenjeus and Florinus accom-
deed he is assuming a fictitious character. panied Polycarp to Rome, and remained
3 Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. there when he left.
'Justin Apol. ii. 3, Tatian Oral. 19, 6 Photius Bibl. 121.
Euseb. H. E. iv. n. If the Acta Justini T Iren. Haer. i. 27. 1, iii. 4. 3, both
1 sq. (Just. Mart. Op. 11. p. 266 sq., ed. which passages are quoted by Eusebius
Otto) relate to Justin the apologist, they H.E. iv. n. Irenaeus assigns his arrival
furnish precise evidence (§ 3) as to his in Rome to the episcopate of Hyginus.
28—2

436 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
arch Valentinus, the greatest of the Gnostic teachers and the most
formidable rival of Catholic Christianity, whose school in its various
ramifications spread throughout the length and breadth of Christen
dom1. Here was to be found the 'Pontic wolf himself, Marcion,
whose thwarted ambition (so said ill-natured critics) led to a quanel
with the Roman presbyters, and who was already teaching at Rome the
heresy which invested his name with a questionable fame2. Here, at
this time or at all events during this same episcopate, a lady heretic,
Marcellina by name, a disciple of Carpocrates, taught a sort of eclecti
cism, which placed Christ on a level with Pythagoras and Plato and
Aristotle as objects of reverence, arrogating to herself and her adherents
the name of Gnostic3. Here likewise studied Tatian, still the orthodox
disciple of the orthodox Justin, but better known by his later heresy as
the founder of the Encratite sect4. It must have been a strange and
sad experience for one whose memory travelled back to the first ages
of the Church, to witness this rank and rapid growth of excrescences on
the pure teaching of the Gospel.
At length — not many months after his return from Rome — the end
came. Unlike the aged Apostle his master, the disciple was not per
mitted to close his long and active life in peace. A persecution was
raging — we know not for what cause or under what circumstances. It
was apparently the season when the community of Asia held its great
anniversary festival at Smyrna. The proconsul Statius Quadratus", the
sophist and friend of the rhetorician Aristides, was present on the
occasion. The Asiarch Philip, whose munificence sustained the reputa
tion of his native city, the wealthy Tralles, and whose renown had
already procured for him a monument at Olympia6, presided at the
games by virtue of his office. Eleven others had already fallen victims
to the rage of the persecutor, and made food for the wild beasts.
Most of them — if not all — were Philadelphians. It would seem that
they had been brought to Smyrna, because the presence of the pro
consul secured the legal tribunal necessary for their condemnation,
while the celebration of the games furnished means for their prompt
execution. A fresh attraction would thus be added to the festival by
the sacrifice of these human victims. One more especially, Germanicus
1 Iren. Haer. iii. 4. S OvaXevrlvos p.iv s Iren. Haer. i. 25. 6 ' Unde et Mar-
yap ijXdev els 'Fapijv iirl 'Tylvov, iJKpaae cellina, quae Romam sub Aniceto venit
Si iirl lTlov, Kal Tapijieivev (as 'Avikijtov. etc.
2 Iren. Haer. iii. 4. 3 'Marcion autem 4 Tatian. Orat. 18, 19; comp. Irei'
illi (Cerdoni) succedens invaluit sub Ani- Haer. i. 28. 1, Euseb. H.E. iv. 29, v. 13-
ceto'; comp. i. 27. 2. See also Justin 5 See 11. p. 967 sq.
Apol. i. 26. 6 See II. p. 952 sq.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 437
by name, had distinguished himself by his zeal and courage. He had
dragged the wild beast to him by main force and so had perished.
The appetite of the populace was whetted by this butchery. A cry
rose; 'Away with the atheists. Let search be made for Polycarp'.
Polycarp retired into the country. He was followed thither by a force
of mounted police, accompanied by a servant boy, who under torture
had betrayed his master's hiding-place. It was Friday evening about
supper time. They found the old man in the upper room of a small
cottage. He might have escaped, but preferred to remain, saying
' God's will be done '. When apprehended, he requested his captors to
allow him a short interval for prayer. His request was granted, and for
two hours he stood praying, so that all present were moved by his
fervent utterances. Then, seated on an ass, he was led to the city.
Saturday morning had now broken, and it happened to be a high
sabbath so that the Jews were keeping holiday. He was met on his
way to the city by the captain of the police who bore the ominous
name of Herod. With Herod was his father Nicetes. Seating Polycarp
in the chariot beside them, they plied him with entreaties to pronounce
the virtual words of recantation, 'Caesar is Lord', and to throw a few
grains of incense on the altar. Failing to move him, they thrust him
out from the vehicle with such violence that he bruised his leg. The
one the brother, the other the nephew, of Alee, a devout and renowned
member of Polycarp's flock1, they must have felt ill at ease in this
untoward work, and there was doubtless real sincerity in their attempt
to rescue Polycarp from his fate.
In the stadium meanwhile a great uproar arose which drowned
every attempt to speak. As the old man entered, a voice came from
heaven, 'Polycarp, be strong and play the man'. It was audible to
certain believers who were present, but the speaker no man could see.
Again Polycarp was plied with entreaties. Again he resisted all over
tures. The proconsul urged him to swear by the genius of Csesar and
say 'Away with the atheists'. He caught up the last words of his
judge. With solemn visage looking up to heaven and waving his hand,
he cried 'Away with the atheists'. The proconsul, perhaps mistaking
this as a sign of yielding, pressed him further; 'Swear, and I will
set thee free; revile Christ'. His answer is memorable; 'Fourscore
and six years have I served Him, and He hath done me no wrong.
How then can I speak evil of my King, who saved me?'
All threats and seductions alike having proved powerless, the pro
consul announced to the assembled multitude that Polycarp had con-
1 See I. p. 353, II. pp. 325 sq., 978.

438 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
fessed himself a Christian. A howl of savage vengeance arose from the
mixed throng of Jews and Heathens. They cried to the Asiarch to let
a lion loose upon him. This Philip declined to do, for the festival had
lasted some days and these sports were now over. Then they clamoured
that he should be burnt alive. Three days before his apprehension he
had dreamed that his pillow was on fire, and this dream he had inter
preted as foretelling the manner of his death. His vision was now to be
fulfilled. Timber and faggots were hastily gathered together from the work
shops and the baths — the Jews working with exceptional zeal at this
unholy task. The pyre was heaped up ; the old man threw aside his
cloke and girdle ; he tried also to take off his shoes, but his strength
failed him ; he had long been accustomed to depend on the eager aid
of those around him for such kindly offices. The executioners would
have nailed him to the stake, but at his own request they desisted, and
he was tied with cords. To the simple bystanders, who afterwards
narrated the incident, he seemed like some goodly ram, the leader of
the flock, bound and ready for sacrifice. Then he offered his last
prayer — words of praise and thanksgiving that God had deigned to
accept him that day as a sacrifice well-pleasing to Himself.
No sooner had he uttered the final Amen, than the fire was lighted
and blazed up. Then the bystanders witnessed a marvellous occurrence.
The fire arched itself around him, like the bellying sail of a ship ; and
he appeared in the centre, like precious metal in the refiner's furnace
At the same time a fragrant scent was perceived, as of costly spices.
At length, seeing that the fire refused to do its work, they called for
the officer of the arena whose duty it was to despatch wounded or
dangerous beasts, and bade him thrust a dagger into the old man. To
the marvel of the spectators a quantity of blood flowed from the wound,
sufficient to extinguish the flames.
The Christian brethren were anxious to secure the remains of the
martyred victim, but they were thwarted in their wishes. The Jews,
here as ever, were their chief enemies. Guarding the body, they
induced Nicetes to intercede with the proconsul that it might not be
surrendered, ' lest the Christians, abandoning the worship of the cruci
fied one, should begin to adore this man '. ' They knew not ', say the
narrators, ' that we can never either desert the Christ or worship any
other '. The centurion therefore placed the body in the centre of the
flames, and it was consumed. Then the brethren gathered up the bones,
more precious than jewels, and laid them in a suitable place, where
they might year by year celebrate the day of the martyr's heavenly

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 439
birth, as an act of piety towards those athletes who had fought and
conquered in the past, and an incentive and training for those who
should hereafter contend in the same lists.
With the death of Polycarp the sufferings of the Christians for a
time ceased. He thus, as it were, set his seal to the persecution by his
martyrdom. The narrative of these incidents is contained in a letter written not
long after by the Smyrnsean Church to the Christians of Philomelium.
The Philomelians had requested a detailed account of the events. This
letter is offered by the writers as a summary statement, such as the
circumstances allowed. With regard to Polycarp's last hours however
it is full enough; and any amplification, which might have been
expected or contemplated, must have dealt with the fate of the other
sufferers. It is sent by the hands of one Marcianus ; and as Irenseus,
who was connected with Polycarp and the Smyrnseans in early life,
is found addressing a treatise to one bearing this name, it is not un
reasonable to surmise that the same person is meant1. The Philomelians
are charged to circulate the letter among the more distant Christian
communities. It is related by Dion Cassius that, on the day and hour when the
dagger of Stephanus ridded the world of the tyrant Domitian, Apollonius
of Tyana, then residing in Asia Minor, mounted a lofty rock, and gather
ing the multitude about him, cried ; ' Well done, Stephanus ; excellent,
Stephanus; smite the blood-stained wretch; thou hast struck, thou
hast wounded, thou hast slain'. 'This did so happen', adds the
historian gravely, 'though one disbelieve it ten thousand times over'
(touto pev ovtws iyevero, Kav pvpiaKis ns diricrTrjo-rj) 2- A somewhat Similar
story is told of Polycarp's death. Irenseus, then sojourning in Rome,
at the precise hour when Polycarp suffered, heard a voice as of a
trumpet saying, 'Polycarp has been martyred'. This was related, we
are told, in Irenaeus' own writings3. The analogies of authenticated
records of apparitions seen and voices heard at a distance at the
moment of death have been too frequent in all ages to allow us to dis
miss the story at once as a pure fiction4. The statement indeed is not
1 See II. p. 982. Psychical Research, April 1883, p. 123 sq.
2 Dion Cass, lxvii. 18. Other illustrations will be found in R. D.
3 See the concluding paragraph of the Owen's Footfalls on the Boundary of
Letter oj 'the Stnyrmeans § 22 in the Mos- Another World, Philadelphia i860. As
cow MS (11. p. 986). this sheet is passing through the press,
* Some recent examples are brought to- an article on Visible Apparitions has ap-
Z&riti mike Proceedings of the Society for peared in the Nineteenth Century, July

440 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
contained in any extant writing of Irenseus, but it is by no means certain
that the story would not have escaped Eusebius, either from inad
vertence or from ignorance.
Thus the reign of the most humane, most beneficent, and most up
right of the Roman emperors — the Numa of the imperial regime1 — was
stained with the blood of an innocent and blameless man, whose
extreme old age, if nothing else, might have exempted him from such
a fate. The fact is a striking comment on Roman polity; for the
result was inevitable. If the view which has been taken in a previous
chapter (p. 7 sq.) be correct, Christianity had never been anything else
but an illicit religion, and Trajan by his famous rescript only formulated
the mode of dealing with it. At all events from his time onward to
the end of the second century it was directly forbidden by the law, and
its adherents were punishable by death. On this point there is no
divergence of opinion. But, though the law remained unaltered, the
disposition and attitude of the reigning emperor might materially affect
the position of the Christians. The temper of Trajan's immediate
successor would not be unfavourable to them. Easy, versatile, in
quisitive, cosmopolitan in his sympathies and his tastes, Hadrian would
at all events regard Christianity as an interesting study in the history of
religions. Half sceptic, half devotee2, a scoffer and a mystic by turns,
1884, p. 68 sq., giving other curious in- 70K Kal to iroXbirpaypov, ib. n to re yip
stances. Such narratives at all events aXXa irepiepybrepos 'ASpiavos, uxrirep elmv,
testify to a wide spread belief. iyivero, Kal piavrelais payyavelais re mv-
1 Fronto p. 206 (ed. Naber) ' Numae roSairais ixpwo [after which Dion tells
regi aequiperandus ', Capitol. Pius 13 'Rite the story of Antinous], § 22 'ASpiavos Si
comparatur Numae, cujus felicitatem pie- payyavelais piv tksi Kal yoryrelais Ikcvouto
tatemque et securitatem caerimoniasque irore rov vypov k.t.X. [during his last
semper obtinuit ', Aurel. Victor. Epit. 15 illness]; Ammianus xxv. 4. 17 'praesa-
' quamvis eum Numae contulerit aetas giorum sciscitationi nimiae deditus [Ju-
sua ', Eutrop. Brev. viii. 4 • qui merito lianus], ut aequiparare videretur in hac
Numae Pompilio conferatur, ita ut Romulo parte principem Hadrianum ; supersti-
Trajanus aequetur '. tiosus magis quam sacrorum legitimus
2 For the sceptical side of his charac- observator, innumeras sine parcimoma
ter see the letter to Servianus, Vopiscus pecudes mactans, ut aestimaretur, si rever-
Salurnin. 8 (given below, p. 464); and tisset de Parthis, boves jam defuturos;
the sportive verses to his departing soul, Marci illius similis Caesaris, in quern id
¦Animula, vagula, etc.,' Spartian. Hadr. accepimus; 02 XevKol' floes Mapxif Ttf
25. For his superstitious tendencies see Kalcrapi'"Av ab viki)o-qs, ijpels airaXipeto.;
Julian's character of him, Caesares p. Pausanias i. 5. 5 Kar ipi ijSri fhuriMus
311 ets Te rbv ovpavbv acpopGv iroXXaKts 'ASpiavov ttjs re els ro Selov npifi "'
Kal iroXvirpaypovuv ra dirbpprjra; comp. irXelarov iXdovros k.t.X.; Spartian. Ha-
Dion Cass. lxix. 5 ^riavro piv St) ravrd drian. 20 'Marius Maximus dicit eum
re avTov Kal rb iravv aKpiplis to re ireplep- natura crudelem fuisse et idcirco multa

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 44 1
this paradox of humanity1 would be less disposed than most rulers to
deal hardly with a movement which he must have viewed with mingled
respect and amusement. The adherents of the new faith had indeed
much less to fear from the man of the world who wrote the satirical
letter to Servianus, than from the student philosopher who penned
the one bitter sentence of condemnation in the Meditations*. It is
stated indeed that Hadrian, while he patronized Roman rites and duly
exercised his functions as chief-pontiff, looked with contempt on
foreign religions3. The statement however can only be received with
much limitation. Spending the larger part of his time in the provinces,
Hadrian is found everywhere encouraging local rites, building temples,
dabbling in magic, and seeking initiation into mysteries. This emperor
had no innate love for war, whoever the enemy might be. He preferred
settling his differences by management and diplomacy, rather than by
the employment of force. It is not improbable therefore that he would
have made peace with the Christians — the religious foes of his pre
decessor — just as he made peace with the Eastern nations on the
frontier — the military foes of Trajan — if he could have done so on his
own terms. A historian, writing some two centuries later, states that in
divers cities he built temples void of any images, which were called
to his own time ' Hadrian's', the emperor having designated them for
Christian worship4. The story in this exaggerated form may well be
questioned. But he was just the man to have offered a place to Christ
in his pantheon, if there were any chance of his offer being accepted.
Christian writers at all events regard him as anything but hostile to
Christianity. His accession was the signal for the first outburst of
apologetic literature, addressed to the emperor himself — a manifest
pie fecisse, quod timeret ne sibi idem 4 Lamprid. Alex. 33 'Christo templum
quod Domitiano accidit eveniret '; Spar- facere voluit [Alexander], eumque inter
tian. Ad. Ver. 3 'Fertur...HadrianumVe- deos recipere, quod et Hadrianus cogi-
ri scisse genituram... fuisse enim Hadri- tasse fertur, qui templa in omnibus civi-
anum peritum matheseos Marius Maximus tatibus sine simulacris jusserat fieri ; quae
usque adeo demonstrat, ut eum dicat hodie idcirco, quia non habent numina,
cuncta de se scisse etc' dicuntur Hadriani, quae ille ad hoc par-
1 Spartian. Hadrian. 14 ' Idem seve- asse dicebatur. Sed prohibitus est ab is
rus, laetus, comis, gravis, lascivus, cunc- qui consulentes sacra reppererant omnes
tator, tenax, liberalis, simulator, saevus, Christianos futures, si id fecisset.' The
clemens, et semper in omnibus varius'. words 'prohibitus est, etc' are commonly
2 For Hadrian's Letter to Servianus referred to Hadrian; but they seem more
see below p. 464 ; for the passage in the naturally to apply to Alexander Severus
Meditations, p. 517. himself. Are not these the temples men-
3 Spartian. Hadr. 22 'Sacra Romana tioned in Spartian. Hadrian. T3 'Apud
diligentissimecuravitjperegrina con temp- Athenienses dedicavit. ... Jovis Olympii
sit ; pontificis maximi ofhcium peregit '. aedem et aram sibi ; eodemque modo per

442 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
token that they looked upon the new reign as the dawn of a better day
for Christianity1. His rescript to Minucius Fundanus proconsul of
Asia (see p. 460), by which the proceedings against the Christians are
regulated, tends in the same direction. He does not in any point
rescind the ordinance of his predecessor, but he forbids the magistrates
to proceed against a person in deference to popular clamour, where
there is no responsible accuser, and he imposes the severest penalties
on false accusations. The effect of such an ordinance would stretch
far beyond the formal enactment itself. It would show that the emperor
discouraged persecutions, and thus it would procure comparative
immunity for the Christians, though the law which made Christianity a
crime was not erased from the statute book. Objections have been
raised to the genuineness of this rescript. But its existence helps to
explain the phenomena of the time. Christianity was a capital crime
in the eye of the law ; the Christians might be reckoned by hundreds
of thousands within the Roman empire at this time. Every one of
these was liable to death. Yet only one recorded martyrdom under
Hadrian is absolutely certain, and we can count on the fingers all those
of whom it can be maintained with any plausibility that they suffered
for the faith during this reign. The rescript to Minucius Fundanus,-
Melito tells us2, was only one of several documents to the same effect
which this emperor issued to the provincial magistrates ; and we can
well believe this statement. The one well authenticated martyrdom
which is ascribed to this reign — the death of the Roman bishop Teles-
phorus3 — belongs to its close, when the emperor's mind was already
unhinged by his malady, and the suspicions with which he was haunted
proved fatal to his most trusted friends. Whether the emperor himself
was responsible for this martyrdom, we know not. But the frenzy of a
disordered intellect, which shed the blood of the aged Servianus, a
near connexion and a long-tried friend whom he had loaded with
honours4, might well have singled out the chief ruler of the Christians as
a victim to appease the angry gods.
The even temper of Antoninus Pius would not on the whole be so
favourable to the Christians as the restless versatility of Hadrian.
Certain it is, that during his reign we hear more of martyrdoms than
under his predecessor. Yet it is not probable that he himself was
directly responsible for these sufferings. ' Almost alone of all emperors,
Asiam iter faciens, templa sui nominis 3 Iren. Haer. iii. 3. 4; see p. 480.
consecravit'x i Spartian. Hadrian. 25. Dion <>s'
1 Euseb. H. E. iv, 3. lxix. 17.
2 Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 ; see p. 520.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 443
says Capitolinus, ' he lived without any bloodshed either of citizen or
of foe,' notwithstanding his protracted reign of twenty-two years ; but
he adds significantly — and the qualification covers these persecutions of
the Christians — 'quantum ad se ipsum pertinet,' 'so far as it rested
with himself (Pius 13). He was clement even to indulgence both by
temper and on principle '. The Christian apologists praise his tolerant
spirit. Melito more especially, addressing his successor M. Aurelius,
states that he wrote to the Greek towns generally (wpos TravTas "EXXijvas),
among which he especially mentions Larissa, Thessalonica, and Athens,
prohibiting any irregularities, and excesses (pr/Bev vewrepi£eiv) in the
treatment of the Christians". We are reminded by the mention of this
last city, that Dionysius of Corinth names Publius bishop of Athens as
having suffered martyrdom, apparently during this reign3. The letter of
Antoninus to the Athenians may have been written on the occasion of
a popular outbreak which led to the death of Publius. A rescript
to the Confederation of Asia is extant bearing the name of this emperor
in which he goes to greater lengths in the direction of tolerance ; but
the authenticity of this document is justly disputed4. Yet, though
certainly spurious, it represents the conception of him entertained by
Christians in the generations next succeeding his own. At the same
time, though his natural humanity would lead him to treat the Christians
with some tenderness, he would have no religious sympathy with them.
When he is compared with Numa, the comparison does not stop short
at his clemency and justice, but extends also to his patronage of
religious ceremonies5. In accordance with this representation, the in
scriptions commemorate his benefactions for these purposes6. The
1 M. Antonin. i. 16 irapb. tov irarpbs laid on his $iXav0pojirla (p. 105 sq.).
to ifpipov k.t.X.; Capitol. Pius 2 ' mcribus For the story of Arrius Antoninus,
clemens '...'vere natura clementissimus', related by Tertullian Scap. 5, see below
10 'ad indulgentias pronissimus fuit', 13 p. 523. The identification of the pro-
' cum omnes ejus pietatem, clementiam... consul so called with Antoninus Pius,
laudarent'; Aurel. Victor Epit. 15 who before his exaltation bore this name,
'Tantae bonitatis is principatus fuit ut is hardly consistent with the well-known
haud dubie sine exemplo vixerit', 'adeo humanity of this emperor.
mansuetus ut instantibus patribus etc.', 2 See below, p. 520.
"usque eo autem mitis fuit ut etc.'; 3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23.
Eutrop. Brev. viii. 4 'nulli acerbus, 4 This document is discussed below,
cunctis benignus'; Dion Cass. lxix. 20 p. 465.
irpaov, eyeiKrov (words put into the mouth 5 See Capitol. Pius 13, quoted above
of Hadrian) ; Ammian. Marc. xxx. 8. 12 p. 440, note 1.
|serenus et clemens'. The description 6 Corp. Inscr. Lat.vi. 1001, s.p. Q. R .
inAristides, Op. 1. p. 98 sq., Els ^amXea, imp. CAESARI. T.AELIO. HADRIANO. am
is drawn from Pius, and great stress is tonino . avg . no .p.p. pontif . max .

444 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
only recorded martyrdoms in proconsular Asia during his reign are those
of Polycarp and his companions. The narrative suggests that these
were planned and carried out entirely in the province itself, without the
action of the emperor. He would probably have stopped them, if he
could. But, even if interposition had been possible at so great a distance
from Rome, he was powerless. Religion was identified with polity in
the Roman system; and of this system the emperor was the chief
corner-stone. Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, all had been deified before
him — the last by the express wish of Antoninus Pius himself, despite the
opposition of the Senate1. M. Aurelius, L. Verus, Commodus, all would
be deified after him. He himself was destined to deification, when his
time came. Nor was this apotheosis with its consequent worship post
poned till after death. In no region did the cultus of the living
emperor assume such gigantic proportions as in Asia Minor ; and at no
period did it advance by more rapid strides than in the age of the
Antonines. The high character and the upright rule of these sovereigns
disposed men the more readily to yield a homage which they were not
prepared to deny even to dissolute tyrants. Antoninus Pius himself
was invoked at one time as the new Dionysus, at another as Zeus
Eleutherius2. His wife Faustina was the new Demeter3. His two
adopted sons, M. Aurelius and L. Verus, were the Olympian gods, the
new Dioscuri4, the twin brothers, sons of Zeus. The machinery of
persecution was ready to hand in this political religion. Though
Antoninus himself might have no desire to set it in motion, yet if the
impetus were once given from without, he was powerless to stop it. At
best he could only guide and moderate the popular excitement. Nor
were occasions wanting to supply the impulse. Though the wisdom,
firmness, and moderation of the sovereign saved the empire from the
TRIB . POT . VI . COS . ill . OPTIMO . MAXI- 3455, 6786 ; and also Zeis with various
moq . principi . et . cvm . svmma . be- epithets, such as AwSavaios C.I. G. i8m,
nignitate . ivstissimo . ob . insignem . 'HXevSipios ib. 2179, but most commonly
ERGA . CAERIMONIAS . PVBLICAS.CVRAM . 'OXvpirioS (e. g. C. I. G. 1312, 1822, 2I?9i
AC . RELIGIONEM . 3036), either alone or combined with
1 Dion Cass. lxix. 23, lxx. 1, Spartian. other epithets. On this designation
Hadrian. 27, Capitolin. Pius 5, Aurel. 'OXvpirios see below, p. 452.
Victor Caes. 14, Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3. 3 Boeckh C. I. G. 6280 B Bed Si pa
- He is vios Aibvvcros in Boeckh C. I. G. ovpavidivai Tlovaiv, Ai}i!> re viri, Atjw «
349 (Inscr. Attic. III. 22); and Zeis in iraXai-b, i.e. the new Demeter Faustina
C. I. G. 350, 1313, 1314, Add. 4303 h, as well as the original Demeter: see the
in the first passage (=Inscr.Att. III. 527) note in Boeckh III. p. 923.
with the epithet 'EXevBipios. 4 C. I. G. 1316 Seol 'OXbpmot, rl«
In like manner Hadrian before him AioaKovpoi.
had been designated vios Aibvvaos C. I. G.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 445
worst scourges of war and tumult during his reign, yet it was marked
by a succession of overwhelming physical calamities — conflagrations,
earthquakes, famines, pestilences, portents of divers kinds1. Procon
sular Asia more especially was scourged by these catastrophes. Only
two or three years before Polycarp's death an earthquake — exceptionally
violent even for this region — had utterly destroyed Mitylene and
ruined a considerable part of Smyrna itself. The Smyrnseans were
thrown into the utmost consternation by the disaster *. We have only
to imagine the recurrence of a shock, however slight, at this crisis, and
the excited populace would demand its victims to appease the angry
deities before it was too late. When the cry Christianos ad leones was
once raised, the result was inevitable. The fate of Polycarp must be
the fate of every faithful servant of Christ. If he were accused, he
must confess. If he confessed, he must be condemned. The law left
no logical standing-ground short of this. No wonder that humane and
far-seeing emperors did their best by indirect means to minimise the
application of the law.
But, if the Christians fared ill under Antoninus Pius, their con
dition was still worse under his successor. The traditions, amidst which
he had been brought up, were highly unfavorable to a generous ap
preciation of them. His tutor and familiar friend Fronto did not
disdain to give circulation to the most shameful libels against them3.
His favourite teacher, whom he loaded with honours, Junius Rusticus,
as city praetor, condemned Justin and his companions to death at
Rome4. He himself could see nothing but ' sheer obstinacy ' (UjiXtjv
1 Spartian. Pius 9 'Adversa ejus tern- 'Erpiaioi Si Kal 2,u.vpvaioi irap' dXXr)Xovs
poribus haec provenerunt ; fames de qua (Beov Bopvpobpevoi, r) Si avvixeia Bavpaari)
diximus ; circi ruina ; terrae motus quo koI rav aeio-p&v Kal rdv rpofitov. For the
RhodiorumetAsiaeoppidaconciderunt... date (a.d. 151, 152) see "Waddington
et Romae incendium quod trecentas qua- Mimoire sur Aristide p. 242 sq., Pastes
draginta insulas vel domos absumsit; et Asiatiques p. 214. This is to be distin-
Narbonensis civitas, et Antiochense oppi- guished from the earthquake which some
dum, et Carthaginiense forum arsit. Fuit years later, at the close of the reign of
et inundatio Tiberis-; apparuit et Stella M. Aurelius, threw down nearly the whole
crinita ; natus est et biceps puer ; et uno of Smyrna.
partu mulieris quinque pueri editi sunt 3 Minuc. Felix Octav. 9, 31; see below,
etc.', where other prodigies are mentioned; p. 513.
Dion Cass. lxx. 4 iirl rov 'Avroivlvov 4 See below, p. 494. For this em-
XfyeTM Kal Qopeporraros irepl to, pipij rrjs peror's relation to Rusticus see Capitol.
SiBwlas xal rov 'EXXrj<rirovrov aeivpos Marcus 3 'Audivit...praecipue Junium
yeviaBai Kal iXXas re iroXeis Kapelv laxv- Rusticum, quem et reveritus est et secta-
ous Kal i£aipirus rrjv KtftKov k.t.X. tus, qui domi militiaeque pollebat, Stoicae
Aristides Qrat. 25 (Op. 1. p. 497) disciplinae peritissimum; cum quo omnia

446 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
irapdragiv) in their heroism when face to face with death1. It was plain
therefore that Christianity could not hope for immunity from this
emperor, notwithstanding his naturally humane and gentle spirit.
Despite the disposition of Christian writers to represent his dealings in
the most favourable light — a disposition of which I have already ex
plained the causes2 — it is a plain fact that Christian blood flowed more
freely under M. Aurelius, than it had flowed any time previously
during the half century which had intervened since the Bithynian
martyrdoms under Trajan, or was hereafter to flow any time during the
decades which would elapse before the outbreak of the Severian per
secution at the commencement of the next century. In fact the wound
was never staunched during his reign3. The evidence indeed is only
fragmentary; but the verdict can hardly be doubtful. The fate of
Justin and his companions at Rome, the martyrdoms of Thraseas of
Eumenia and of Sagaris of Laodicea, perhaps also of Papirius of
Smyrna and of Melito of Sardis, in Asia Minor, and the wholesale
slaughters in the amphitheatres of Vienne and Lyons, extend over nearly
the whole of this reign and speak from divers parts of the empire.
The execution of the African martyrs belongs to the earliest months
of the succeeding reign ; but it must be traced to the policy which
prevailed under M. Aurelius.
Smyrna had not been among the earliest of the Apostolic Churches.
Polycarp himself refers to the fact that the Philippians had been con
verted to Christ before the Church over which he himself presided
(§ n). Yet, when the Apocalypse was written, the Smyrnsean Church
had already had a history. If therefore we assume the early date of the
Apocalypse, it must have been founded some years before a.d. 70. This
being so, the obvious supposition is that Smyrna was evangelized during
S. Paul's three years residence at Ephesus (a.d. 54 — 57), when we read
that ' all those who dwelt in Asia heard the word of God' (Acts xix. 10,
comp. ver. 26). We may therefore assign to it a similar origin to that
which hypothetically we have assigned to the Churches of Magnesia
(ii. p. 102) and of Tralles (11. p. 147). If not from the Apostle himself,
at least from one of his immediate disciples and converts, it would
receive the first tidings of the Gospel during this period. The author
communicavit publica privataque consilia ; xlix. 1 . I .
cui etiam ante praefectos praetorio semper 1 M. Antonin. xi. 3; see below, p.5'7"
osculum dedit ; quem et consulem iterum 2 See above, pp. 2, 8; below, p. 5TI-
designavit; cui post obitum statuas pos- 3 For the authorities relating to the
tulavit'; M.Anton, i. 7, 17, iii.5,Themist. martyrdoms which are mentioned in the
Orat. xiii. p. 173, xvii. p. 215, Digest. succeeding sentences see below, p. 493 s1'

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 447
of the Life of Polycarp indeed supplies more explicit information with
regard to the early days of the Smyrnsean Church. He speaks of
Strataeas, a brother of Timothy, whom S. Paul had known in Pam^-
phylia as residing there. The Apostle, leaving Galatia, sought rest and
refreshment among the faithful in Smyrna, and took up his abode with
Strataeas. The visit to 'Asia' here intended is apparently the same which is
described in Acts xix. i sq., during the Apostle's third missionary journey,
commencing about a.d. 54'. After the Apostle's departure, Stratseas
'succeeds to the instruction' of the Church (BieSegaTo...Tr)v SiSao-KaXiav),
apparently as its first bishop. The immediate predecessor of Polycarp
in the episcopate was Bucolus; but others had intervened between
Strataeas and him. The account in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46)
runs on the same lines, but is not consistent in its details with the
story of Polycarp's biographer. The writer of this work gives the first
bishop as Ariston, then Stratseas, then another Ariston2. It is notice
able that Aristion is the name of one of those personal disciples of
Christ with whom Papias was acquainted3, and from whom he de
rived some traditions of the earliest days of the Gospel. We have no
means of extricating the historical kernel of which these legendary
stories are the husk ; but the repetition of the same name might suggest
the inference that there was an alternation in the presidency of the
college of presbyters, before Smyrna had a bishop properly so called.
Anyhow it is far from improbable that Polycarp was not the first
bishop of Smyrna, even in the more restricted sense of the term.
As interpreted by some writers, the letter' to the angel of the Church
of Smyrna in the Apocalypse (iii. 8—10) contains the earliest and most
interesting reference to Polycarp, of whose destiny it thus becomes a
prophetic utterance :
'I know thy tribulation and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the
blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a
Acts xviii. 23, 24, xix. 1, i£ijXBev elaeXBuv 6 IlauXos Kal rrvvavayayuiv rovs
[IlaOXos] Siepxbpevos tt)k TaXariKijv x&pav ovras iriarovs k.t.X. The ' days of un-
koX $pvylav...'IbvSaios Si tis ' AiroXX&s . . . leavened bread' are mentioned to intro-
KaripiTTitrev els "Etpeaov ...'Eyivero Si... duce the Apostle's subsequent discourse
ilaBXoj/ SieXBbvra to. dvoirepiKb. pipij iXBeiv on the proper time of observing Easter ;
(v. 1. KareXBetv) els "Eipecrov Kal evpelv but the journey to Jerusalem must be a
wis paBrrras. With this compare the slip, as no such journey took place till
language of Vit. Polyc. 2 'Ev tois ijpipais more than three years later.
rm atbpwv 6 HoOXos 4k rijs TaXarlas 2 The names, Ariston and Aristion,
>«"iiiv KaTTjVTT)o-evelsTTrv'Aalav,...p(XXav occur on tbe coins of Smyrna; Mionnet
Xurrbv amivai els 'lepoabXvpa. rfXBev ovv III. 193, Suppl. VI. 310.
*» n tpvprQ rrpbs A.Tparalav...irap <p » Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.

448 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
synagogue of Satan. Fear not the things that thou shalt suffer. Behold;
the devil shall cast some of you into prison, and ye shall be tried ; and ye
shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give
thee the crown of life.'
The language indeed would well describe the circumstances of Poly
carp's fate. The blasphemy of the Jews (§§ 13, 17, 18), the enmity of
the devil (§§ 3, 17), the crown of life (§§ 17, 19, rdv t^s d<p8apo-ias
o-Tecpavov), all have their counterparts in the account of his martyrdom.
But this explanation of a direct personal reference to Polycarp depends
on two assumptions, both (to say the least) highly doubtful. It inter
prets the angel of the Church to be its presiding officer, its bishop,
though the highly figurative character of the context suggests another
explanation1. And again it is forced to postulate the later date of
the Apocalypse, for the earlier date would be nearly coincident with
Polycarp's birth; and even with the later he would still be a very
young man, not more than six or seven and twenty. Yet in a broader
sense this Apocalyptic letter may be considered prophetic; for it
forecasts the career of the Smyrnsean Church, of which Polycarp was
the truest type and the representative hero.
Of the succeeding bishops of Smyrna the Life of Polycarp by the
false Pionius gives information which, notwithstanding its fictitious
accompaniments, may rest on a basis of authentic tradition. As the
immediate successor of Polycarp he names one Papirius (§ 15). But a
Papirius is likewise mentioned by Polycrates of Ephesus writing in the
last decade of the second century, as a man of note in these parts, who
supported the Quartodeciman use in the Paschal controversy". It is
very probable therefore that the Smyrnsean episcopate of Papirius was
a matter of history well known to the spurious Pionius. If so, we may
perhaps accept as historical his further statement that Papirius was
succeeded by one Camerius, whom he states to have been ordained
deacon by Polycarp himself and to have accompanied him in this'
capacity on his episcopal visitations 3.
The lifetime of Polycarp was the most tumultuous' period in the
religious history of the world4, and a chief arena of the struggle between
1 See Philippians p. 199 sq. Religion Romaine 11. p. 410 sq. (i°74)>
2 Euseb. H. E. v. 24. H. Schiller Geschichte der Romischen
3 Vit. Polyc. 27 ; see the note there. Kaiserzeit 1. ii. p. 679 sq. (1883), Renan
4 For the religious history of this L'Eglise Chretienne pp. 1 sq., 31 sq>> *9°
period see Friedlander Sittengeschichte %ci.,j>oA%a.(\%'la),Marc-AitreleriO.\^
Roms in. p. 423 sq. (1871), Boissier La 32 sq., 345 sq. (1882), Capes Age of the

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 449
divers creeds and cults was Asia Minor. In the earlier part of the
second century it is probable that Polycarp may have witnessed in pro
consular Asia, what Pliny describes as taking place in the neighbouring
regions of Pontus and Bithynia — large and rapid accessions to the
Church of Christ from all ranks and ages, threatening to empty the
heathen temples and to starve the heathen rites'. But soon after he
would find himself face to face with a movement which, if his faith had
failed him, must, have filled him with apprehension. Already, before the
close of the first century of the Christian era, signs were visible of a
reaction against the philosophic and worldly scepticism which for some
generations had been undermining the popular religions and threatened
to reduce them to a heap of crumbling ruins. The contrast between
the elder and the younger Pliny marks the period of transition. The
avowed disbelief of the uncle is replaced by the religious activity of the
nephew8. With the second century the pagan reaction set in vigorously,
and in the age of the Antonines — at the epoch of Polycarp's death — it
was -at its height. A sceptical philosophy had failed to satisfy the
cravings of the educated classes, and it had never touched, except super
ficially, the lower ranks of society. The erection of temples, the
establishment of new priesthoods, the multiplication of religious rites
and festivals, all bear testimony to this fact. ' We are too forgetful,' says
Renan, 'that the second century had a veritable pagan propaganda
(predication) parallel to that of Christianity and in many respects in
accord with it "'. From various motives the pagan revival was promoted
by the reigning sovereigns. The political and truly Roman instincts of
Trajan were not more friendly to it than the archssological tastes, the
cosmopolitan interests, and the theological levity of Hadrian. From
their immediate successors, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, it
received even more solid and efficient support. Stoicism — whatever
might be its faults — was intensely religious after its own lights ; and
Stoicism was seated next to the throne and upon the throne. M.
Aurelius managed to incorporate into his Stoicism the popular mythology
and the pagan rites with a flexibility which would have astonished the
founders and early disciples of the sect. When he was inaugurating
Antonines pp. 129 sq., 150 sq. (1880). enlarging another (Epist. ix. 39) with his
Of these Friedlander's account is the own money. His language on the latter
most complete. See also Dollinger Hei- occasion is worth quoting; ' Videor ergo
denthum u. Judenthum (1857) passim. munifice simul religioseque facturus, si
1 Traj. et Plin. Epist. 96, given above, aedem quam pulcherrimam exstruxero,
P- 5° sq. addidero porticus aedi ; illam ad usum
He himself mentions building one deae, has ad hominum.'
temple (Epist. iv. 1) and restoring and * Marc-Aurile p. 45.
IG. I, 29

450 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
the war with the Marcomanni, he gathered priests from all quarters,
celebrated foreign rites of all religions, and purified Rome with every
kind of ceremonial'. The slaughter of victims on this or a similar
occasion was on a scale so great that in a satire of the day the
white cattle were represented as complaining that his victory would be
their annihilation2. When a young man, he took the most active
interest in his duties as a member of the Salian college, of which he was
prelate and soothsayer and master3. As sovereign, he was reported also
to have consulted Chaldean fortune-tellers and Egyptian magicians4. Of
. the Csesar-worship, which had grown up in imperial times, he was the
most active promoter. Not only was he a party to the deification of
his predecessor Antoninus — -this might have been forgiven him — but he
himself took the initiative in conferring divine honours on his worthless
brother Verus and his shameless wife Faustina, with the usual apparatus
of a high-priesthood, a sacerdotal college, and recurring festivals5. Thus
paganism profited by the high personal character and the wise and
beneficent rule of the reigning emperors. Nor did it disdain an appeal
to the lower cravings of a superstitious ignorance. Astrology, dreams,
auguries, witchcraft — these and other degraded types of the religious
sentiment meet us at every turn in exaggerated forms. The arch-
charlatans Peregrinus Proteus and Alexander of Abonoteichos were
strictly contemporaries of Polycarp, and Asia Minor was the chief scene
of their activity. The rising tide of this pagan reaction brought in on its
surface from far and wide the refuse of the basest superstitions and
impostures. Support was sought for the growing sentiment in the
assimilation of foreign religions. The rites of Syria and of Egypt
had for some generations been naturalized in these parts. A more
recent accession was the Mithraic worship derived from Persia, which
culminated in the later years of the Antonines. Its horrors and its
mysticism invested it with a strange fascination for the devotee for whom
the more sober forms of heathen religion had lost their attractions. Even
the extant literature of the age is strongly imbued with the prevailing
spirit. Phlegon of Tralles the collector of portents, and Artemidorus of

1 Capitolin. Marcus 13 ' Tantus autem p. 440. The distich runs thus ;
terror belli Marcomannici fuit, ut undique 01 §6es ol XcvkoI ISlapKipTi} Kalcra.pt %tdpw'
sacerdotes Antoninus acciverit, peregrinos ijv Si av viktjotjs, appes airaXopeBa.
ritus impleverit, Romam omni genere lus- 3 Capitolin. Marcus 4 'fuit in eo sacer-
traverit, retardatusque a bellica profec- dotio et praesul et vates et magister.'
tionesit; celebravit et Romano ritu lee- i Capitolin. Marcus 19, Dion Cass.
tisternia per septem dies '. lxxi. 8. See below, p. 472.
2 Ammian xxv. 4. 17, quoted above, 5 Capitolin. Marcus 15, 26.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 451
Daldis the interpreter of dreams, are samples of the literature which the
age and country of Polycarp could produce. But more famous than
either of these in his own day was the rhetorician Aristides, himself a
native of proconsular Asia. The credulity of a Papias is more than
matched by the credulity of an Aristides. As Aristides spent large
portions of his time in Polycarp's city Smyrna, he can hardly have been
ignorant of ' the teacher of Asia', ' the father of the Christians', 'the sub-
verter of the gods' of heathendom '. Honoured by peoples and flattered
by princes, this self-complacent pedant — the devotee of yEsculapius and
the dreamer of dreams — would doubtless have looked down with scorn
on the despised leader of a despised sect. By a strange stroke of irony
history has reversed their positions. The nerveless declamations of
Aristides are now read solely, or read chiefly, because they throw some
light on the chronology of Polycarp.
In the pagan revival, of which I have spoken, Smyrna seems to
have borne a conspicuous part. The coins and inscriptions give evidence
more especially of the progress of Roman state-worship during this
period. They speak of the goddess Rome, the goddess Senate, the god
Emperor. The Smyrnseans could boast that they had been the first city
to dedicate a shrine to Rome2. This was during the republican times.
When at a later (date eleven cities of Asia contended for the honour of
erecting a temple to Tiberius, to Livia, and to the Senate, the palm was
conceded to Smyrna on the ground of this priority". Thus Smyrna be
came a chief centre of this political cult. Again arid again we read of
the temples of the Augusti at Smyrna. The festivals of the Commune
Aaiae—ihe corporation of which this religion was the special charge — were
held here with exceptional splendour. Twice after Polycarp had reached
middle life did Smyrna receive fresh honours and privileges in con
nexion with the worship of the imperial deities. Her first neocorate dates
from the reign of Trajan; her second from that of Hadrian4. To this latter
emperor the Smyrnseans were largely indebted; for besides procuring the
decree of the Senate which conferred the second neocorate on them,
besides instituting sacred games and establishing 'theologians' and
'choristers', he had rendered munificent aid in rebuilding and adorning
their city6. Their gratitude showed itself in the fulsomeness of their
\ Martyr. Polyc. 12 (see n. p. 967). 559 sq.; Lane Smyrnaeorum Res Gestae
2 Tac. Ann, iv. 56. etc. p. 32. The third neocorate dates
Tac. Ann. iv. 15, 55, 56; comp. from Commodus or Severus.
Aristid. Orat. 41 (Op.i.-p. 767, Dindorf). 6 C.I.G. 3148; comp. Philostr. Vit.
4 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Graec. II. pp. Soph. i. 25; see Diirr Reisen des Kaisers
*"• iv& 7345 Eckhel Num. Vet. II. p. Hadrian p. 5r. 29 — 2

452 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
language. He was not only their 'god Hadrian'; but he was 'Hadrian
the Olympian', their 'saviour and founder". Hence the games established
in his honour — the sacred festival which has been already mentioned—
were called the 'Olympian' Hadrianea2. Nor was it only in the direction
of this political Roman cult, that the activity of paganism manifested
itself in Smyrna. Not to mention the commoner forms of Egyptian3 and
Oriental worship, the rites of Mithras appear in this city as early as
a.d. 8o4. Doubtless they shared the impulse which was given to them
elsewhere in the age of the Antonines. Meanwhile religions of strictly
local origin were not neglected. Thus we find an inscription in honour
of the river-god Meles, who is hailed as ' saviour ', having by his inter
position rescued his worshipper from plague and pestilence5. This in
scription is not dated ; but we may with fair probability assign it to the
epoch of the great pestilence which ravaged Asia Minor during the joint
reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus.
But besides this revival of paganism, the progress of the Church'was
threatened from another side also. The Jews had always been a strong
body in Smyrna. Smyrna, as an ancient city and a convenient seaport,
would certainly have received its proper share of those two thousand
Jewish families which Antiochus the Great transported from Babylonia
and Mesopotamia to these parts of Asia Minor8. In the first century of the
Christian era Philo speaks of their ' abounding (irapirXrjBels) in every city
of Asia'7, doubtless meaning thereby the proconsular province, of which
Ephesus and Smyrna were the two eyes. The Christians in Smyrna
suffered again and again from the hostility of the Jews. The Apocalypse
was written, if we adopt the earlier date, at the time when the Jewish war
was at its height under Vespasian and Titus, and when the destruction of
the Holy City was imminent. Doubtless the troubles in Palestine had
brought fresh Jewish immigrants to Smyrna, where a powerful colony of
their countrymen was already established. It was a crisis when the sepa
ration of interests and sympathies between the Christians and Jews was
keenly felt and bitterly resented by the latter. We are not surprised
therefore to find the Jewish colonists of Smyrna harassing and calumni-
1 C.I.G. 3174; comp. ib. 3170, 3187. connected with his ailment ( Op. I. p. 47°)'
See also above, p. 444. where also the locality is Smyrna. He
2 Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 25, C.I.G. has moreover an oration expressly devoted
3148, 3174, 5913. to the praises of this deity; Orat. 8E/s
3 Aristides says of himself, Orat. 25 rbv Hdpairtv (Op. I. p. 81 sq.).
(Op. I. p. 501) ereBvKeiv rrj "laiSi Kal Tip i C.I.G. 3173.
ZZapairiSi ev r<p rijs "Io-i5os lepqj, Xeyoi 5 C.I.G. 3165.
touto ev Upvpvrj yevbpevov : see also the 6 Joseph. Ant. xii. 3. 4.
context. Sarapis elsewhere is closely 7 Leg. ad Gaium 33, Op. I. p- 5°' M'

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 453
ating their Christian fellow-citizens. Accordingly they are denounced
in the Apocalyptic message to this Church (Rev. ii. 9) as a ' synagogue
of Satan', as 'self-called Jews,' but having no real title to the name.
These events were nearly coincident, as we have seen (p. 422), with the
birth of Polycarp. A second hardly less signal crisis came, when he
had passed middle life and was now verging on old age. Hadrian
completed the work which Vespasian and Titus had begun. The
foundation of the heathen city ^Elia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem,
whether as cause or as consequence, was connected with a general uprising
of the Jews. The rebellion under Barcochba broke out. The anta
gonism between Jews and Christians was complete. The Christians in
Palestine stood aloof perforce from this movement. It was impossible
for them to acknowledge this false Messiah, the leader of the rebel
hosts. He wreaked a stern vengeance upon them for their neutrality or
their opposition, inflicting tortures and death upon them if they refused
to blaspheme Christ. The feud between the Jews and Christians became
the more embittered, because Hadrian treated the Christians with for
bearance, even with favour, allowing them to settle peacefully in his new
city, from which the Jews were excluded for ever. This fresh devasta
tion of Palestine would bring fresh Jewish immigrants to the cities of
Asia Minor with feelings exasperated a hundredfold against the Christians.
Twenty years had elapsed after the event before Polycarp's martyrdom ;
but twenty years were all too little to heal a feud, which in fact was
past healing. 'They (the Jews) treat us as open enemies at war (ixBpovs
/cat iroXepiovs),' writes Justin Martyr in his Apology addressed to
Antoninus Pius, 'putting us to death and torturing us just as you (heathens)
do (dpMuivs vplv), whenever they can'.' Moreover we cannot doubt that,
like his contemporary Justin, Polycarp would dwell upon the lessons
of Barcochba's unsuccessful rebellion in a manner not conciliatory to
the Jews. The language, which he had learnt from his master S. John,
would be heard on his lips. The Jews of Smyrna would be denounced as a
' synagogue of Satan' at this second crisis, just as they had been denounced
at the first. Hence, when they got their opportunity, they would not be
backward in their retaliation. The condemnation of Polycarp (a.d. 155)
was such an occasion ; and they worked eagerly, as we have seen, in the
preparations for the martyrdom. The apprehension of Pionius nearly a
century later (a.d. 250) was such another opportunity2. Here again
we read of the Jews taking an active interest in the proceedings. As
'Justin. Apol. i. 31 (p. 72 a); see 2 The Passio Sanctorum Pionii etc. in
also the other references in Otto's note, Ruinart's Acta Martyrum Sincera p. 188
'• P- 94- sq. (Ratisbonae 1859).

454 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
on the occasion of Polycarp's martyrdom, so now again it was a Jewish
holiday, a high sabbath. Jewish women more especially are mentioned
as gathering in large numbers to witness the proceedings (§ 3). The
address of Pionius in the forum is directed largely to the Jews (§ 4).
He speaks of their 'bursting with laughter' (risu se cachinnante dissol-
vunt), when they see any one sacrificing from compulsion or voluntarily.
He represents them as declaring derisively in loud and insolent tones
that the Christians 'had long had their time of licence' (diu nos
licentiae tempus habuisse). ' Be it granted,' he adds, ' we are their
enemies ; yet we are men.' Within the prison again, he warns the
persons assembled to beware of the wiles of the Jews : 'I hear,' he says,
' that the Jews invite some of you to the1 sy'naigogue;' and he denounces
a response to this invitation as a crime verging on blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost (§§ 12, 13). But, if the Jews were bold and strong
enough in Smyrna to attempt proselytizing, they themselves were not
always proof against the seductions of paganism. An inscription be
longing to the reign of Hadrian' records how certain renegade Jews (0!
irore 'lovSaloi) contributed to the erection and adornment of publie build
ings, not unconnected (it would seem) with heathen rites, at Smyrna—
a striking illustration of the ferment of religious opinion in this city in
the age of Polycarp.
The' Smyrfisean brethren, as we saw, gathered up from the stadium
the calciried bones of the martyr which the fire had spared, and de
posited them in a safe place. Ultimately, we may conjecture, they
rested in the same cemetery, outside the Ephesian gate, where in after
ages he himself was believed to have laid the body of his predecessor
Bucolus, and where the myrtle tree springing up, as it were by a miracle,
marked the' deposition Of the bones of a later martyr, Thraseas bishop
of Eumenia, who suffered not many years after him2. For the present
however they may have chosen some less conspicuous place. It was
their intention, as we saw, to celebrate from time to time the day of his
earthly death, the day Of his heavenly nativity. The letter to the
Philomelians, in which this intention is declared, may have been written
a year or two, but cannot have been written much longer, after the
martyrdom. Whether they did so year by year continuously, we are
unable to say. Nearly a century later we have a notice of its observance.
Pionius, with his sister Sabina and the youth Asclepiades, were cele
brating in Smyrna the 'true birth-day of the martyr Polycargf' when they
1 C.I.G. 31+8. s Sec Vit. Polyc. 20 with the note.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 455
were apprehended and dragged to prison — themselves to suffer martyr
dom a few days later'. There are some grounds for supposing that this
celebration by Pionius and his companions was a revival of the festival,
which meanwhile had fallen into disuse. This year (a.d. 250) it
happened to fall on a Saturday — the same day of the week on which the
martyrdom itself had occurred (a.d. 155). Then, as now, it was a high
Sabbath; then, as now, the Jews were keeping holiday and busied them
selves actively in the persecution, their fanatical zeal (we may suppose)
being fanned by the associations of their own religious festival. The
day of Polycarp's martyrdom is given in the contemporary Acts, as the
2nd of Xanthicus, corresponding to the 23rd of February in the Julian
Calendar". A theory has been recently started that the 2nd of Xanthicus
was originally intended according to the old lunar reckoning, which had
not yet been abandoned at Smyrna, thus corresponding not to February
23, but to March 23; that this latter therefore was the true day of the
martyrdom; that the substitution of February 23 was coincident with '
the revival of the festival under Pionius in the middle of the third
century; and that the clause in the chronological postscript which gives
the corresponding Roman date as February 23 was then inserted from
an erroneous assumption, the old lunar computation having mean
while been displaced by the Julian Calendar and passed out of memory.
This attractive theory will receive due consideration hereafter. But
however this may be, from the age of Pionius onward Polycarp's 'birth
day' seems to have remained unchanged in the Eastern Church. At all
events it appears as February 23 in the Syriac Calendar dating from the
middle or latter half of the fourth century; and it remains still the
same in the present use of the Greek Church. In the Latin Calendar the
day is January 26", but even here a trace of the older tradition survives in
the fact that February 23 is assigned to another Polycarp, a Roman pres
byter and confessor4. Among the Western Churches the Christians
of Gaul are especially conspicuous in their commemoration of him
whom they justly regarded as their spiritual father. Gregory of Tours,
writing in the latter half of the sixth century, relates a miraculous oc
currence which marked the festival of the saint, and of which he himself
was only not an eyewitness. 'It was the day', he writes, 'of the
1 Acta Pionii 2, 3, 23, pp. 188, 198 Martyrdom.
(Ruinart). s The explanation of this transference
2 Mart. Polyc. 21 pvijvbs %avBiKav Sev- will be given in the chapter on 'The
ripa Imapivov, irpb eirrb. KaXavSav Map- Date of the Martyrdom. '
rlwi. The whole subject is discussed in 4 See the passages from Latin Martyr-
the later chapter on the Date of the ologies in Quotations and References.

456 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
passion of the great martyr Polycarp, and the solemn services of his
festival were being celebrated in Riom a town in the state of Auvergne
(in Ricomagensi vico civitatis Arvernae ejus solemnia celebrantur)'.
'After the account of his passion was read', together with the other
lessons directed by the canon, a deacon entered the Church, bearing in
his hands the receptacle containing 'the mystery of the Lord's body',
The holy vessel escaped from his hands, flew through the air, and de
posited itself on the altar. The deacon was a man of unclean life, and
this was believed to have happened in consequence. 'A single pres
byter alone, and three women, of whom my mother was one', writes
Gregory, 'were permitted to see these things; the rest saw them not'.
'I was present myself, I confess,' he adds frankly, 'at the festival on that
occasion; but I was not deemed worthy to see it'.'
It is strange that no stedfast and continuous local tradition should
have marked the sites connected with the life and death of a man so
notable as Polycarp. The Turkish occupation seems to have effected a
complete severance between the old and the new at Smyrna. The sta
dium indeed, in which the martyr suffered, is still visible, resting on the
slope of Mount Pagus and overhanging the city, the lower side being
supported by massive substructions2. But the identification in this
case owes nothing to local tradition. The ruins speak for themselves.
There is likewise a tomb, bearing Polycarp's name, which is said to
be visited annually by the Christians. But the designation seems to
be quite recent in its origin. The earlier travellers could obtain no
satisfactory information about it3.
1 Greg. Turon. De Glor. Mart. 86 ; have reported, by a spreading tree below
see Quotations and References. the castle ; but this is an idle tale and
2 Chandler's Travels in Asia Minor p. deserves to be exploded. I examined the
62, ' Going down from the Western gate spot and made particular enquiries, but
of the castle towards the sea, at some could obtain no satisfactory information...
distance is the ground-plat of the stadium, The early tradition, if true, must have
stripped of its marble seats and decora- been often intercepted in its course down-
tions. One side was on the slope of the wards. The race of citizens, among whom
mountain ; the opposite, or that next to it was most likely to be preserved, has
the town, was raised on a vaulted sub- been extirpated by war, plague, fire, and
struction which remains. It appears as earthquakes, and Smyrna has beendesti-
a long dale, semicircular or rounded at tute of Greeks. Even now, under a more
the top '. See also the description in settled government, the same family sel-
Texier Asie Mineure p. 304 (in the series dom subsists there more than three gene-
L'Univers). rations'. See also the note of Slaars on
3 Chandler I.e. p. 65 (1775), 'His C. Iconomos Etude sur Smyrneo. 48 sq.
sepulchre... is still to be seen as travellers It will be remembered that an earthquake

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 457
The only extant writing bearing tbe name of Polycarp, which has
any reasonable claims to be held genuine, is the Epistle' to the
.Philippians, written probably more than forty years before his death.
Of this I have spoken already (p. 427). There are however extant
certain comments on passages in the Gospels, ascribed to this apostolic
father on the authority of Victor of Capua; but parts of these are mani
festly spurious and the remainder are discredited by this base com
panionship. These fragments are printed in my second volume, where
also they are discussed'. Moreover we read of a Didascalia bearing
the name of Polycarp2, where the ascription was doubtless a pseudonym,
the document being similar in character to writings bearing the same
title and ascribed to Clement, to Ignatius, and to other primitive fathers.
Irenseus indeed tells us that Polycarp wrote several letters both to
individuals and to churches, warning them against errors and setting
forth the true doctrine3. It could hardly have been otherwise. He
does not however directly assert that he himself had any acquaint
ance with these other writings of his master, but confines his
.personal testimony to the one extant epistle. But Polycarp's spurious
biographer doubtless seeing these references in Irenseus, and himself
knowing only the Epistle to the Philippians, feels constrained to account
for the loss of these other writings; and he therefore hazards the fiction
that they were destroyed by the heathen during the persecution which
ensued on the martyrdom of their author4.
The veneration of the Christians for Polycarp was unbounded. His
apostolic training, his venerable age, his long hours spent in prayer", his
personal holiness, all combined to secure him this reverence. His friends
and disciples vied with each other in their eagerness to loose his sandals
or to show him any little attention which brought them near to him \
By the heathen he was regarded as 'the father of the Christians'. They
singled him out, as the one man who had dethroned their gods and
robbed them of the sacrifices and the adoration of their worshippers7.
More especially did he- seem gifted with a singular prescience. It was

desolated Smyrna about a quarter of a i Vit. Polyc. 12; see the note there.
century after Polycarp's death. 6 Mart. Polyc. 5, 7, 14.
. x See 11. p. 1001 sq. 6 Mart. Polyc. 13.
2 See above, p. 337 sq. (comp. p. 7 Mart. Polyc. J 2 d tt)s ' Ao-las SiSao-Ka-
2i1)- Aos, 0 irarTjp rdv xpl<rriav£v , 6 rav r)p.er(-
Ffist.adFloriti.(Easeb, H.E. v. 20); poiv Beuv KaBaipirris, b iroXXobs SiSdaKwv
see above, p. 425. ^j sbetv ^Si irpoaKvvelv.

458 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
even believed that nothing which he foretold ever failed of accomplish
ment'. But far more important to the Church than his predictions of the
future were his memories of the past. In him one single link connected
the earthly life of Christ with the close of the second century, though
five or six generations had intervened. S. John, Polycarp, Irenseus-—
this was the succession which guaranteed the continuity of the evan
gelical record and of the apostolic teaching. The long life of S. John,
followed by the long life of Polycarp, had secured this result. What
the Church towards the close of the second century was — how full was
its teaching — how complete its canon — how adequate its organization —
how wide its extension— we know well enough from Irenseus' extant
work. But the intervening period had been disturbed by feverish
speculations and grave anxieties on all sides. Polycarp saw teacher
after teacher spring up, each introducing some fresh system, and each
professing to teach the true Gospel. Menander, Cerinthus, Carpocrates,
Saturninus, Basilides, Cerdon, Valentinus, Marcion — all these flourished
during his lifetime, and all taught after he had grown up to manhood.
Against all such innovations of doctrine and practice there lay the
appeal to Polycarp's personal knowledge. With what feelings' he re
garded such teachers we may learn not only from his own epistle (§ 7),
but from the sayings recorded by Irenaeus, 'O good God, for what times
hast Thou kept me', 'I recognize the first-born of Satan8'. He was
eminently fitted too by his personal qualities to fulfil this function, as a
depositary of tradition. An original mind will unconsciously infuse into
the deposit committed to it its own ideas and designs. But Polycarp's
mind was essentially unoriginative. It had, so far as we can discover,
no creative power. His epistle is largely made up of quotations and
imitations from the Evangelical and Apostolic writings, from Clement
of Rome, from the Epistles of Ignatius. Even where we are not able
to name the source of a saying, there is independent reason for believing
that the more striking expressions are borrowed from others3. He
himself never rises above mere commonplace. A stedfast, stubborn,
adherence to the lessons of his youth and early manhood — an un-
relaxing unwavering hold of 'the word that was delivered to him from the
beginning' — this, so far as we can read the man from his own utterances
1 Mart. Polyc. 16 irav yap jrrjpa 6 arp-ij- v. 20), Haer. iii. 3.4; see above, pp.
Kev ix tov arbparos abrov ireXei&BT) Kal 429, 434.
TeXeiwBrjO-erai ; comp. § 12 (Sei irXripu- 3 See the note on Polyc. Phil. 1 elbwes
Bijvai. oVi (ll. p. 907 sq.).
11 Iren. Epist. ad Florin. (Euseb. H.E.

POLYCARP THE ELDER. 459
or from the notices of others, was the characteristic of Polycarp. His
religious convictions were seen to be 'founded', as Ignatius had said
long before (Polyc. 1.), 'on an immovable rock'. He was not dismayed
by the plausibilities of false teachers, but 'stood firm as an anvil under
the hammer's stroke' (ib. 3).
But, if the position of Polycarp was important to the early Church
as a guarantee of continuity, it is not without its value to ourselves
from this same point of view. Certain modern theories of early
Christian history are built upon the hypothesis of an entire dis
continuity, a complete dislocation, in the spiritual and intellectual
life of Christendom, so that the Church of Irenseus was in the most
vital points, whether of doctrine or of practice, a direct contrast to the
Church of S. John. To these shadowy reconstructions of the Church,
which overlook the broader facts of history and fasten on fragmentary
notices and questionable interpretations, the position of Polycarp gives
a direct denial. If Irenseus is only fairly honest in his representations of
his master (and there is no reason to question this), all such theories of
discontinuity must fall to the ground. There might be growth, progress,
development, but there could be no dislocation or reversal, such as these
theories postulate.
While the oral tradition of the Lord's life and of the Apostolic teaching
was still fresh, the believers of succeeding generations not unnaturally-
appealed to it for confirmation against the many counterfeits of the
Gospel which offered themselves for acceptance. The authorities for
this tradition were 'the elders'. To the testimony of these elders
appeal was made by Papias in the first, and by Irenseus in the second
generation after the Apostles. With Papias the elders were those who
themselves had seen the Lord or had been eyewitnesses of the Apostolic
history; with Irenseus the term included likewise persons who, like
Papias himself, had been acquainted with these eye-witnesses. Among
these Polycarp held the foremost place. It is not therefore as the
martyr nor as the ruler nor as the writer, but as 'the elder', that he
claims the attention of the Church.

THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE
UNDER
HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS.

In an earlier part of this volume I have collected some notices re
lating to the martyrdoms under Trajan (p. 50 sq.). I purpose now
gathering together passages from Heathen and Christian writers which
throw light on the history of the persecutions, and more generally on the
relations of the Church and the Empire, during the reigns of the three
succeeding sovereigns, Hadrian and the two Antonines. These four
reigns together comprise a complete epoch in the history of the Roman
Empire ; and its relations to the Church were substantially the same
throughout this period. The accession of Commodus, though a dis
aster for tbe Empire, was a boon to the Church.
This collection of illustrative passages may be ranged under four
heads : (1) Imperial letters and ordinances relating to or affecting
Christianity; (2) Acts and notices of martyrdoms; (3) Passages from
Heathen writers, containing notices of the Christians; (4) Passages
from Christian writers illustrating the points at issue,
1. IMPERIAL LETTERS AND ORDINANCES.
(i) Hadrian [a.d. 117 — 138].
(a) Rescript to Minucius Fundanus.

Exemplum Epistolae Imperatoris Adri-
ani ad Minutium Fundanium Proconsu-
lent Asiae.

MlNOYKICp <PoynMN<2>.

Accepi litteras ad me scriptas 'Ettio-toXi/V iBegdptjv ypa<j>ei.oav
a decessore tuo Sereno Graniano, poi dird iWeiprjviov Tpaviavov, Xap-

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS.

461

clarissimo viro: et non placet mihi
relationem silentio praeterire, ne
et innoxii perturbentur et calum-
niatoribus latrocinandi tribuatur
occasio. Itaque si evidenter pro-
vinciales huic petitioni suae adesse
volent adversum Christianos, ut pro
tribunali eos in aliquo arguant, hoc
eis exequi non prohibeo : precibus
autem in hoc solis et adclamati-
onibus uti eis non permitto. Ete-
nim multo aequius est, si quis
volet accusare, te cognoscere de
obiectis. Si quis igitur accusat et
probat adversum legem quicquam
agere memoratos homines, pro
merito peccatorum etiam supplicia
statues. Illud mehercule magno-
pere curabis, ut si quis calumniae
gratia quemquam horum postula-
verit reum, in hunc pro sui ne-
quitia suppliciis severioribus vin-
dices.

irpoTttTov dvBpdi, dvriva crv BieBegw.
oi BoKei ovv poi to rrpaypa d^rjTTj-
tov KaraXiireiv, iva pr/re 01 avBpwiroi
TapaTTWvrai ko.1 tois crvKorpavTais
XOpr/yia KaKOvpyias irapacrxeBrj. av
ovv o"aoSa!s ets Tavrrjv ttjv agiwcriv ol
iirapx<-d>Tai Bvvwvrai huo~)(yp^tr6a.i
Kara twv xPl0~TLavd>v, (os Kat 7rpo
ftr/paTos diroKpivecrBai, iirl tovto
povov Tpairwcriv, dXX' ovk dgiwcre-
criv ovBe povais ftoais. iroXXw yap
pdXXov irpocriJKev, el Tts Karrryopelv
ftovXoiTO, tovto ere SiayivwcrKeiv.
et tis ovv Karrjyopei Kal BeiKvvcri
Tt irapd toos vopovs xpaTTOVTas,
outcos Stopt£e KaTa ttjv Bvvapiv tov
dpaprrjparos. <us pd tov RpaKXea,
el Tts crvKocpavTia'; XaPlv rovro rrpo-
reivoi, BiaXdpftave virep Trjs Seivo-
ttjtos, Kat <pp6vTit,e ottws av e«St-
Kiyo"etas.

The Greek of this rescript is appended in the extant mss to the First Apology of
Justin Martyr, where it is introduced by Justin with these words ; Kai 0- iirio-roXrjs
Si tou peyloTov Kal iirKpavea-Tdrov Kalo-apos 'ASpiavov, tou irarpbs vpav, (x°vres
drrairelv vpas KaBd rj^ioio-apev KeXevaat ras Kplaets yeviaBai, ovk (k tou KeKpiffBai tovto
biro 'ASpiavov jiiaXXoi' r)^itbo-apev , &XX' iK tov iirlo-ravBai SUaia d^iovv ttjv irpoacpiivrjaiv
Kal i%Trtr\<nv ireiroii)peBa' birerdS-apev Si Kal tt)s iiriaToXijs 'ASpiavov to dvrlypaipov, ha
Kal Kara tovto aXyBeveiv r)p8,s yvu)pl^ijre' Kal (art to dvrlypatpov rovro. Eusebius how
ever (H. E. iv. 10) says distinctly that Justin appended this copy in Latin (ri\v
'Pwjiia'iKT/x dvnypaqiTjv), and that he (Eusebius) himself translated it to the best of his
ability into Greek (qpeis Si els to'EXXt/vikov Kara Svvapiv avrr)v pereikijipapiev) ; and he
then gives the Greek as we find it now in the MSS of Justin. Clearly therefore some
transcriber of Justin has substituted the Greek of Eusebius for the Latin which he
found in the copy before him.
The Latin, as given here, is taken from Rufinus' translation of Eusebius. But
critics are generally (though not universally) agreed that Rufinus must have replaced
the original of Hadrian's letter. Accordingly Otto (Justin Op. I. p. 190 sq., ed. 3)
has substituted the Latin for the Greek in his text of Justin.
The genuineness of this document was first questioned by Keim Bedenken gegen die
Aechtheit des Hadrianischen Christen- Reskripts in Theolog. Jahrb. (1856) p. 387 sq.
He convinced Baur Drei erslen Jahrhunderte (ed. 3, 1863) p. 442 sq., Lipsius Chro
nologic der Romischen Bischofe (1869) p. 170, and Hausrath Neutestamcntliche Zeit-

462 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
geschichte (1874) ill. p. 532 sq. Keim has further pressed his attack in later works;
Aus dem Urchristenthum (1878) p. 182 sq., Rom u. das Christenthum (1881) p. 553 sq.
The document has been assailed likewise by Aube Persecutions de PEglise (1875)
p. 261 sq., and Overbeck Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche (1875) p. 134 sq.
On the other hand it has been defended by Wieseler Christenverfolgungen (1878) p. 18,
by Funk Theologische Quartalschrift (1879) I.XI. p. 108 sq., and by Doulcet Rapports de
Fftglise Chritienne avec VEtat Remain (1883) p. 68 sq.; and its authenticity is upheld
by critics who are far from conservative, as for instance Renan L'lEglise Chritienne
p. 32 sq.
The external evidence in favour of its genuineness is exceptionally strong. The
date of Justin's First Apology is probably about a.d. 140, though some place it a few
years* later. It is therefore a strictly contemporary witness. The validity of this
evidence has not generally been questioned, even by assailants (e.g. Overbeck p. 134).
In their later works however Aube (Persecutions etc. p. 272) and Keim (Aus dem
Urchristenthum p. 182) condemn this last chapter of Justin's Apology as spurious,
though previously they had accepted it without question (see Aube Saint Justin
p. 1 sq., Keim Rom p. 553). This treatment however is arbitrary. The conclusion of
Justin's Apology was certainly known to Eusebius. Moreover the fact that Hadrian's
rescript was appended in Latin is highly favourable to its genuineness ; since no forget
would have been likely to sew a patch of Latin upon a Greek work. Nor is Justin
Martyr the only early witness to its genuineness. It is distinctly mentioned by Melito,
who wrote not very many years after Justin (c. a.d. 165), and whose testimony has
not been disputed by any one.
Nor again are its internal characteristics such as to counterbalance the weight of
this external testimony. It is not nearly so favourable to the Christians as a forger
would have aimed at making his production. It is wholly unlike the spurious letters
of Pius and Marcus, which will be considered presently. It does not, as some have
imagined, rescind the ordinance of Trajan. Justin indeed is naturally anxious to make
the most of it, for he employs it as a precedent to influence the conduct of the heir and
successor of Hadrian. But the document itself does not go nearly so far as he repre
sents. It merely provides that no one shall be punished on the ground of a popular
outcry ; that there shall be a definite responsible accuser in every instance ; and that
this accuser, if he does not make good his case and his accusation is shown td be
vexatious, shall be severely punished. Not only is this rescript no stumbling-block
when confronted with the history of the times. Some such action on the part of the
emperors is required to explain this history. On the one hand we have the fact that
every one of some myriads of Christians under the sway of Hadrian was guilty of a
capital crime in the eye of the law. On the other hand there is the strangely incon
sistent circumstance, that so far as our knowledge (doubtless very fragmentary and
imperfect) goes, only half a dozen or a dozen at the highest computation suffered during
a reign which extended over twenty-one years. How can we reconcile these two
seemingly opposite facts ? Short of actually rescinding the law which made the pro
fession of Christianity a crime, there must have been a vast amount of legal dis
couragement. Such is the tendency of this rescript. Ostensibly it confines itself lo
subsidiary points ; but indirectly it would have a far wider effect, for it showed the bias
of the absolute ruler of the world to be favourable to toleration. The very language
too was perhaps studiously vague, suggesting a larger amount of protection than it
actually afforded.
The correct names of tbe two proconsuls mentioned in the rescript were Q. Li-

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 463
cinius Silvanus Granianus and C. Minicius Fundanus, who had been consules suffecti,
the former a.d. 106, the latter a.d. 107 (see Klein Fasti Consulares p. 56). They
would therefore naturally be proconsuls of Asia in successive years, and probably
about a.d. 123, 124, and A.D. 124, 125, respectively (Waddington Pastes Asiatiques
p. 197 sq.), as the interval between the two offices at this period was about seventeen
years. The name of the former however, as given in Eusebius and Rufinus, is Se-
renius or Serennius (in Zonaras xi. 24 'Epiwios), where it should have been Licinius or
Silvanus. If therefore Rufinus has reproduced the original letter, the corruption must
have been due to Justin himself or have crept into his text before the age of Eusebius
and Rufinus.
A question of interest still remains to be discussed. Does the Latin represent the
original rescript of Hadrian, or did Rufinus re-translate the document from the Greek
version of Eusebius? The former view was first put forward by Kimmel De Rufino
Eusebii interprete p. 175 sq. (1838), and he has carried the suffrages of most recent
critics, e.g. Gieseler, Neander, Otto, Heinichen, Bickell, Overbeck, Renan, and Aube.
On the other hand Kimmel's view has been controverted by Keim Aus dem Ur
christenthum p. 184 sq., Rom u. das Christenthum p. 553 sq., by Funk Theologische
Quartalschrift LXI. p. m sq., and by Doulcet Rapports etc. p. 68 sq.
It would not have been difficult for Rufinus to lay hands on the original, and thus
save himself the trouble of making a translation from the Greek. He might have
found it for instance in the collection which Ulpian had made, in his treatise De Pro-
consule, of all the imperial ordinances relating to the Christians. But he would
probably have it more ready to hand in another place. He cannot have been unac
quainted with Justin Martyr's Apologies ; and Hadrian's rescript was presumably still
appended there in its original Latin form, when he wrote, as it certainly was in the
time of Eusebius. Indeed, as Rufinus lived in the West, there would be no reason for
substituting a Greek Version in the copies circulated in his neighbourhood. Moreover
this is just what Rufinus does elsewhere. In translating Euseb. II. E. ii. 2, where
Eusebius quotes a Greek version of Tertullian Apol. 5, Rufinus substitutes the ori
ginal words of the Latin Apologist. Again in Euseb. H. E. ii. 25, where there is
another quotation from this same writer, Rufinus replaces the original and extends the
quotation. Again, in translating H. £. iii. 20 he reproduces some of the original phrases
of Tertullian (e.g. ' quasi homo ', where Eusebius has (xoiv ri ovvioews), though here
he is evidently trusting his memory without referring to the book. Again in H. E.
iii. 33, where Eusebius quotes the passage of Tertullian (Apol. 2) relating to Trajan's
correspondence with Pliny, he omits the quotation itself, but the context shows that he
has the original words of Tertullian in his mind. His practice indeed is not uniform.
Some of the ordinances of the later emperors, which are given by Eusebius, he omits
altogether (e.g. that of Gallienus, Eus. H. E. vii. 13 ; and that of Maximinus, Eus.
H. E. ix. 7); while in one instance, with reference to an imperial decree which Eusebius
(H. E. viii. 17) had translated or got translated from the original Latin into Greek, he
tells us that he had ' remoulded it into Latin' (nos rursum transfudimus in Latinum),
apparently meaning thereby that he had retranslated it.
In the present case the Latin has all the appearance of an original. The language
savours rather of the jurist than of Rufinus. Keim and Funk on the other hand point
to the amplifications 'eos in aliquo arguant ', 'eis non permitto ', 'quemquam horum
- postulaverit reum ', 'suppliciis severioribus vindices', etc., as decisive of its being
a translation. The ' sharpening ' of the expressions is also alleged in favour of
this view (Keim p. 185). But we find just the same phenomena in the passages of

464 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Tertullian of which Eusebius gives a translation. Take these extracts for instance
from Apol. 2 quoted in Euseb. H. E. iii. 33, and from Apol. 5 quoted in Euseb. H. E.
ii. 2, 25; Tertullian Eusebius
Adlegans praeter obstinationem non Xiyiav (£o> tou pr) fsovXeaBai ourow
sacrificandi nihil aliud se de sacramentis elSuXoXarpeiv ovSiv dvoo-tov iv abrdis «!-
eorum comperisse. pijKivai.
Facit et hoc ad causam nostram, quod ko.1 tovto birip rov r)pQv X070U ireirolri-
apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas rai, oti irap' bpuv dvBpuirela Soapij r]
pensitatur. Beanos SlSorai.
Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen lifiipios ovv irp' ov to Xpio-riavav'ovopa
Christianum in saeculum introivit, adnun- els rbv Kbapov elaeXrjXvBev, ayyeXBevrm
tiata sibi ex Syria Palestina, quae illic auriji tou Sbyparos tovtov (vBa irpurov
veritatem ipsius divinitatis revelaverant, ijp^aro, Trj o-vyKXr)rip dveKoivaaaro, SrjXos
detulit ad senatum cum praerogativa suf- Ov iKelvois us rip Sbypari apiaKerai.
fragii sui.
Consulite commentarios vestros ; illic ivrbxere tois birapvr\pao-iv vpwv. Uci
reperietis primum Neronem in hanc evp-qaere irpdrov TSipoiva rovro to S&ypa,
sectam cum maxime Romae orientem rpiUa pdXiara iv'Pajpy rr)v dvaroXrjv ira-
Caesariano gladio ferocisse. Sed tali aav virord£as dipbs rpi els irivras, SiiO-ana.
dedicatore damnationis nostrae etiam -roiovrqj ttjs KoXiaews ijpCsv ipx>iy$ Kavxii-
gloriarnur. peBa.
In this last extract the translator, ignorant of the Latin idiom 'cum maxime
orientem ', 'at the moment of its rising ', has made shipwreck of the sense.
On the whole I am disposed to think that Kimmel is right, and that we have here
the original rescript. It is not very easy to conceive Rufinus producing from the
spiritless translation supplied by Eusebius a document which savours so strongly of
the imperial edict of Hadrian's age. In this case, the corruption Serenius for Licinius
or Silvanus must have been found in the text of Justin by Rufinus, as it had been
found previously by Eusebius. The corruption is the more explicable where a Greek
copyist, transcribing a Greek MS, suddenly found himself confronted with a Latin docu
ment which he only imperfectly understood. Where the present text has ivBpmm
corresponding to the Latin ' innoxii ', Eusebius must surely have written dBtpoi, though
the reading dvBpairoi is as early as the Syriac Version.
(ft) Letter to Servianus.
Hadrianus Augustus Serviano Consuli salutem.
Aegyptum quam mihi laudabas, Serviane carissime, totam didicilevem
pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem. Illic qui Serapem
colunt Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui Christi se episcopos
dicunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo
Christianorum presbyter, non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes.
Ipse ille patriarcha, cum Aegyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare,
ab aliis cogitur Christum .. . Unus illis deus nummus est. Hunc Christiani,
hunc Judaei, hunc omnes venerantur et genres... Denique ut primum

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 465
inde discessi, et in filium meum Verum multa dixerunt, et de Antinoo
quae dixerint, comperisse te credo, etc.
This letter is preserved by Vopiscus Vita Saturnini 8. Vopiscus is speaking of the
Egyptians, and prefaces the letter with these words; ' Sunt Christiani, Samaritae, et
quibus praesentia semper tempora cum enormi libertate displiceant. Ac ne quis mihi
Aegyptiorum irascatur et meum esse credat quod in litteras rettuli, Hadriani epistolam
ponam ex libris Phlegontis liberti ejus proditam, ex qua penitus Aegyptiorum vita
detegitur.' The genuineness of this letter has been generally, though not universally, allowed.
It comes to us on excellent authority, and the difficulties in the way of accepting it are
not serious. The 'patriarch' mentioned is clearly the Jewish patriarch of Tiberias.
If it were applied to the bishop of Alexandria, as Casaubon and other older commen
tators assume, it would be a gross anachronism. But the words 'cum Aegyptum
venerit' and 'cogitur Christum adorare' show plainly that the person so designated did
not live in Egypt and did not profess to be a Christian. The real difficulty which
remains is the description of Verus as ' filium meum '. Servianus was consul for the
third time in a.d. 134; but Verus did not receive the title of Caesar till a.d. 136. It
is clear however from the language of Spartianus Helms 3 that some sort of adoption,
or at least some intimation of the intention, preceded this event by a considerable
period; 'Adoptatus autem Aelius Verus ab Hadriano...statimque praetor factus et
Pannoniis dux ac rector impositus; mox consul creatus [Kal. Jan. A.D. 136]; et quia
erat deputatus imperio, iterum consul designatus est [Kal. Jan. A D. 137]'. He is still
called by his old name L. Ceionius Commodus Verus in the fasti for A.D. 136, and
had not yet assumed his title L. Aelius Caesar, though he had been prfetor and had
governed the province of Pannonia since the point of time at which Spartianus places
his first adoption. It is clear therefore that long before A.D. 136 Hadrian had taken
some steps or conceived some intentions, which would explain his calling Verus his
'son '. For different views respecting the adoption of the elder Verus see Tillemont
Empereurs II. p. 592 sq., Eckhel Doctr. Nttm. VI. p. 524 sq., Schiller Romische
Kaiserzeit I. p. 626, Diirr Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian p. 33. This last mentioned
writer, while accepting the letter as genuine in the main, discovers interpolations in
it (p. 90). The opinion of Schiller (p. 682) is similar.
For the bearing of this letter on the history of the Christian ministry see Philip
pians p. 225 sq.
(ii) Antoninus Pius [a.d. 138 — 161].
Letter to the Commune Asiae.
AvTOKpdrwp Kato-ap Titos AtXtos AvTOKpdrwp Kato-ap MapKOS At>-
ASptavos 'Avtwvivos A%eftao-Tos Ev- prjXios 'Avtwvivos Iteftao-TOS 'Appe-
<reprj%, apxiepevs peyio-ros, 8r>p.ap^t- vtos, dp^tepeus peyicrTos, Br/papxt--
ktjs efouo-tas to Ka', vVaTOS to 0", /07s igovcrias to irepirrov ko.1 BeKarov,
rraTrjp irarpiSos, tw koivw ttjs 'Acrias viraros rd rpirov, tw koivw ttjs Acrias
Xafaiv. xaVuv-
Ey<o wpr/v oti ko.1 tovs Beovs im- 'Eyco pev dlSa otl Kal tois Beols eVt-
peXeis exreaBai pr) XavBdvecv rovs peXes eari pr) XavBdveiv rovs
toioutous. rroXv ydp pdXXov iKei- toiovtovs. rroXv ydp pdXXov eKet-
IG. I. . 30

466

EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

vovs KoXdcrouv, eirrep Bvvaivro, tovs
prj ftovXopevovs airovs TrpocrKweiv.
ots rapaxnv vpeis ipftaXXere, Kai
\ f , -. .1
rrjv yvwpijv avrwv, r/virep
exovaiv, ws adiwv Karrjyopeire, Kai
erepd Tiva ipftaXXere, ariva oi Bv-
vdpeBa diroSeigai. eir] o av iiceivois
Xprjcnpov to BoKeiv iirl ™ Kartjyo-
povpevw reBvavai. Kai vi-
Kwcriv ipds rrpdiepevoi tols eavrrSv
u/v^as, rjirep ireiBopevoi ots a^tovVe
irpdcrcreiv airovs. rrepl Be twv crei-
rrpdJv twv yeyovorrav Kat yivopevwv
ovk ei/<os viropvrjcrai vpas aBvpovv-
Tas orav irep wcri, irapaftaXXovras
ra vperepa irpos Ta eKeivwv, orl
evirapprjo-iacrroTepoi vpwv yivovrai
irpos tov Beov. Kal vpeis pev ayvoeiv
BoKelre Trap iKelvov tov XP0V0V tovs
f9eovs, Kat twv lepwv apeXeire Bprj-
arKeiav Be ttjv irepl rdv Beov ovk
eirio-TacrBe. odev Kal tovs Bprj-
rrKevovTas i&jXuiKare Kal Biojicere ecos
Bavarov. vrrep twv toiovtwv ko.1
aXXot Ttves T(3v 7rept Tas iirapxias
•qyepovwv rw Beiorarw pov irarpl
eypad/av ols ko! dvreypad/e prjBev
o^Aetv tois toiovtois, ei prj cpaivoivTO
ri iirl ttjv r/yepoviav 'Pu>paCwv ey^ei-
povuTes. Kat epoi Bi irepl t(3i/ Tot-
ovYaiV ttoXAoi irrrjpavav oTs Br) Kal
avriypadia, Trj tov warpos pov Kar-
aKoXovBdiv yvwprj. ei Be ris e^ei 7rpos
Ttva twv toiovtwv irpaypa Kararpe-
peiv (os TotovVov, iicelvos d Karacpepo-
pevos arroXeXva&w tov iynX/jparos,
Kav cpaivrjrai toiovtos wv, eKeti/os Be
o Karadiepwv evOY_os ecrrai rrj Bikyj.

voi KoXacraiev av Tois
pr) ftovXopevovs airovs irporrKVveiv i)
vpels. ovs els rapaxyv ipftdXXtTe,
fteftaiovvres rrjv yvwprjv avrwv, irvirip
exovcriv, o5s aBewv KaTijyopovvres.

V OS ^ J /
ei^ 0 av tKeivois

Karrjyo-

alperdv to BoKeZv
povpevois reBvavai pdXXov ij tfy
virep tov otKetov Beov. o9ev koX vi-
kwcti irpo'Upevoi Tas lavrw
d/vxas, r/irep ireiBopevoi ots a£ioJre
irparreiv airovs. irepi Be twv aei-
crpdjv tuJi/ yeyoi'oToov Kat ywopevoiv
ovk aroirov vpas viropvijcrai, aBvpovv-
ras pev orav irep wcri, irapaftaXXovras
Be ra vperepa irpos Ta iKeivwv. ol plv
ovv evirapprjo-iarrrdrepoi yir/vovrai
irpos tov Beov, vpeis Be irapa iravra
rov xftdvov, KaB' ov dyvoelv SoKeire,
twv re Bewv Kal rwv aXXwv apeXeire
Kai Trjs BprjCTKeias rrjs irepl tw a(?a-
i-'aTOV ov S?; tovs xptortavous 6pij-
cricevoTras eXavvere ko.1 Skukete bus
r^aiaTOV. vrrep Be twv toiovtoiv ijhj
ko.1 ttoXXoi TtoV irept Tas eVapyms
rjyepovwv Kat t<3 Beiorarw rjpuiv eypa
d/av irarpi- ots Kat dvriypatj/e pijoev
ivoxXelv tois TOtovTots, et prjbev <j>at-
voivto irepl rr)v Ttov 'Pwpaiwv r/yepo
viav eyxeipovvres. Kal ipoi oe iripi
twv toiovtwv ttoXXoi irrrjpavav ots orj
Kal avreypaxj/a, KaraKoXovdrnv tj tov
irarpos yvwprj. ei Be ris eiripevoi
Tivd tcov TOiovrav eis rrpaypara d>e-
pwv (os Br) toiovtov, iKtlvos o xara-
cpepdpevos diroXeXvcrBu) tov eyKXij-
paros, Kal idv cpaivriTai toiovtos av,
d Be KaTacpepwv eVoyos eo-rat 0tKi;s.
irpoereBrj iv 'Hdtecro) iv Tu> koiw
T^s 'Acrias.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 467
The first form of this edict, bearing the name of Antoninus Pius, is attached in the
mss as a sort of appendix to the Second Apology of Justin Martyr (Op. 1. p. 244 sq.,
Otto, ed. 3). There is no reason however for supposing that it was so attached
by Justin himself, and this appendix must be due to a later transcriber. In the
opening lines the MSS have SripapxiKTJs i£ov<rlas viraros irS', irarijp TarplSos rb Ka,
which was corrected by Mommsen (Theol. yahrb. xiv. p. 431, 1855) as I have given
it in the text, SripapxiKTJs i£ov<rlas rb Ka', vTaros rb 5', Tarrjp irarplSos — a correction
which commends itself, for the text of the mss is impossible, whether the document be
genuine or not. This reckoning, Trib. Potest, xxi, Cons, iv, corresponds to a.d. 158,
three years after the probable date of Polycarp's martyrdom. *
The second form, professing to have issued from M. Aurelius, is found in Eusebius
(ff. E. iv. 13). The emperor's titles however are not consonant with themselves. The
dates, Trib. Potest, xv, Cons, iii, would give a.d. 161 ; but M. Aurelius did not assume
the name ' Armeniacus' (not 'Appivios but'AppeviaKbs) till A.D. 163 (Capitolin. Marcus
8, Verus 7 ; see Clinton Fasti Romani I. p. 151 sq.). If therefore the document be
genuine, some correction is necessary. Thus we might make an alteration in the
numbers, and read, as I have suggested elsewhere (n. p. 492), 9 ( = (vvarov) for £
(rripirrov), in which case we shall get, Trib. Potest, xix, Cons, iii, corresponding to
A.D. 165. Or again we might strike out the vrord'Aptiivios as a later addition; and
this solution is suggested both by the form (AppeviaKbs alone being correct) and
by the fact that the words 'Appivios dpxiepebs piyurros are wanting in Chron. Pasch.
p. 484 sq. (ed. Bonn.), where it is quoted. In Rufinus however and in the Syriac
Version of Eusebius they are found as in the Greek; and, since the Chronicon Paschale.
would naturally derive the document from Eusebius, we must attribute the omission
,to the carelessness of a scribe, whose eye was misled by the homceoteleuton -o-tos in
Se/Saoros, piyitrros.
It is to be observed also that, though the name of M. Aurelius is distinctly given in
the heading of the edict itself, yet Eusebius (II. E. iv. 12) prefaces it with the words,
ivrevxBels oi Kal vq>' iripiav 6 avrbs j3acriXei)s iirl rrjs 'Acrias dSeXfpuiv, iravrolais v^pecri
irpos tuv iirixupiuv S-rjpoiv Karairovovpivoiv , ToiauTijs iJfiWe rb Koivbv ttjs 'Aulas
Siardf eus ; where ' the same emperor ' ought to refer to Antoninus Pius, who has been
mentioned immediately before by Eusebius (iv. n) as the sovereign to whom Justin
dedicated his Apology (paaiXel 'Avroivlvtp rip 5rj iiriKXrjBivn Eio-efSeT), and again (iv.
u) in the opening of the Apology itself, which Eusebius quotes. Moreover the docu
ment is introduced in the midst of events relating to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and
this emperor's death and the consequent succession of M. Aurelius are not recorded
till a later point in the history (iv. 14).
On the supposition of the genuineness, Wieseler ( Christenverfolgungen p. 21 sq. )
explains these phenomena as follows. The edict, though bearing the name of the
reigning Augustus, Antoninus Pius, was really dictated by the Caesar, M. Aurelius. To
this Melito refers, when in his Apology addressed to the latter he writes (Euseb. H. E.
iv. 26), 6 Si irarijp aov, Kal aov to, abpiravra Sioikovvtos atrip [conj. Vales. rb, irdvra crvv-
SioikoOvtos abr<p] rats rbXeffi irepl rov prjSiv veareplieiv irepl rjpwv (ypaipev. Accordingly
M. Aurelius, when he himself became emperor, reissued it, altering the name and
date. Against the genuineness however the most serious objections may be urged. In the
first place the external evidence is deficient. Unlike the rescript of Hadrian which
has the contemporary testimony of Justin and Melito, this document has no earlier
witness than Eusebius. Melito indeed has been confidently alleged by Wieseler and
30—2

468 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
others as vouching for its authenticity; but Melito' s own words cut the other 'way.
He does indeed speak of Antoninus Pius as writing to certain cities, deprecating any
irregular persecution of the Christians; but when he comes to specify instances, he
mentions Larissa, Thessalonica, and Athens, and the people of Greece generally
(7rcu'Tas"EXXi7»'izs). As he was writing in 'Asia' and for ' Asia', it is morally certain
that he would, if he had known of such a document, have illustrated and enforced his
statement by an edict addressed to the Commune Asiae — issued and reissued, as
this is assumed to have been — since nothing could have served his purpose better.
It is indeed just possible that Eusebius (H. E. iv. 13) may have misunderstood Melito
to allude definitely to this document. But his opinion on such a point has no weight;
and it is due to him to say that he adduces Melito as a witness not to the authenticity
of the edict itself, but to the general course of events described in it (toutois oura
Xcopyjoaoiv impaprvpwv MeXLraiv).
Nor are our misgivings allayed, when we study the contents of the document
itself. It practically rescinds the law of the Roman empire, as defined by the rescript
of Trajan. It is an edict of toleration and something more. It expresses approval of
the Christians and disapproval of their persecutors. It lays penalties on their accusers,
even though they may accuse them in the regular way and make good their charge.
In short, from beneath a heathen mask we hear a Christian voice speaking in every
line. Nor is the difficulty at all met by the fact that in one form (as given in the MSS
of Justin) the word xPi0~Tiav°s does not occur in the document ; for the reference is
quite obvious. Tillemont (Memoires 11. p. 383), having entire faith in its genuineness,
writes of it ; ' We shall see here with delight the justification, or rather the panegyric,
of the Christians pronounced by the mouth of a pagan prince '. This sentence is its
virtual condemnation.
For these and other reasons this edict is now generally condemned as spurious;
and it is difficult to question this verdict. Dodwell (Diss. Cypr. xi. § 34) was one of
the first to express a suspicion of its genuineness, but he did not follow up the subject.
It was condemned as spurious by Thirlby and by Jortin (see Lardner Works VII. p.
129). The arguments against its genuineness were strongly urged by Haffner de
Edicto Antonini Pii pro Christianis etc. (Argentoratii78i),and HichstadtAnml.Jcad.
yenens. 1. p. 286 sq. (1S21); and it has been indicted by not a few later writers (see
Heinkhen's note on Euseb. H. E. iv. 12). More recently it has found but few
champions, of whom the most doughty is Wieseler (1. a). Among the recent writers
who have attacked it strenuously are Overbeck Stzidien zur Geschichte der alten
E~irche(i8l$) p. 126 sq., Aube Persecutions de I'Eglise (1875) p. 302 sq., Saint Jiistin
(1875) P- 59 sq-» an<l Keim Aus dem Urchristenthum (1878) p. 185 sq., Rom u. das
Christenthum (1881) p. 565. It is rejected likewise by Renan L'Egltse Chritienne
p. 301 sq., and by Doulcet Rapports de I'Pglise ChrHienne avec TE tat Remain (1883)
p. 76 sq., and generally.
In the times of Tillemont (Mimoircs II. p. 651 sq.) and of Lardner (Works VII.
p. 128) the genuineness of the document was almost universally held. Both these
writers accept it without hesitation. The main question of dispute then was the reign
under which it was issued. While Valois, Scaliger, Huet, Basnage, and Pagi assigned
it to Antoninus Pius, it was attributed by Baronius, Tillemont, Cave, Lardner, and
others to M. Aurelius. Though the aspect of this question is somewhat changed now
that we can no longer regard the document as genuine, still it is a matter of critical
interest to determine what was its original form — whether as given in the MSS of
Justin or as found in Eusebius. I am disposed' to think that the original heading of

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 469
the letter is preserved in the Justin mss, as corrected by Mommsen. The heading in
Eusebius is inconsistent with itself, as we have seen (p. 467). Nor do we get rid of
our difficulties by substituting, as I have suggested, xix for xv; since Trib. Potest.
xix, corresponding with A.D. 165, still falls within the joint reign of M. Aurelius and
L. Verus. But during this period edicts always went out in the name of both em
perors. M. Aurelius was scrupulously careful for the dignity of his brother Augustus ;
and it is inconceivable that, writing to the Commune Asiae which was more immedi
ately under the control of Verus at this time, he should have omitted Verus' name
altogether. On the other hand the body of the document is evidently preserved in a
purer form in Eusebius. In the Justin copy the transcriber has striven to get more
explicit testimony in favour of the Christians and against heathendom. Thus for iyu piv
dlSa ' I know' he substitutes iyu Qpyv ' I supposed '; but he has altered the rest of the
sentence carelessly, so as to leave a confused construction iyu> ippijv on Kal robs Beovs
hipeXels (o-eaBai k.t.X. The on has been retained through inadvertence, though an
infinitive has been substituted for a finite verb in the rest of the sentence. Examples
indeed of this grammatical dislocation are found elsewhere (see Otto's note on Justin.
Dial. 45), but it is generally masked by the intervening words. Again the insertion
etVep Sbvawro, implying the impotence of the heathen deities, and of ariva ov
SwipeBa diroSeT^ai, emphasizing the injustice of the charges against the Christians,
tell their own tale. The workmanship is too coarse for the original forger of the
document. I suppose then that the original document bore the name of Antoninus
Pius, but that it was refurbished somewhat later and supplied with a new
label, so as to apply to M. Aurelius. Whether it was first issued while Antoninus
Pius was still living, may be open to question. Probably not. Indeed the forgery
would seem to have been suggested by what Melito says of Antoninus Pius in his
Apology addressed to M. Aurelius, or at all events to have been elicited by the perse
cutions which called forth a flood of apologetic literature under this latter emperor.
The copy, bearing the name of M. Aurelius, cannot have been issued till some years
after the death of L. Verus, when the twofold incongruity of the insertion of the title
Armeniacus (written ' Armenius ') and the omission of Verus' name would not strike
the mind of the falsifier. The fate of the two forms of the edict however has been
different. The Pian form has undergone bold manipulation at the hands of some later
transcriber, who dissatisfied with the testimony borne by the Roman emperor to
Christianity made him speak in more explicit language ; whereas on the other hand
(he Aurelian form, preserved in Eusebius, has come down, to us very much in the
words in which it was issued by the redactor. The strange procedure of Eusebius, who
while giving the copy which bears in the forefront the name of M. Aurelius nevertheless
ascribes it to Antoninus Pius, can best be explained by supposing that he was
acquainted with both forms of the document.

(iii) M. Aurelius [a.d. 161 — 180].
(a) Letter to the Roman People and Senate.
MapKov ftacrlXews iiricrToXrj irpos rrjv crvyKXr/Tov, iv y paprvpei Xpto--
Tiavovs amovs yeyevrjcrBai ttjs viktjs avrwv.
AvTOKpaTwp Kato-ap MapKos AvpifXtos 'Ai/tovii/os Tepp-anKos TLapBiKos
2app.aTiKos Srjpw 'Pca/uatW Kat rrj lepa crvyKXr/Tw xaWelv- *oivepa vplv

470 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
irroirjo-a rd tov ipov o-K07rov peyeBrj, oirdla iv rrj Teppavia iK irepio-Taatois
Bid irepiftoXrjs irraKoXovB-npara iiroirjcra iv rrj peBopiq. Kapwv Kal iraBoiv,
iv KapvovvTu) KaraXapftavopevov pov viro BpaKovrwv eftSopr/KOvra Tecro-dpoiv
dird piXiwv ivvea. yevopevwv Be avrwv iyyvs rjpwv igirXwparwpes iprjvvaav
rjplv, Kal Tlopirrfiavds 6 rjperepos TroXipapxos iBr/Xwcrev rjplv ariva eiSopev
(icaraXapftavdpevos Be rjprjv iv peyeBei irXrjBovs apiKTOv, ko.1 o-Tparevpariav
XeyeaSvos irpipas, SeKctTiys, yepivas, cppevrrjcrias, plypa KaTijpiBprjpevov)
irXrjBrj irapelvai rrappiKTOv o^Xov xtXtaoW ivaKOcriwV eftBoprjKovra eirra.
e^eTao-as ovv epavrdv Kal to irXrjBos to ipov irpos to peye&os twv ftap-
ftdpwv Kal rroXepiaiv, KareBpapov ets to 0eoTs evxetrBai irarpwois. ape-
Xovpevos Be vir ovtojv Kat ttjv orevoxtopiav pov Bewpvcras rrjs Bvvdpems
rrapeKaXecra tovs irap' rjplv Xeyopevovs XP lortavovs" Kat irrepwrrjcras evpov
irXrjBos Kal peyeBos airwv, Kat epftptprjcrapevos ets avrovs, oirep ovk eirptre
Bid to vcrrepov irreyvwKevai pe Trjv Bvvapiv airwv. oBev dpgapevoi ov
fteXdiv irapdpTrja-iv ovre dirXwv ovre craXiriyywv. ...Bid to ix&pov eivai to
TOtovro avrols Slot tov Beov ov cpopovcri Kara crvveiBrjcriv. e'lKos ovv iariv,
ovs viroXapftavopev dBeovs eivai, oti Beov e^ovo-tv avroparov iv rrj crvvei-
Brjcrei Tereixt-crpevov. pidravres yap eavrovs e7Ti rrjv yrjv ovx virep ipov
povov iBerjBijcrav aXXa Kal vrrep tov irapovros o-Tparevparos, rraprjyopov
yeveaBai Bidrr/s Kal Xipov rijs rrapovcrrjs. irepiTTaloi ydp vBwp ovk e'lXrj-
cpeipev Bid to pr) irapelvai- rjpev yap iv tw pecropcpaXip ttjs Teppavias Kai
rois opois avTuiv. dpa Be rw tovtovs pid/ai iirl ttjv yrjv iavrovs Kai
evxecrBai Bew, (j) eyoj rjyvdovv, evBews vBwp rjKoXovBei ovpavoBev, iirl pev
rjpds djvxpdrarov, iirl Be tovs Pa>p:aia>v iiriftovXovs p^aXata irvpoioijs.
aXXa Kat evf5v Beov irapovcriav iv ev^ij ycvopevrjv irapavTiKa (us avvirep-
ftXrjTOV Kal aKaraXvTov  AvrdBev ovv apgapevoi o-vyx<^pV'JU>lxa' TOts TOl~
ov'tois eivai xpioTiavots, iva pr) koB' rjpiov ti toiovtov a'lTijcrapevoi oirXov
iiriTvxwcn. tov Be toiovtov trvpftovXevw, Bid to toiovtov eivai, xPl<TTlav0V
pr) iyKaXelcrBat. et Be evpeBeirj tis iyKaXwv tw xpioriaviji OTt xpiariavos
eari, tov pev irpocraydpevov xpioriavov rrpdBrjXov eivat ftovXopai...yiveaOai
dpoXoyrjo-avTa tovto, dXXo erepov prjBev iyKaXovpevov rj oti xptortavos
eo-Tt povov, tov irpoa-dyovTa Be tovtov £d>VTa KaiecrBai- tov Be xpl<rriavov
dpoXoyrjo-avTa Kat crvvao-cpaXicrdpevov irepl rov toiovtov, tov ireirirrrevpevov
ttjv irrapxiav eis peravoiav Kal dveXevBepiav tov toiovtov prj perayew.
TavTa Be Kal rrjs 0-vyK.XrjTOV Bdypari Kvpw&rjvai ftovXopai, Kai KeXeva
tovto pov to Bidraypa iv to $dpa> tov Tpa'iavov irporeBrjvai irpos to
BvvaaBai dvayivwcrKecrBai. tppovricrei 6 rrpaicpeKTOs BiTpactos IIoXXkuv eis
Tas irepig errap^ias rrepcpBijvai- iravra Be tov ftovXdpevov XPT]a'"aL Kal cXeiV
pr) KwXveo-Bai Xapftdveiv eK T(5v irpoTerJevTuiv 7rap rjpwv.
'Imperator Cassar M. Aurelius Antoninus Germanicus Parthicus Sarmaticus to the
people of the Romans and to the holy senate, greeting.1

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 47 1
'I make known to you the magnitude of my enterprise and what results I achieved
in Germany after my distress from my beleagerment [?] with much toil and endurance
on the frontier, when I was surprised in Carnuntum by seventy-four regiments nine
miles off. Now when they approached us, our scouts informed us, and Pompeianus
our commander in chief showed us, what also we saw with our own eyes (for I was
surrounded by multitudes of savage hordes, having with me a combined and moderate
force consisting of the soldiers of the first legion and the tenth — both the Twin and the
Fretensian), that there were crowds there of a miscellaneous multitude numbering nine
hundred and seventy-seven thousand. Having therefore measured myself and my
troops with the numbers of the barbarous enemy, I betook myself to prayer to the
gods of my fathers. But finding myself neglected by them and contemplating to what
straits my forces were reduced, I summoned those whom we call Christians to my aid.
And by enquiry I found out their numbers and magnitude, scolding them at the same
time, which I ought not to have done, for I afterwards discovered their power.
Making a beginning herewith, they did not [think of] equipping themselves with
missiles or shields or trumpets, for this is abhorrent to them by reason of the god
that they bear in their conscience. It is probable then that those whom we suppose
to be Atheists have a self-moving god enshrined in their conscience. For throwing
themselves on the ground they prayed not only for me but for the army that was with
me, that He would be their comforter in their present drought and famine ; for we
had not drunk any water for five days, as there was none in the place; for we were in
the heart of Germany and within their frontiers. Now as soon as they threw them
selves on the earth and prayed to a god who was unknown to me, forthwith rain came
from heaven — very cold water upon us, but fiery hail upon the enemies of the Romans.
So forthwith [we felt] the presence of their god at once as they prayed, as of one
invincible and indestructible. Beginning at once therefore let us permit such persons
to be Christians, lest they pray for any such weapon against us and obtain it. And I
recommend that no such person be accused as a Christian, for being such. But, if any
one should be found accusing a Christian of being a Christian, it is my desire that it
be made clear that the Christian so brought to judgment, if he confesses to it, shall be
[acquitted], if no other charge is brought against him except that he is a Christian, and
that his accuser shall be burnt alive; and any Christian, when he confesses to this and
has made his case good, shall not be forced by the officer entrusted with the govern
ment of the province to change his religion or to lose his liberty.'
'I desire that this decision be ratified by a decree of the Senate, and I direct that
this my ordinance be published in the Forum of Trajan, that it may be read. The
prefect Vitrasius Pollio will take care that it is sent to the several provinces. Any one
who wishes to make use of it and to possess it, shall not be prevented from obtaining
a copy from the decrees promulgated by us.'
The Greek text is evidently mutilated in some places, and probably corrupt in
others; nor is it always easy to satisfy oneself as to the meaning of the expressions used.
For iraBiiv the MSS have o-iraBdiv. There is much to be said for Silburg's emendation
KovaSwv Kal TZappardiv instead of xapi>v Kal o-rraBiiv. Just below Kapvobvrtp is an
emendation for Korlvtp, the reading of the MSS. The word dpUrov means, I suppose,
'unsociable, uncivilised, savage.' The Sp&Kovres are the standards or ensigns of the
regiments, as e.g. in Lucian Quom. Hist. Conscr. 29 wore robs SpaKovras (<p-q rQv Wap-
Bvaiuv (o-Tipelov Si irXrjBovs tovto abrots, x^°vs 7^/>> dtpai, 6 SpdKoiv dyei) tQvras
Spiwvras irappeyiBeis eivai k.t.X. Of the designation of the legions, yeplvas rppevri]-
<slas, I shall have to speak presently.

472 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
It is hardly necessary to say that the representation of the policy of M. Aurelius in
this document is wholly unhistorical. So far from reversing the principles laid down
by Trajan, he treated the Christians with a severity far beyond that of the intervening
sovereigns. We need only point to the persecution at Vienne and Lyons (A.D. 177),
which happened two or three years after this letter purports to have been written, to
convict it as a coarse and palpable forgery.
But though this letter is a manifest forgery, yet the writer shows some acquaintance
with the men of the time. Ti. Claudius Pompeianus was one of Marcus' principal
generals, married the emperor's daughter Lucilla after the death of her first husband
Verus, was twice made consul (for the second time in A.D. 173; see Klein Fasti
Consulares p. 79), and commanded in the German wars ; see Dion Cass. lxxi. 3, lxxii.
4, lxxiii. 3, Capitol. Marcus 20, Pertinax -z, 4, Spartian. Did. yul. S, CaracaU. 3.
Vitrasius Pollio married Annia Faustina the first cousin of M. Aurelius, was twice
consul (for the second time in A.D. 176; see Klein I.e. p. 80), held the office of pro
consul of Asia (Aristid. Op. 1. p. 529), and was appointed prefect of the prsetorium in
succession to Macrinus Vindex who perished in the Marcomannic war (Dion Cass.
lxxi. 3), having as his colleague in this office Bassseus Rufus; comp. C.I.L.Vl. 1540,
Orelli Inscr. 3421, 3574, Henzen Inscr. 5477, Ephem. Epigr. iv. p. 177, and see
Waddington Pastes Asiatiques p. 215 sq. It is curious that the inscriptions speak of
statues being erected to him and to his colleague in this very Forum Trajani which
is here mentioned in connexion with his name.
The main incident to which the letter refers took place during the war with the
Quadi about A. D. 174. The Roman soldiers, parched with thirst and faint with heat,
were surrounded by the enemy, and their destruction was imminent. Suddenly
clouds gathered in the clear sky, and a storm burst upon them. The rain poured in
profuse and grateful showers on the Roman army; while the enemy was smitten down
with violent hail and lightning. The fire, where it fell on the Romans, was im
mediately extinguished ; the water, where it descended on the Quadi, only added fuel
to the flames, as if it were oil. The Roman soldiers at first with upturned faces and
open mouths received the refreshing streams ; then they held out their shields and
helmets, themselves drinking and giving to their horses to drink. Marcus obtained a
splendid victory and was proclaimed imperator for the seventh time. Contrary to his
wont, he accepted the title as receiving it from God (us Kal irapa. Qeov Xapftaiiwii) and
wrote to the senate (rrj yepovo-lq. irrio-TeiXev) accordingly.
Dion Cassius (lxxi. 8, 10), the earliest heathen writer who reports this incident
(c. A. D. 220) and from whom I have taken this account, further mentions it as
'related' (X070S ?%") that one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician, who attended Marcus
on this expedition, had invoked among other deities (Salpovas) the 'aerial Hermes'
with incantations and thus drawn down the rain. Capitolinus (Marc. 24), writing under
Diocletian (c. A. D. 300), and Themistius (Orat. 15, p. 191), addressing Theodosius
(a.d. 381), attribute the miracle directly to the prayers of the emperor. Themistius
even gives the very words of the prayer ; stretching out his hands he cried, 'With this
hand I invoke and supplicate the giver of life — this hand with which I never took away
life.' Claudian (de Sext. Cons. Honor. 340 sq.), panegyrizing the son of Theodosius
(a.d. 404) as a. second Marcus, appears to have had both these accounts of his pre
decessors before him and offers his readers the alternative, but himself prefers the
latter ascribing the incident to the direct merits of the emperor ;
Chaldaea mago seu carmina ritu
Armavere deos, seu (quod reor) omne Tonantis
Obsequium Marci mores potuere mereri.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 473
Even a Christian Sibyllist (Orac. Sib. xn. 196 sq.) in the third century adopts this
solution and attributes the preservation of the army to ' the emperor's piety ' (Si evo-epHijv
j3airiX?jos), to whom the God of heaven would refuse nothing (Qebs ovpavtos pdXa irdvB'
brraKOVtrei). The Christians generally however accounted for the occurrence in a, wholly
different way. They believed that it was an answer, not indeed to the prayer of the
emperor, but to the prayer of the Christians who formed part of his army. Claudius
Apollinaris (Eus. H. E. v. 5), who addressed an apology to M. Aurelius not many
years after the event, took this view. As reported by Eusebius, he even went so far
as to say that the legion took its name, 'Thunder-striker' or 'Thunder-struck'
(KepawofibXos or Kepaw6j3oXos), from this incident — a statement which I shall have to
consider presently. Tertullian, writing a few years later (Apol. 5, ad Scap. 4), likewise
testifies to the efficacy of the Christians' prayers. He states that M. Aurelius asked
for these prayers, and that he wrote afterwards to the Senate bearing testimony to the
miraculous answer which had been vouchsafed. Eusebius (I.e.) mentions that the
occurrence was otherwise explained by the heathen, but that the Christians more
truthfully ascribed the result to the supplications of their brothers in the faith. He
describes the soldiers in question as tovs iirl ttjs M.eXirivi~js ovrw KaXovpJvijs Xeyeuivos
m-paritM-as. He cites as his authorities for the Christian story Claudius Apollinaris
and Tertullian. In the Chronicon also (11. p. 172, ed. Schone) he mentions the fact.
Orosius (vii. 15) and the Chronicon Paschale (p. 487 ed. Bonn.) follow Eusebius.
Gregory Nyssen again (Op. III. p. 505 sq.) enlarges upon the incident as an
answer to the prayers of the Christians. Xiphilinus (c. A. D. 1075), epitomizing Dion
(lxxi. 9), turns aside to accuse his author of falsehood and ignorance, in not knowing
that the legion from Melitene, which was fighting in this war, was composed wholly
of Christians, that the lieutenant general informed the emperor of the power of their
prayers, that the emperor in consequence requested them to intercede with their God,
that an immediate answer was vouchsafed to this intercession, and that Marcus in
consequence designated this legion KepawofibXos.
The incident, whatever it was, is represented in the sculptures of the Antonine
column, erected soon after at Rome, where Jupiter Pluvius is represented as an old
man, from whose hair and beard flow copious streams, which are caught in the
shields of the Roman soldiers, while the enemy is struck down by lightning.
(Bartoli et Bellori Columna Antoniniana pi. xiv, xv). Nor was this the only artistic
reproduction of the event. Themistius (I.e.) saw the same scene represented in a.
painting, the emperor praying in the midst of the phalanx and the soldiers holding out
their helmets to catch the descending waters.
The simple fact that M. Aurelius wrote to the Senate after the event is mentioned,
as we have seen, by Dion. The emperor could hardly have done otherwise. Ter
tullian hazards the assertion (Apol. 5) that in this letter mention was made of the
prayers of the Christians. Accordingly he claims M. Aurelius as a. protector of the
Chnstians. But the very language in which he asserts his claim shows that he had no
direct and personal knowledge of any such letter ; ' si litterae M. Aurelii gravissimi
imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum
precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur. ' Here he assumes that if sought
among the archives the letter would be found. Just in the same way he elsewhere
(Apol. 21) refers his heathen readers to the official reports which Pilate sent to
Tiberius after the trial of Christ. He did not doubt that both documents would be
found in the archives. Yet this hazard of Tertullian is apparently the sole foundation

474 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
on which later statements are built. Eusebius in the Chronicle writes cautiously
Xiyerai us Kal iiriaroXal rpipovrai, 'It is said that an epistle is extant.' Since in his
History he quotes the passage of Tertullian as vouching for the existence of such a
letter (ypd<pei...Xiyuv MdpKov.. .iirurroXas elairi vvv tpipeaBai), there can be little doubt
that his Xiyerai refers to the same authority. It is equally obvious that he himself,
had not seen the letter. Jerome, in his edition of the Chronicle, drops the mention of
the hearsay, and asserts boldly, ' Extant litterae M. Aurelii gravissimi imperatoris quibus
ipse testatur etc.', where the expression shows that he had the original Latin of Ter
tullian before him, when he wrote this passage. On the other hand Orosius retains
the caution, but strengthens the statement in another way, 'Extare etiam nunc apud
plerosque dicuntur literae imperatoris Antonini etc' The letter appended to Justin's
second apology in the MSS is the outcome of these statements. It was not the cause,
but the consequence, of Tertullian 's venture. Just as the forgery of the Apocryphal
Acts of Pilate was suggested by the references in the early fathers to the Roman
procurator's report, so also here some adventurer, finding allusions in Tertullian and
later writers to a letter of the emperor Marcus in favour of the Christians, took upon
himself to supply the missing document.
Strangely enough our forged letter makes no mention of the 'Thundering Legion,'
though this appears in the earliest extant report of the incident. On the contrary it
names other legions as being engaged in this conflict, but not this which was the 1 2th.
The objections to this Christian version of the story are these.
(l) The legion in question obtained its surname long before the time of M. Aurelius.
Dion Cassius (lv. 23), enumerating the legions of Augustus, mentions among these
rb StaSiKarov rb iv KairiraSoKla. rb Kepavvorpbpov. It might indeed be urged that the
title Kepavvorpbpov was given by Dion by anticipation ; but the inscriptions show
that this explanation will not hold. For instance, in the nth year of Nero (A.D. 65)
a primipilaris. leg. xii. fvlminatae inscribes his name on the foot of Memnon's
statue, as having heard it speak (C. I. L. III. 30). Again another inscription belonging
to the early years of Trajan (a. d. 98 — 102) gives this name (C. I. L. v. 534). In
other inscriptions likewise, referring to the reigns of Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian, it
appears (C.I. L. 111. 2917, ix. 2456), as also in one dating during the joint sovereignty
of Marcus and Verus, and therefore not long before the war with, the Quadi
(C. I.L. n. 11S0).
(2) .The name of this legion is now ascertained to have been not Fulminatrix,
but Fulminata. In the inscriptions, in which it occurs frequently, it is generally
contracted in various ways, fvl, fvlm, fvlmi, fvlmin, fvlminat, and it was sup
plied with a termination 'Fulminatrix' to suit the Christian story. But on some more
recently discovered monuments the word is written in full fvlminata (C. I. L. in.
30, 2029, vm. 7079, x. 7351), so that no doubt can remain. For the misreading of
the word in the Notitia Orientis where the mss have 'Fulminae,' which has been
altered into 'fulminea,' but which ought to be read 'fulminat', see Henzen in Borghesi
CEuvres IV. p. 233. Dion distinctly calls it Kepavvoipopov, and so it is named m a
recently discovered inscription (Bulletin de Correspondance Helle'niqueVU. p. I33i ^i)>
Aeri60NOC.AwXeK[(iiTHc].KepAYNocpopoY- The probability is that 'Fulminata',
like 'Torquata', refers to some emblem worn by the soldiers of this legion. In like
manner the fifth legion was called 'Alauda' on account of the larks which adorned ^
the helmets of the soldiers. Renan (Marc-Aurile p. 275) offers another explanation.
He supposes that on some occasion the camp of this legion had been struck by
lightning and so 'received a sort of baptism by fire ', places so struck being set apart

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 475
and consecrated. Anyhow the passive termination of 'Fulminata' is not favourable
to the Christian story, as the fact of its perversion into 'Fulminatrix' shows. Borghesi
(I.e.) suggests that M. Aurelius altered the old name 'Fulminata' into 'Fulminatrix,'
and de Rossi in his note to Borghesi accepts this explanation. We need hardly discuss
this improbable conjecture.
Eusebius distinctly states that Claudius Apollinaris represented the name Kepavvo-
(SoXov (presumably the active KepavvofibXov, not the passive KepavvofioXov) as having
been given to the legion by the emperor in consequence of the miraculous occurrence
(e| helvov <pr)<ras rr)v Si' eux^s rb irapdSo^ov ireiroiriKviav Xe7£uya oUetav tuj yeyovbri
wpbs rov fiao-i\iu>s elXi]<pivai irpoairyoplav, KepavvofioXov ry 'Voipaloiv iiriKX-nBetcrav
0u»s). As Apollinaris wrote almost immediately after the occurrence, it is difficult
to suppose that he could have fallen into this error. I have therefore suggested else
where (Colossians p. 61) that he used some ambiguous expression implying that it
was fitly so named (e.g. iiribvvpov ttjs avvrvxlas), which Eusebius and later writers
misunderstood ; just as Eusebius himself elsewhere (v. 24) speaks of Irenaeus as
tpepibvvpbs tis wv rij irpoairyopla avrip re rip rpbicw elpr/voirolos. Thus in Eusebius'
account we may suspect that olKetav rip yeyovbri irpoairyoplav is an expression borrowed
from Apollinaris himself, while irpos tov fiaaiXias elXrjrpivai gives Eusebius' erroneous
interpretation of his author's meaning.
(3) But there is still another difficulty. The proper station of this 12th legion
was not Germany but the East. It was stationed in Syria at the time of the Judaic
war under Titus (Joseph. B. y. v. 1. 6; Tac. Hist. v. 1 ; comp. Ann. xv. 6, 26). At
the close of that war it was removed by Titus to Melitene on the Euphrates on the
frontier of Armenia and Cappadocia (Joseph. B. y. vii. 1. 3). Accordingly it is
mentioned in an inscription (C. I. L. VIII. 7079), and in Dion Cassius (Iv. 23), as
located in Cappadocia. This therefore was its proper station at the time of the war
with the Quadi : and indeed the fact is recognized by Eusebius and after him by
Xiphilinus ; for both writers speak of it as connected with Melitene. Yet, though its
proper head quarters were Melitene, the outbreak or even the threatening of war
elsewhere might lead to its being despatched to the disturbed regions. On one oc
casion we learn from the inscriptions that this legion, the Fulminata, was stationed in
Achaia (C. I. L. in. 6097). At another time we find it quartered — either the whole
or a detachment — at Ancyra in Galatia (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellinique VII.
p. i6„ 1883). The Germanic war of M. Aurelius was a sufficiently grave occasion to
require the concentration of legions at the seat of war from other parts of the empire ;
and there is, so far as I know, no reason why the 1 2th legion should not have been
one of these. Strangely enough however, the forged letter of the emperor with which
we are concerned omits to mention this legion, but names instead the first and the two
tenth legions. What legion is meant by the first, the writer does not explain. There
were at this time three first legions, Adjutrix, Italica, and Minervia. The proper
station of Adjutrix was in Pannonia Superior, of Italica in Moesia Inferior and Dacia,
oi Minervia in Germania Inferior1. Adjutrix and Minervia therefore were at the seat of
war, while Italica could be moved thither without difficulty. After the first legion the
letter mentions SeKdr-ns yepivorppevr-qo-la, as it is corruptly written in the MSS. The
tenth was a double legion, or rather two legions (Dion Cass. Iv. 23 ol SiKaroi iKovrepoi,
For the names and dispositions of sq., Marquardt Rom. Staatsverw. II. p.
the legions see especially Dion Cass. Iv. 430 sq., Mommsen in Ephemeris Epigra-
l3> H- Comp. Borghesi OZuvres iv. p. 201 phica v. p. 164 sq. (1884).-

476 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
ot re iv ti) llavvovlg. ry avoi ol SiSvpoi Kal ol iv 'lovbala), called respectively Gemina and
Fretensis. There can therefore be no doubt that the corrupt Greek represents
' decima Gemina et Fretensis.' The name 'Gemina' or 'Twin' is the designation of
several legions (the vnth, xth, xmth, xivth), which were or had been twofold; and
Otto here (I know not for what reason) singles out the xivth. Both X Gemina and
Xiv Gemina were stationed in Pannonia Superior, so that either might easily have
been employed in this war. The other xth legion, Fretensis, was quartered in Judsea.
If therefore it took any part in this war, it must, like Fulminata,ha.vebeen transferred
to those parts temporarily for the purpose.
I am disposed to think that there was some truth in the Christian account of the
incident. Claudius Apollinaris, who first mentions it, addressed his Apology to
M. Aurelius, and therefore must have written within six years of the event at the out
side. He is therefore entitled to credit as the most strictly contemporary of all known
authorities. He could hardly have placed the Legio Fulminata in Germany, when its
head quarters were well known to be in the East, unless it had actually been sent
thither. There is nothing improbable in its transference, such removals being common
in time of war. Thus in Tac. Ann. xv. 25, 26 we have a notice of the transmission of
several legions from great distances to the seat of war. But a legion stationed in
Melitene would naturally contain a very appreciable proportion of Christians, as it
must have drawn recruits from districts where Christianity was exceptionally strong at
a very early age. If the drought were oppressive, these Christians would probably
pray for rain. Here then we have the true elements in the story. On the other
hand the request of the emperor to the Christians for their special prayers. and his
subsequent acknowledgement of their efficacy are doubtless a fictitious garnish with
which the enthusiasm of the early Christians decked out the simple fact.

(ft) Letter to Euxenianus.
' ' Avrwvlvos AvTOKpdrwp 1%eftao-Tds TZvgeviavw TJottXiWi Y^aipeiv. Ey(o
eis trelpav Trjs o-rjs a-y^ivotas epyois avrols Karao-ras, ko.1 paXiora 01s
evayxos irpoo-rdgei tov rjpirepov Kpdrbvs Bieirpdgw Kara ttjv Zpvpvav,
eVtKovcpicras Upvpvaiois tijv eK tov kXo'vov Trjs y^s iiriyevopevrjv avrois
arvpcpopav, ijaBrjv re, wcrirep etKos, Kat ere tt;s twv irpaypdrwv iiripeXeUK
eirrjvecra- epaBov ydp airavra perd aKpifteias, wcrirep av el irapwv. ij re
ydp rrapa aov ireptpBelcra dvacpopd, o Te drroBiBovs Tavrrjv, Kat KaiKiAios
o iirirporros rjpwv a7ravTa pot aacpws Bir/yrjo-aro. iirl Be tou irapovros
yvwcrBev T<3v rjperepw KpaVei 'AftepKidv Ttva rrjs 'Iepa7roXiT(uV iiriaKoirov
irapd coi Biarpifteiv, avSpa evaeftij ovtoj rd tojv vpioriavouv, tos oaipovov-
rds re IdcrBai Kal vocrovs a'XXas evKoXoiraTa #epa7reveiv, tovtov Kara ro
dvayKalov rjpels Xpij£ovTes, OvaXepiov Kai Bao-Q-tavov payirrrpiavovs row
Beiwv rjpwv 0<p<piKiwv iirepifrapev tov dvBpa per aiSovs Kai Tiprjs airacnjs
ws rjpds dyayelv. KeXevopev ovv tt} uy crreppoTTiTi iretoai tov avopa <rw
irpoBvpta rrdcrrj irpos rjpds dcpiKerrBai, ev elBdri <Js ov pirpios eroi Keiaerai
irap rjplv Kal virep tovtov o eVatvos. eppwero.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 477
This letter, purporting to have been written by the emperor M. Aurelius, is found
in the Life of S. Abercius § 17, as given by Symeon Metaphrastes (Patrol. Graec. cxv.
p. 1211 sq. ed. Migne; see also the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, October 22). The
story runs as follows ;
Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis in Lesser Phrygia in the time of M. Aurelius and
L. Verus, distinguished himself by his iconoclastic zeal against the idols of heathendom.
For this act he would have been put to death ; but casting out devils from several
persons, who were tormented, he saved himself from his fate, and turned the tide of
popular feeling in his favour. Among other miracles he cured of blindness Phrygella
the mother of Euxenianus Publio, a man in high authority at Hierapolis and greatly
esteemed by the emperor. The evil demon, thwarted by Abercius, avenged himself
by imposing upon him a journey to Rome. Lucilla, the daughter of M. Aurelius
and Faustina, being then sixteen years old, was betrothed to L. Verus, and her father
had agreed to escort her to Ephesus, there to marry her to Verus, who was quartered
in the East on account of the war with Vologesus. The demon took possession of
her at this crisis, and cried out through her that Abercius of Hierapolis alone could
exorcise him. The letter to Euxenianus was written by M. Aurelius in consequence.
Abercius obeys the summons contained in this letter. He takes ship at Attalia and
sails to Portus, where he meets the magistriani who had returned by another route.
On his arrival in Rome, he is taken to the prefect Cornelianus, by whom he is intro
duced to Faustina. The emperor himself was absent on an expedition against the
barbarians, who had crossed the Rhenish frontier and were plundering the Roman
territory. The maiden Lucilla is brought into the hippodrome, foaming, quivering,
and lacerated by the demon. Abercius expels the demon and bids him, in revenge
for the trouble he has caused, 'take up this altar (pointing out to him with his hand a
stone altar), and carry it as far as to Hierapolis and take and place it by the south
gate'. The demon lifts up the altar accordingly in the presence of numberless
spectators (pvplav bpwvrav oppdrav), carries it off groaning heavily, and deposits it in
Hierapolis as commanded. Faustina overjoyed desires to make some return to
Abercius for the cure of her daughter. He asks that a bath may be built in the field
where he had knelt and prayed before his departure from Hierapolis, and where in
answer to this prayer hot springs had burst out from the ground for the relief of the
sick. He further requests that a dole of three thousand bushels of corn may be given
to the poor of his city. The empress sends orders through Cornelianus to the 'ruler
of Phrygia' (apxovra Qpvylas) for the fulfilment of his requests. The bath is built and
called 'A700S Beppwv : the dole is given and continued till the time of Julian, who
'envying the Christians this, as he did all other good things', put a stop to the dis
tribution. Abercius, after remaining some time in Rome, was admonished in a dream that
he must visit Syria. The empress was anxious to detain him, but at length consented
and placed a ship at his disposal. He sailed to Antioch, and from Antioch went to
Apamea, where he pacified the churches which were rent asunder by the Marcionite
heresy. He then crossed the Euphrates and visited Nisibis and the Churches of
Mesopotamia. When he declined money, in recompense for his labours, they voted
him the title of loairbo-roXos. Then he returned home. Being admonished in a dream
that his time was approaching, he ordered a square stone to be prepared for his tomb,
and upon this he placed the altar which the demon had brought from Rome, in
scribing on it the following words (rolovSi ti iirlypappa abrip iyxapd^as) :
SkXskttjs irbXews ttoXIttjs tovt' iirolricra j"u> iv' (xa Katpo) awparos (vBaSe Beaiv.

47§ EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
ovvopa 'AfiipKios o d>v paBrrrris iroipivos dyvov, os fioffKei irpofidrwv ayiXas opeai ireSfois
te, bcpBaXpovs os (xei peydXovs iravrij KaBopwvras. ovros ydp pe iSlSa^e ypappara
mora' els "Pibprjv Ss (irepipev ipi fiacnXelav dBpijcrai, Kal fiavlXicraav ISeiv xj>v<r6oro\civ
XpvaoiriSCXov Xabv 5' elSov iKeT Xapirpav aqbpaytSa (x0VTa- Kal livphjs iriSov elSov Kal
do-rea irdvra Nlcifiiv, ~Fiv<ppari}v Stafids, irdvra 5' (ffxov avvopriyvpovs, IlauXoj' (oiaBev
irlaris iravrrj Si irpoijye, Kal TapiBijKe rpoiprpi IxBbv airb irriyrjs irappeyiBr) KaBapiv,
dv iSpd^aro irapBivos dyvi), Kal rovrov iiriSwKe rplXois iadleiv Sid iravros, dlvov xpyoTov
(xovcra, Kipavp-a SiSovo-a per' dprov. ravra irapeo-rws elirov 'AfiipKios u8e ypOApTJvai,
ifiSopijKoarov (ros Kal Sevrepov rjyov dXr/BSs. ravB' b vowv eufaiTO virip 'AfiepKlov mis 6
avvipSbs. ov pivroi rupfioj tis ipip (repov iirdvio Brjo-et. el 8' ovv, 'Vcopalwv rapeltp Brjvet
oio-X'Xia xpuo"S Kal xPVrrri irarplSi'leparrbXei x'Xia xpvad1.
The inscription, adds the writer of the Life, was to this effect (woV tus iirl Xiilem
e'xev), 'except that time had gradually impaired its accuracy and had caused the
writing to be faulty' (otl pi) 6 xp^vos vtpeiXe Kar' oXiyov rijs aKpifielas Kal ripapri/phbts
(xeiv tt)v ypa<pT)v rrapeo-Kevacrev).
After these things Abercius summoned the Church together and asked them to
elect a bishop to succeed him. They chose his namesake, a second Abercius. Having
confirmed their choice and laid his hands on his successor, the saint passed away.
Attention was specially directed to the Life of Abercius by Halloix (///. Eccl. Or.
Script. II. p. I sq., 1636) ; but it was strangely overlooked afterwards, until prominence
was again given to it in Pitra's Spicil. Solcsm. III. p. 532 sq. The Acts are un
questionably spurious ; but the epitaph which they incorporate, was seen by more
than one writer to deserve more consideration. It appeared to myself to have a
true ring, and accordingly I had accepted it as genuine (Colossians p. 54), en
deavouring to assign a place to this Abercius as bishop of Hierapolis and to identify
him with the Avircius Marcellus who is mentioned about this same time by an
anonymous writer in Eusebius (//. E. v. 16). There was however some slight
difficulty in finding room for Abercius in the episcopate of Hierapolis — the ground
being occupied by Papias and Apollinaris ; and partly on this account, partly be
cause of its supposed triviality, partly for other reasons, it was condemned by Tille
mont (Memoires II. pp. 299 sq., 621 sq.) and others.
Hitherto it had been assumed on all hands that the city intended was the well-
known Hierapolis in the valley of the Meeander. But in the Bulletin de Correspondance
HelUnique, Juillet 1882, Mr W. M. Ramsay published a paper entitled Trots Villes
Phrygiennes, on the three neighbouring cities Hierapolis, Brouzos, and Otrous, in
which he showed that Hierapolis had frequently been mistaken for Hieropolis, and he
published at the same time an early Christian inscription found at Hieropolis and
dated 300 of the Sullan era (i.e. A.D. 216), closely resembling this epitaph of Abercius.
Read with some corrections subsequently made by him, it runs as follows ;
IJkAgkthc n6[Ae](joc 6 noAei[THC t]oyt erfOi[HC<x
zcon, i'Jn iyu> dpANe[pcoc] cgomatoc c'n9a 6eciN.
oy[n]oma [TjAeiANApoc ant[go]nioy, [m]a6hthc uoiMeNoc ArNOY
1 Various readings of the mss are accord with our other sources of infor-
given in Spicil. Solesm. III. p. 532 sq. mation— the fragment of the actual tomb
(1855), Anal.Solesm. n. p. 169 sq. (1884). of Abercius, and the inscription on tlie
I have selected those readings which tomb of Alexander.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 479
01 M6NT01 tymB[oo] tic eM(£ eTepoN t[i]n<\ 6hc6I"
ei A* OYN, 'pOOMAICON T&[M]ei<p 6Hcei Aic[x]eiAiA [xlpYCA,
ka'i [xIphcth nATpiA[i] 'lepondAei [x]eiXi[<x xl pYCA.
6Tp(i(()H 6T6I T, MlWl S\ ZONTOC elpi-iNH ITA.pArOYCIN KAp] Mn[hc]k0M€-
noic nepi h[m]oon.
The important bearings of this discovery on the epitaph of Abercius, which was
hitherto unknown to Mr Ramsay, were pointed out at once by de Rossi Bulletino di
Archeologia Cristiana 1882, p. 77; and by Duchesne Bulletin Critique III. p. 135
(which article I have not seen) and Rcfite des Questions Historiques, Juillet 1883,
p. 1 sq. Plainly this epitaph of Alexander was copied from that of Abercius ' ; and
the city of Abercius was not Hierapolis on the Maeander but this Hieropolis near
Synnada. The genuineness therefore of the epitaph of Abercius was placed beyond a
doubt. Having thus had his attention directed to the earlier epitaph, Mr Ramsay
published the results of his further investigations in an article entitled The Tale of
Abercius in the yournal of Hellenic Studies 1882 p. 339 sq., in which he shows how
the topographical notices in the Life point to Hieropolis near Synnada, and he infers
consequently that it must have been written by some one well acquainted with this
neighbourhood. The evidence was completed, when on a subsequent visit to this
part of Asia Minor he found a fragment of this very altar containing the inscription
itself. An account of this discovery is given by him in an article on The Cities and
Bishoprics of Phrygia in the same Journal 1883, p. 424 sq. It was found 'in the
interior of the passage leading to the men's bath-room of the hot springs near
Hieropolis ; on a small fragment of a marble bomos ; complete at top and left, broken
at right and bottom '.
The existence of the well-known hot springs at Hierapolis had assisted in the con
fusion. But the hot springs at Hierapolis are within the city ; whereas the Life of
Abercius places them near it. The hot springs at Hieropolis, where the fragment of
the epitaph was found, exactly accord in position with the description in the Life.
The letters of the fragment are as follows ;
EISPOMH 10 THAE2X0N2TN0
EMENBA2[ ]AH nATAON[EX](2NEnO
KAIBA2IAI2 [n]I2[TI]2[n]
TOAONXP KAinAPE9HKE
5 AAOJTAEIAOX nANTHIXeTN[AIT]
2<S>PArEIAANE i5 nANMErE9HKA9
KAI2TPIH2ITE EAPASATOnAP0[E]
KAIA2TEAIIA KA1T0TT0NEII[E]
ET*PATHN[AIA] [A]0I[2E]29
For the sake of economizing space I have placed lines 10 — 18 in a second column,
though on the stone itself they follow below lines 1 — 9. Lines ir, 12, have been
partially erased. The lower part of line 11 and the upper part of line 1 2 are thus
obliterated. The letters included in brackets are only legible in part. The epitaph
1 The priority of the epitaph of Aber- in the latter will not scan, owing to the
eius to that of Alexander, though denied substitution of another name for that
by Piolin (see Anal. Solesm. It. p. xxvii), which stood in the original inscription.
is proved by the fact that the third line

480 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
was engraved on three sides of a nearly square block of marble. The fragment
remaining occupies one side, apparently the middle of the three, as it includes vv. 7—
15 of the 22 verses of which the epitaph consists.
We may now restore the whole inscription with tolerable confidence, using this
threefold help: (1) The text in the Life; (2) The fragments on the stone; (3) The
imitation on the tomb of Alexander.
'EkA6kthc noAeooc 6 ttoAi'thc toyt erromcA
ZOON, IN 6!XCO KAlpdj C00MATOC 6N6A eeciN.
oy'nom 'ABeprcidc eiiui ma9hthc noiMeNoc AfNoy,
de Bo'ckei npoBATWN AreAAc dpeciN rreAi'oic Te,
S oo>9aAmoyc de e'xei MerAAoYC ttanth KA9opdiNTAC"
oytoc r^p m eAlAAl6...rpAMMATA TTICTA"
eic 'Poomhn dc eneMu/eN Imbn Baci'Ahan A9pficAi
kai BaciAiccan iAe?N xPYCOctoAon xPYconeAiAoN.
Aaon A' 6?AON 6KS? AA/wrrpAN ccppArelAAN e'xoNTA*
IO kai ^Yprnc neAoN 6?AA KAI actba ttanta, NiciBin,
Ey4>pathn AiaBac" hanth A' Icxon cynomi'Aoyc"
TTayAon c'xoon errd[MHN], tti'ctic hanth Ae npofire,
ka'i TTApeOHKe TpodpHN nANTH ix6yn And mirAc
nANMere9H, KA9ApON, ON lApAlATO HApOeNOC ArNH'
15 ka) toyton IneAooKe dpi'Aoic IcSeiN Aia ttantoc,
oTnon XPHCTON eXOYCA, KepACMA AiAoyca Mef ApTOY-
tayta nApecTooc elnoN 'ABepKioc coAe rp^cpHNAi'
eBAOMHKOCTON 6T0C Ka) AEYTepON H*rON AAH9CJ0C.
tayG d nooon efiAiTO fnep moy ttac d cyncoAoc
20 oy mentoi tymBco tic Imoj eTepoN eni9Hcer
ei A' oyn, 'Pojmai'oon TAMei'cp 9HC6I AicxiAia XPYC*'
ka'i XPHCTIJ nATpi'Ai "lepondAei xiXia. XPYCA1.
' The citizen of a notable city I made this (tomb) in my life-time ; that in due season
I might have here a resting-place for my body. Abercius by name, I am a disciple of
the pure Shepherd, who feedeth His flocks of sheep on mountains and plains, who hath
great eyes looking on all sides ; for He taught me faithful writings. He also sent me
to royal Rome to behold it and to see the golden-robed, golden-slippered Queen.
And there I saw a people bearing the splendid seal. And I saw the plain of Syria
and all the cities, even Nisibis, crossing over the Euphrates. And everywhere I had
associates. In company with Paul I followed, while everywhere faith led the way,
and set before me for food the fish from the fountain, mighty and stainless (whom a
1 The restorations of Halloix ///. Eccl. 11. p. 170, have been made without the
Script. II. p. 137, of Garrucci Civilla aid of the fragment or of the parallel
Cattolica 1856, 1. p. 689, and of Pitra inscription of Alexander and therefore
Spicil. Solesm. 111. p. 533, Anal. Solcsm. are necessarily faulty.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 481
pure virgin grasped), and gave this to friends to eat always, having good wine and
giving the mixed cup with bread. These words I Abercius, standing by, ordered to
be inscribed. In sooth I was in the course of my seventy-second year. Let every
friend who observeth this, pray for me. But no man shall place another tomb above
mine. If otherwise, then he shall pay two thousand pieces of gold to the treasury of
the Romans, and a thousand pieces of gold to my good fatherland Hieropolis.'
In v. 3 sq. the description of the Good Shepherd with the great eyes and the flocks
on the mountains and plains suggests that Abercius may have seen some pictorial
representation, in the catacombs of Rome or elsewhere.
In v. 7 Ramsay suggests that fiao-iXijav (for so it is certainly written on the stone)
may be for jSao-iX^a 'the king'. It was not however so interpreted by the writer of the
Life, for he distinctly says that the emperor was absent and that the saint only saw
Faustina and Lucilla. I suppose it to be a form for fiaalXeiav ' the queen ' and to be
in apposition with 'Puutji'. The epithet fiao-iXls is applied to Rome by Justin Martyr,
Apol. i. 26, 56. Is not ipiv for ipi, as apparently in C. /. G. 3440? It can hardly be
(pev ( = etvai).
In v. 10 the scansion of Nisibis may perhaps be a surprise, but it is the only one
which would be possible to any one who had heard the name spoken in the place
itself. In Syriac the word is N'tsibhin. Hence it was written differently in Greek,
NairijSis, NeirijSis, Nivifiis, Steph. Byz. s. v. (see Miiller Fragm. Histor. Graec. hi.
p. 571, iv. p. 526; comp. Assemani Bibl. Orient. 11. De Monophysitis s. v.); the sheva
of the first syllable being almost inaudible. I do not know whether the word occurs
in Greek or Latin verse. After Nlcrifiw some mss have 8', others nothing. Though r'
is preferable, 8' might stand.
In v. n, where the Life has 0-vvop.rjybpovs, Ramsay reads o-upottoSou's, and Pitra
(who wrongly arranges the verses) opriyipeas. I have preferred avvoplXovs as nearer
to the word in the MSS of the Life ; or possibly it should be avvopijpeis or o-vvoprjffeis.
In v. 12 the inscription on the stone has been defaced. To this portion more
especially the writer of the Life must refer, when he speaks of the letters being ob
literated by time. Mr Ramsay however considers that the erasure was deliberate. I
am not satisfied with IlauXoi' (xwv eirbp.ijv, which must mean ' I followed where faith
led me, taking Paul's epistles with me ' ; but I have nothing better to suggest. The
reading TlavXov however seems to be unquestionable.
l In v. 13, we have probably the earliest extant reference to the emblem of the
IX6T2, with perhaps the exception of Orac. Sibyll. viii. 217 sq., which contains the
acrostich; see Pitra De Pisce Allegorico et Symbolico p. 499 sq., and de Rossi De
Christianis Monumentis IX9TN exhibentibus p. 545 sq., in Spicil. Solesm. Tom. III.
It appears in Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. The irvyri here is baptism.
Only through baptism is there admission to the eucharistic feast ; Doctr. Duod. Apost.
9 (P- 36), Justin Apol. i. 66.
In v. 14 the more obvious reference of irapBivos dyvr) is to the Virgin Mary. Yet
such passages as 2 Cor. xi. -i, Ephes. v. 27, will suggest a doubt whether it is not
rather a designation of the Church.
In v. 15 the nominative to iiriSoiKt is not irapBivos dyv-rj but itIotis (ver. 12).
For Kipao-pa, 'the mixed cup', in ver. 16 see Justin Apol. i. 67.
In v. 19 the substitution of vrrip pov for virip 'Afieprtov seems probable. By
irwip&bs he appears to mean a fellow-Christian.
I" v. 21 the line of seven feet, and in ver. 22 the substitution of 'leporrbXei
16. I- 31

482 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(perhaps 'IepoirroXei) for 'lepairbXei, are justified (despite the metre) by the epitaph of
Alexander. It is plain that this curious epitaph, existing at Hieropolis and attracting public
attention there, was the text for the story in the Life. As I have stated elsewhere
(Colossians p. 55), it seems to me that the allegorical character of the inscription,
which appears in the Good Shepherd with the great eyes, in the flocks on mountain
and plain, in the fish and the fountain, extends likewise to the circumstances connected
with the visit to Rome. The people, whom he saw stamped with the bright seal, are
the baptised Christians, in accordance with a common metaphorical sense of arppayls.
In this case we shall naturally interpret the queen (fiaalXiao-a) as denoting the Roman
Church, which at an early date was described by Ignatius as irpoKaBijpAvrj iv rorrif
Xoiplov "Sapaloiv, and which about this time is lauded by Dionysius of Corinth for
her forwardness in works of love (Eus. H. E. iv. 23). The language seems to be
suggested by Ps. xiv (xliv). 10 irapio-rij 1) fiao-tXiao-a ix Se&wp <rou iv Iparicrpip Siaxpvcif
irepifiefiXr/pivT], ireiroiKiXpivij. This allegorical interpretation is now adopted by Pitra
(Anal. Solesm. II. p. 173 sq.), though before he had explained the words literally (Spicil.
Solesm. hi. p. 532 sq.), and also by Duchesne (Rev. des Quest. Histor. Juillet 1883, p.
23 sq.). If interpreted literally, the o-rppayls would refer to the signet-rings worn by
the higher orders among the Romans (Plin. N. H. xxxiii. 1. 6, 7, who contrasts the use
of rings among the Romans with their absence among most other nations; 'nullosque
omnino [annulos] major pars gentium, hominumque etiam qui sub imperio nostra
degunt, hodieque habeat; non signat Oriens aut Aegyptus etiam nunc'). This
supposed worldliness, which was attracted by the glittering rings and cloth of gold,
scandalises Tillemont (Me'moires II. p. 621).
The legend however grew up about the literal interpretation ; and, If we abandon
the latter, the story of the interview with Lucilla and Faustina, which is the pivot of
the narrative, falls to the ground. With this interview also the main chronological
note disappears. We may still however maintain with probability, that the later
tradition was substantially correct in making Abercius flourish and pay his visit to
Rome in the reign of M. Aurelius; but beyond this we cannot go. This date is at
all events consistent with another notice apparently relating to this same person.
When I still supposed, as was then the universal opinion, that the Abercius of the
epitaph, was bishop of Hierapolis on the Maeander, I ventured to identify him, as
others had done, with the Avircius Marcellus to whom an anonymous writer (Eus.
H.E. v. 16) addresses a treatise in an early stage of the Montanist controversy (see
Colossians p. 56). This identification becomes still more probable now that he has
been shown to belong to Hieropolis of Lesser Phrygia; for this anonymous writer
mentions one Zoticus of Otrous as his 'fellow-presbyter' (tou avpirpeafivripov rjpav
Zutikou 'Orpijvov), and Otrous was only two miles from this Hieropolis. Starting
from this identification, Duchesne (p. 30) places the date of this Montanist treatise
at about A.D. 211. This date is founded on the statement of the anonymous
author, that 'more than thirteen years' had elapsed since the death of Maximilla,
during which there had been no war in the world either partial or general (ovre peombs
ovre KaBoXiKbs Kbapw yiyove icbXepos), and even the Christians had enjoyed continuous
peace (dXXa Kal xpianavdis pdXXov elpfjvri Sidpovos). With Bonwetsch (Montanismusf.
146 sq.), he calculates these thirteen years from a.d. 198, the year of Severus' Parthian
victories, onward. But I do not see how a contemporary could possibly have spoken
of a.d. 199 — 211 as a period of continuous peace either to the world or to the Cnurcn.
The Eastern war was not ended in a.d. 108. A fierce war too was waged in Britain

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 483
from A.D. 207 — 210, which demanded the emperor's own presence, and he died at
York early in the next year (A.D. 211). This war could not have been overlooked or
ignored. Meanwhile the Christians suffered severely, as the Acts of Perpetua and
Felicitas show. The alternative is the period which was roughly coextensive with the
reign of Commodus (a.d. 180 — 192); and I agree with Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte
p. 565), Keim (Rom. u. das Christenthum p. 638 sq.), Volter (Zeitschr. f. PViss. Theol.
XXVII. 1883, p. 27), and Gorres (yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, p. 234, 424 sq.), in
regarding this as a far more probable solution. After the first year or two of this reign
the Christians had almost continuous quiet. The empire also was at peace. There
were indeed insignificant conflicts in A.D. 184, and the struggle in Britain afforded the
emperor an excuse for assuming the name Britannicus, but it was wholly incomparable
in magnitude or duration with the British war of Severus. The Antimontanist
treatise therefore with which we are concerned would be written about the close of
the reign of Commodus; and this must be somewhere about the date which Eusebius
assigns to it, from the place which it occupies in his narrative. In this treatise the
writer addresses Avircius Marcellus as a person of authority, and states that Avircius
had urged him a very long time ago (iK irXelarov So-ov xal Uavoirdrov xptvov) to write
on the subject. The mode of address is quite consistent with his being a bishop,
though he is not so styled. Thus Avircius Marcellus would have flourished during the
reign of M. Aurelius, and might well have gone to Rome about the time (A.D. 163)
mentioned by the legend.
But when was this Life of Abercius written? It assumes the existence of two
provinces of Phrygia, the Greater and the Lesser, distinct from Asia ; or in other words
it presupposes the redistribution of the provinces under Diocletian, until whose time
Phrygia had been under the jurisdiction of the proconsul of Asia. Moreover the
description of the post roads, as Ramsay has shown, points to a time after Byzantium
had become the capital of the world. Lastly ; there is a distinct reference to certain
unjust doings of the emperor Julian. It must therefore have been written after his
death (a.d. 363).
On the other hand there is no allusion to the later names of the two provinces of
Phrygia, as Pacatiana and Salutaris respectively. These names however appear first
at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. This therefore seems
to be the latest probable date. Moreover Phrygia Parva is represented as governed
by a praeses (rjyepnav) in the Life, as it was still governed at the date of the Notitia
Dignitatum, but when Hierocles wrote (before a.d. 535) its governor was a con-
sularis. For these reasons Ramsay in his earlier paper (The Tale of Saint Abercius p. 347)
placed the date of the Life between A.D. 363 and A.D. 385. But in his later paper
(Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia p. 425 sq.) he calls attention to the erasure of
\\avkov in the inscription, and suggests that the word was obliterated from hatred of
the Paulician heresy about the end of the seventh century. The erasure however was
certainly made before the Life was written ; and on this ground he abandons the
theory of the date propounded in his earlier paper.
But is it so certain that this erasure was a protest against the Paulicians? Might
it not be aimed at the Marcionites who exalted S. Paul not less than the Paulicians
did, and whom the Life represents Abercius as confounding by his preaching? Or
might not the erasure, if intentional, be due to the orthodox zeal of some one who
supposed that this companion of Abercius was the heretic Paul of Samosata? It
appears to me that there is still much to be said for the latter half of the fourth century

484 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(say about A.D. 380), as the date of the Life. This same period apparently gave birth
to the spurious Life of Polycarp, which is equally lavish in the miraculous ; and I am
disposed provisionally to attribute this biography of Abercius, if not to the same pen, at
least to the same school of hagiologers, intent on glorifying the early local saints of
these parts. But it has doubtless undergone literary revision at the hands of the
Metaphrast, like the Lives of Ignatius, so that the original style has been obliterated.
A Life of Abercius, containing the same matter as the Metaphrast's in all essential
respects, was in the hands of Clement the Hymnologer in the earlier part of the
ninth century (see Anal. Solesm. 11. p. 180 sq.).
But Ramsay considers the Letter to Euxenianus to belong to an earlier date than
the Life in which it is embedded. Euxenianus resides at Hieropolis. He is an
official of high rank. Yet he is represented as having assisted the emperor M. Aurelius
in the relief of Smyrna after the great earthquake (which really occurred A.D. 180, but
which this story places earlier than Abercius' visit to Rome, A.D. 163). Moreover
mention is made of his procurator Csecilius 1. ' The letter must therefore have been
composed at a time when Phrygia and Asia were under the same governor', and
consequently before Diocletian's redistribution of the provinces A.D. 297. The writer
of the Life has 'rather slurred over the official character of Euxenianus, who must have
been proconsul of Asia. He and his procurator Cselius [Caecilius] are officers of the
Roman Empire; the rest of the machinery in the tale belongs to the Byzantine Empire'
(Tale of Abercius pp. 248, 249). I am not satisfied with this argument. There is no
reason at all why a person, usually resident at Hieropolis and enjoying great influence
there, should not at one time or other have been proconsul of Asia, whether the
biographer did or did not suppose Hieropolis to lie within the limits of proconsular
Asia. Moreover the term magistriani seems to point to a time subsequent to the re
arrangement of offices under Diocletian and Constantine (see Ducange Gloss. Med. tt
Inf. Latin, s.v., Sophocles Lexicon s.v.). At least I have not succeeded in finding
any use till considerably later; for Palladius, Hist. Laus. c. 149, can hardly be quoting
the exact words of Hippolytus. The magistriani were officers under the Magister
Opkiorum, who among his other manifold and important duties had the regulation of
the public posts. And lastly ; the letter is intimately bound up with the main fiction
of the Life — the summons to Rome by the emperor M. Aurelius and the miraculous
cure of his daughter Lucilla ensuing thereupon ; and it is highly improbable that such
a fiction should have been put forward within a century of the time when the saint
lived, and while paganism was still the religion of the State and of the emperor. •
It should be added that, though the writer of the Life is fairly well informed as to
the incidents of the reign of M. Aurelius, e.g. the circumstances connected with the
Eastern campaign of L. Verus and his marriage with Lucilla, the great earthquake at
Smyrna, the disturbances on the Rhenish frontier, etc., yet his chronology is altogether
at fault. The blunder which places the earthquake at Smyrna before the campaigns
of L. Verus against Vologesus has been already noticed. So again, he antedates the
expedition of M. Aurelius against the Germans, making it coincident with the sojourn
of L. Verus in the East, though it actually took place some years later. The
Cornelianus mentioned in the Life may perhaps be identified with Atidius Cornelianus
of whom Capitolinus speaks (Marcus 8), or with Sulpicius Cornelianus whose name
occurs in Fronto's correspondence (p. 173, Naber) and to whom Phrynichus dedicates
1 The name is correctly written Cae- not Caelius.
cilius (see Anal. Solesm. II, p. 166),

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 485
hisEchge. It is unnecessary to refute the argument of Pitra (Anal.Solesm. II. pp. 1 65, 1 77)
who, following Baronius, interprets novi homines in Capitolinus (Marcus 7 'pueros et
puellas novorum hominum frumentariae perceptioni adscribi praeceperunt') of the
Christians, and finds in the passage a remarkable confirmation of the story of the dole
given to the Hieropolitans (see above, p. 477). By a strange error Pitra represents
Casaubon as supporting an interpretation which he distinctly rejects. The expression
mm homines has a well-known meaning in Latin writers.
This Abercius of Hieropolis was credited with some literary distinction. Baronius
had in his hands an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by him,
which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes as 'apostolicum
redolens spiritum,' promising to publish it in his Annals (Martyr. Rom. Oct. 22). To
his great grief however he afterwards lost it ('doluimus vehementer e manibus
nostris elapsam nescio quomodo'), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise
(Anna/, s. a. 163, n. 15). It may be conjectured that this letter was only another
fiction belonging to the Abercius legend, having no more authority than the letter of
the emperor to Euxenianus which I have printed above. A filfiXos SiSaaKaXlas also
by Abercius is mentioned in the Acts (§ 39) ; and allusion is made to it in the Hymn
of Clemens on Abercius (Anal. Solesm. II. p. 185 filfiXov lepav SiSao-KaXlas KariXiires
irpaKTiKr)v SiSaxvv rram tois iirl yijs KarayyiXXov<rav). It was not unusual in later
times to father a didascalia upon any famous bishop of the primitive church, as we see
in the cases of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (see above, p. 338).
The following inscription has been communicated to me by Mr W. M. Ramsay
who discovered it in Prymnessos, about 30 miles by road from Hieropolis, but very
much less across the mountains ;
ABl'pKIOC . TT0p4>YpioY • AlAKCON . KAT6CK6YACA . TO . MCMOpiON .
eaytco . kai . th . cymBi'oo . moy • SeYnpentH . kai . toTc . tbknoic
Beneath the inscription is a figure (presumably the Saviour) with the right hand
uplifted, perhaps in the act of benediction, and on either side at a lower level
are busts of a man and woman, doubtless Abircius and his wife. The style of the
monument belongs in Mr Ramsay's opinion to the early years of the third century.
The form Siaxuv (comp. Boeckh C. I. G. 9517) is startling at this early date, but
may perhaps be explained by the fact that Greek was not the vernacular language
of these parts. Unless this is the monument of some relation of the famous
Hieropolitan bishop, it may be taken as a testimony to the popularity which he had
won for the name in these parts. In the same way we have seen a sub-deacon in
Smyrna (see above, p. 421) bearing the name of its famous bishop Polycarp.
To Mr Ramsay also I owe another Christian inscription containing the nam*
Abircius and found likewise in the neighbourhood of Prymnessos;
[a]yp . Acopdeeoc . ABipKioy . KATecKe-fACA . to . HpoiioN . aiaytuj .
[KA]i . TH . MHTpi' . MOY ¦ MApKeAAlNH . KAI . ToTc . iAlOIC . MOY ¦
[kaJi . toTc . ANe<pioic . MOY • xAI'peTE • °' • TTAplONTeC.
Above the inscription are the Christian symbols A . 4? . Oi . As the great
Abercius bore the name Marcellus, and as the mother of his namesake in this in
scription is called Marcellina, there is a presumption that the two were related.

486 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

(y) Decree against Superstitious Rites.
(i) Digesta xlviii. 19. 30.
Modestinus primo libro depoenis. Si quis aliquid fecerit quo leves
hominum animi superstitionis numine terrentur, divus Marcus hujus-
modi homines in insulam relegari rescripsit.
(ii) Paulus Sentent. v. 21. 2.
Qui novas et usu vel ratione incognitas religiones inducunt, ex
quibus animi hominum moveantur, honestiores deportantur, humiliores
capite puniuntur.
These two notices apparently refer to the same decree. Though not directly
aimed at the Christians, it might be used as a serviceable weapon against them. In
interpreting the motive of M. Aurelius in this ordinance, we ought not to forget that
he allowed himself wide latitude in the matter of rites which others would call super
stitious (see above, p. 449 sq.). The date seems to be between A.D. 169 — 176, when
Marcus was sole emperor.

2. ACTS AND NOTICES OF MARTYRDOMS.
(i) Hadrian [a.d. 117 — 138].
(a) Te/esphorus, Bishop of Rome.
Iren. iii. 3. 4 perd Be tovtov [Suo-tov] TeXecrcpopos os Kal ivBdgmt
ipaprvprjcrev. This must have happened in the latest years of Hadrian (t A.D. 138). Lipsius
(Chronologie der Romischen Bischofe p. 263) places the death of Telesphorus between
a.d. 135 — 137. In the Liberian Catalogue (ib. p. 266) his death is assigned to A.D.
138. (ft) Sytnphorosa and her Seven Sons.
The story is given in the Passio Symphorosae etc. (Ruinart Act. Mart. Sine. p. 70
sq.). This work is ascribed in the mss to Julius Africanus the Chronographer
(c. A.D. 220). The narrative is as follows :
Hadrian has built his Tiburtine Villa and wishes to inaugurate it with sacrifices.
The demons complain that Symphorosa (more correctly Sympherusa) and her sons
torment them by their prayers to their God. She is apprehended and brought before
the emperor. She refuses to sacrifice to idols and is thrown into the river with
a huge stone about her neck, and her body is buried by her brother Eugenius in the
suburbs of Tivoli. Her sons follow her example in resisting the emperor's command.
They are bound to seven stakes near the Temple of Hercules, and stabbed to death
in different parts of the body, the first in the throat, thc second in the breast, thc

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 487
third in the heart, and so forth. Their bodies are then thrown into a deep pit, hence
called 'ad septem Biothanatos'. Their burial place is at the 8th milestone on the
Tiburtine Way, and their day is xv Kal. Aug. The persecution thus ended, having
lasted eighteen months. In the course of the interview with the emperor, Symphorosa
mentions her husband Getulius and his brother Amantius as having been put to death
by Hadrian. This document was admitted by Ruinart into his collection of genuine Acts . It is
accepted likewise as substantially authentic history by Tillemont (Mt'moires 11. p. 241
sq., p. 595 sq.), though he does not venture to ascribe it to Africanus or suppose that
we possess the Acts in their original form. Even Overbeck (Stud, zur Gesch. der Alten
Kirche p. 139) assigns a relative value to them. On the other hand they have been
attacked by Basnage (Ann. Pol. Eccl. n. p. 46 sq.) and more recently by Gorres
(Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. XXI. p. 48 sq., 1878), though for the most part not on
the right grounds. One of their main arguments is the supposed anachronism in the
formula (§ 4) • regnante Domino nostro Jesu Christo'. This argument however
Gprres was subsequently obliged to retract (ib. xxii. p. 97 sq., 1879), since the
formula occurs as early as the Letter of the Smyrna;ans on the death of Polycarp
(§ 21, see II. p. 984) and in the undoubtedly genuine Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs
(see below, p. 508). This point will be discussed below, in the chapter on the
Letter of the Smyrnaeans. At the same time he supposes that Symphorosa and her seven
sons were historical persons, because they are mentioned in the Martyrologium Hiero-
nymianum, xv Kal. Aug. (comp. v Kal. Jul.). Aube (Les Persecutions p. 289 sq.)
rejects the story altogether. On the other hand it has gained an advocate in Wieseler
(Christenverfolgungen p. 29). A fresh argument' in its favour has also been found in
the discovery of the basilica (Stevenson Scoperta della Basilica di Santa Simforosa e
dei suoi Sette Figli, Roma 1878; comp. Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1878, p. 75); and
chiefly on the strength of this discovery Doulcet (Sur les Rapports etc. p. 95 sq.)
accepts these Acts as worthy of credit, though he does not venture to claim them as
an original document.
But in fact the story condemns itself both in its framework and in its details.
(i) Its framework is common to several other stories of martyrdom and was not
Christian in its origin ;
(a) The earliest example is in the Fourth Book of Maccabees (viii. 1 sq.). The
tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes orders before him seven Jewish brothers with their aged
mother, who was a widow. Threatening them with the most horrible tortures, he
commands them to conform to Greek usages and violate the law of Moses. The
eldest is taken first. One by one they defy the tyrant, undergo cruel tortures, and are
put to death, their mother encouraging them in their defiance. Her own turn comes
next. To avoid being apprehended, she throws herself on the pyre and perishes.
These martyrdoms, we are told, are the triumphs of godly reason (0' evaefirjs Xoytvpos)
over physical pains and affections (Fritzsche Libr. Apocr. Vet. Test. p. 366 sq.).
This book has been wrongly attributed to Josephus (Euseb. H. E. iii. 10). It was
probably written in the first century before the Christian era (see Grimm Kurzgef.
Exeg.Handb. zu den Apokr. IV. p. 291 sq.). The Maccabean story is repeated in
Josippon Ben-Gorion iv. 19 (p. no sq., Gagnier), where the name Hannah is given
to the mother.
(b) It is next found in Rabbinical writings. The sufferers are still Jews, but
the persecutor is now Hadrian. Doulcet (p. 96) directs attention to the Talmudic
story (Talm. Babl. Gittin p. 57 b), but he fails to see that it is a strong argument

488 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
against the genuineness of the story of Symphorosa, and even alleges it in favour
of this story. Through the kindness of Dr Schiller-Szinessy I am able to add four
other passages from Rabbinical writings where the story is told ; Midrash Ekhah
Rabbathi (on Lam. i. 16), Tanna debe Eliyyahu (Rabba c. 30), Yalqut (pericope
K~i Thabo) ; ib. on Lam. ii. 15.
In this Rabbinical story the seven sons are brought in order before ' Caesar'. His
name does not appear except in Tanna, where it is given as Hadrian ; but in Talmud
Babli Hadrian's name is mentioned in the context, though not in immediate connexion
with this story. The widowed mother is called Miriam ; but she is represented
differently, as the daughter of Nechtom, of Tanchum, and of Menachem, in the different
accounts. After her seven sons are put to death, she goes up to the roof, throws her
self down, and thus dies.
(c) In the story of Symphorosa we have advanced a step further. The name of
Hadrian remains, as in the last version ; but the martyrs are no longer Jewish but
Christian. (d) Another Christian modification of the story is the martyrdom of Felicitas and
her Seven Sons. Here another step again has been taken. The emperor's name has
been changed. The martyrdoms take place no longer under Hadrian, but under
'Antoninus'. This version of the story will be considered hereafter (p. 495).
The story, as given in the Babylonian Talmud, is told on the authority of Rab
Jehudah, who flourished in the 3rd century. As Hadrian was a determined foe of the
Jews, while he treated the Christians with comparative leniency, it is a safe conclusion
that the Jewish story which connects these martyrdoms with his name is prior to the
Christian. (ii) But the legend of Symphorosa is condemned not less by its details. The
seven different modes of punishment doubtless seemed to the author to give variety
and finish to the narrative. But they are extremely improbable in themselves ; and
we cannot well conceive Hadrian indulging in such grotesque and puerile exhibitions
of cruelty. If it were conceivable at all, the incident must have taken place in the
last months of his life, when his mind was unhinged.
The recently discovered basilica bears testimony to the belief of a later age, but is
wholly inadequate to overcome the inherent improbabilities of the story. It was
found where the Acts represent the bodies of the seven sons of Symphorosa to have
been laid ('in via Tiburtina milliario ab urbe nono ', al. ' octavo ', VIII for Vim), and
where likewise the Martyrologium Hieronymianum places their sepulchre. In the
Epitome Libri de Locis Sanctorum Martyrum (De Rossi Roma Sotterr. I. pp. 142, 178),
compiled about the time of Pope Honorius (a.d. 625 — 638), martyrs bearing the
same names as these seven sons and their mother are mentioned as buried on the
Tiburtine Way ; but they are not spoken of as mother and sons, and other martyrs
are mixed up with them. In the Martyrologium Hieronymianum under xv Kal. Aug.
we have the notice ' natalis S. Symphorosae, matris septem germanorum quae cum
ipsis est passa, quorum nomina haec sunt, Petrus, Marcellianus, Januarius, Dionysius,
Simphronius, Clemens, Germanus ' — wholly different names from those given in the
Acts of Symphorosa. In this same Martyrology however under v KaL JuL
the same seven names as in the Acts, Crescens, Julianus, etc., appear with others,
as suffering 'in Hispania'; but as we have under the same day, though referring
to others, the words ' Romae, miliario nono ' and ' et septem germanorum ', the text
is doubtless much confused.
The probable inference from these facts is that the names Crescens, Julianus, etc.,

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 489
do represent genuine martyrs, who were buried in the neighbourhood of Symphorosa,
but had no other connexion with her ; and that their sonship was a later adaptation
of the story of the Maccabsean mother and her sons. They were brothers as members
of the Christian brotherhood, but in no other sense. If so, there is no sufficient
ground for assigning their martyrdom to the reign of Hadrian. The companion story
of Felicitas and her seven sons, which I shall have to consider presently, is best
explained in the same way.
The Acts of Symphorosa state that the heathen pontiffs, at whose instigation these
sons of Symphorosa were martyred, called the place of their execution Ad Septem
Biothanatos. This word fiioBdvaros (or more correctly fiiatoBdvaros), which commonly
meant 'a suicide', was applied by the heathen to Christians who voluntarily courted
martyrdom : see W. Dindorf in Steph. Thes. s. v. fiiaioBavarioi, and Ducange Gloss.
Lat. s. v. ' Biothanati '. It seems probable that the place did bear this name, so that
the statement is not a pure invention of the writer of these Acts.

(y) S. Dionysius the Areopagite.
The Martyrologium Vetus Romanum p. 170 (Patrol. Lat. cxxnr.) under v Non.
¦Octob. has the entry ; ' Athenis Dionysii Areopagitae sub Adriano diversis tor-
mends passi, ut Aristides testis est in opere quod de Christiana religione composuit ;
hoc opus apud Athenienses inter antiquorum memorias clarissimum tenetur1. This
notice has been copied by subsequent Latin martyrologists.
A person who enjoyed distinction as an Areopagite as early as A. D. 52, when
S. Paul visited Athens, could hardly have been living during the reign of Hadrian
(X.D. 118 — 139). In order to obviate this difficulty Otto (Corp. Apol. Christ. IX. p. 345
sq.) supposes that in the authority used by this martyrologist, ' sub Adriano' was a
marginal note referring to the time when Aristides' Apology was written. It is
hardly probable however that, if Aristides had made this statement respecting
Dionysius the Areopagite, it would have been overlooked by Eusebius. At all events
Eusebius elsewhere (H. E. iii. 4) takes the pains to record a notice which he found in
Dionysius of Corinth respecting his namesake the Areopagite. We must therefore
suppose that our martyrologist has altogether mistaken his authority. There is another
mention of Aristides the Apologist in this same Martyrology (ii Kal. Sept.).

(8) Alexander Bishop of Rome and others.
Linked with this bishop in the honours of martyrdom are his priests Eventius and
Theodulus, with their converts Hermes the prefect and Quirinus the tribune. The
authority is the Acts of Alexander (May 3). These Acts may be safely rejected on
several grounds ;
(a) They are full of historical mis-statements and anachronisms. Thus Aurelian
the persecutor of these martyrs is represented as comes utriusque militiae at the time
of Trajan's death; the title being thus antedated by some centuries. Hermes is City
Prefect at the time, though history says nothing of a person of this name bearing this
office. Aurelian's wife, who by the way plays the part of Pilate's wife, warning her
husband against shedding the blood of an innocent man, is called Severina (or Seve-
nana). But Severina is the name of the consort of the emperor Aurelian. (b) They
teem with miracles and exaggerations of all, kinds. Thus S. Alexander converts the

490 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
greater part of the senators; Hermes has 1250 slaves who with their wives and
families all become Christians; and the like, (c) Irenseus is evidently ignorant that
any early bishop of Rome suffered martyrdom but Telesphorus. The worthlessness of
these Acts is well shown by Tillemont (Mimoires II. p. 590 sq.). They are also
assailed by Aube (Persecutions p. 284 sq.). Connected herewith is the reported mar
tyrdom of S. Balbina, the daughter of Quirinus.
The tomb of a martyr Quirinus is mentioned in the 7th century (De Rossi Rom.
Sotl. I. p. 180) in the Cemetery of Prsetextatus, where the Acts of Alexander represent
our Quirinus to have been buried ; and this may possibly be the tomb which has been
discovered in recent times (Bull, di Arch. Crist. 1872, p. 78 sq.). But this discovery,
which however De Rossi considers very doubtful, would, even if confirmed, be far
from establishing the story of the Acts. Again, certain persons bearing the names of
Alexander and his companions are commemorated in the Old Roman and Hieronymian
Martyrologies under iv Non. Maii (May 3), the same day which the Acts of Alexander
assign to them, and in the former he is designated ' Papa'. But in the latter the very
form of the entry, ' Romae Eventii, Alexandri, Theoduli, Fortunati ', seems to show
that the pope was not meant. Here again, as in the case of Symphorosa, there is
probably some foundation for the story ; but who the martyrs were and when they
were martyred, it would be impossible to say. See on this point Tillemont /. c.
pp. 238, 592. Again the name Hermes occurs as early as the Liberian Catalogue
under v Kal. Sept., but the same remark applies to this notice also.

(e) Other Martyrs.
Besides the martyrs already mentioned, the following are recorded; (1) Placidus
and his wife Trajana, renamed Eustathius and Theopista, with their sons Agapius and
Theopistus. The story in the main points is a rechauffe of the Clementine Recogni
tions with altered names. It is criticized by Tillemont II. p. 226 sq., and Aube p. 280
sq. (2) Getulius, already mentioned as the husband of Symphorosa, and Amantius
his brother, with Cerealis, and Primitivus. Their day is June 10. These Acts are
not so extravagant as many, but they have no claim to be regarded as authentic. They
betray their late date by occasional indications, e.g. when they style Cerealis the
Vicarius of Hadrian. Licinius, who is designated consularis, is introduced into these
Acts, perhaps because his name was found in the rescript of Hadrian to Fundanus
(see above, p. 462 sq.). (3) Several martyrs in Italy and Sardinia (see Tillemont 11.
p. 228 sq.), Terentianus of Todi, Marcianus of Tortona, Secundus of Asti, Calocerus
of Albenga, Faustinus and Jovita of Brescia, and several others. (4) S. Serapia the
Virgin and S. Sabina her convert. Their Acts are criticized somewhat too leniently
by Tillemont (II. p. 597 sq.). They are too full of extravagances and present too
many historical difficulties to deserve credit. They are however comparatively old,
being quoted by the martyrologists of the ninth century, and the names of the saints
appear still earlier in the Old Roman Martyrology (iv Kal. Sept., iii Non. Sept.).
On the resting-place of these martyrs see Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1871, p> 9° s1''
1876, p. 71 sq. They may have been historical personages, but there is no sufficient
ground for placing their death under Hadrian. (5) Publius bishop of Athens. By
an error of Jerome his martyrdom has been assigned to this reign ; see below, p. 524 s1'
(6) The widow Sophia with her three Virgin daughters, Pistis, Elpis, and Agape, who
suffered in Rome. The oil from their tombs is among those sent by Gregory the

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 49 1
Great to Q. Theodolind ; but even here their unhistorical character betrays itself by
the fact of their being twice mentioned, first as ' S. Sophiae cum tres Alias suas' (sic),
and then as ' S. Spei, S. Sapientiae, S. Fidis (sic), S. Caritatis ', without any con
sciousness that they are the same persons, or rather the same impersonations. Their
Acts appear in several forms (see Tillemont 11. p. 586). In the Greek Menaea (Sept.
17) they are stated to have suffered under Diocletian. Assuredly they did suffer again
and again under him, as under other persecutors. De Rossi (Rom. Soiterr. II. p. 171
sq. ; comp. Bull, di Arch. Crist. 1882, p. 40) has a discussion on the two groups of
martyrs bearing these names in Rome ; and seems disposed to attach too much
credit to these martyrdoms. (7) S. Zoe with her husband S. Hesperus and their
two children ; Pamphylian saints, who however are stated to have suffered in Rome.
Their day is May 2. They are commemorated in the Greek Menaea, but not in the
Roman Church, till quite recent times. The Old Roman Martyrology however (iii
Non. Jul.) names a Zoe with her husband Nicostratus, who likewise perished at
Rome. It is impossible not to suspect some connexion.
This is not quite an exhaustive list ; but the few remaining names do not deserve
special consideration.
It will be seen from this summary that the direct evidence for a persecution under
Hadrian melts away under critical examination. Eusebius knows of no such persecu
tion. He mentions indeed that Quadratus presented his Apology to this emperor,
because ' certain wicked men were endeavouring to molest our people ' (H. E. iv. 3) ;
but the implication is that they were thwarted in their endeavours. At a later point
he introduces the rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, and quotes by way
of preface the words of Justin in which Hadrian is praised for his uprightness (H. E.
iv. 8, 9). Even the martyrdom of Telesphorus he places in the first year of Hadrian's
successor Antoninus Pius (H. £. Iv. 10). Still farther on (II. E. iv. 26) he quotes
the passage in Melito, in which this father mentions the favourable attitude of Hadrian
towards the Christians as shown in the rescript to Fundanus. So far therefore as
the knowledge of Eusebius goes, Hadrian's hands are guiltless of Christian blood.
Jerome however, as will appear presently (p. 525), from a misinterpretation of
Eusebius' words, assigns a ' very severe persecution ' to this reign, though he acquits
the emperor himself of any complicity in it (Epist. 70, Vir. Ill, 19, quoted below,
1. a). And somewhat later Sulpicius Severus, when he formulates the persecutions
and fixes the number at ten, counts the persecution of Hadrian as 'the fourth' (Chron.
ii. 31, quoted below, p. 525), doubtless misled by Jerome. From that time forward
it is accepted as a historical fact ; and in the Latin Church numerous martyrdoms are
assigned to this reign. When any Church in the West invested its founder or first
bishop with the glories of martyrdom, the reign of Hadrian was a convenient receptacle
for these real or supposed martyrdoms which were without a date. It has been seen
that all the evidence worth considering (inadequate as it is) for any persecutions under
Hadrian belongs to the Western Church. Yet even here it must be observed that
Tertullian writes as if he were ignorant of any sufferings undergone by the Christians
in this reign (Apol. 5, quoted below, p. 522).
At the same time it is necessary to repeat the caution which has already been
given in treating of the previous reign (p. 17 sq.). Our knowledge of Christian
history in the second century is very scanty and fragmentary. A persecution might
have raged in one and another quarter of the empire without leaving any record
behind.

492 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
There is one other important witness whose evidence deserves to be weighed.
The Shepherd of Hermas is full of references to persecutions. A living writer has
described this book as 'issuing from a bath of blood ' (Renan L'Fglise Chritienne
p. 303). It is indeed haunted in large parts by this ghastly spectre of persecution ( Vis,
i. 4, ii. a, 3, iii. 1,2, 5, 6, Mand. viii. io, Sim. viii. 3, 6, 8, 10, ix. 21, 26, 28). Much
stress is laid by Doulcet (p. 92 sq.) on the testimony of this book, which he places
about a.d. 136. Its date however is very uncertain. If the statement of the author
of the Muratorian Canon be rigorously interpreted1, it was written during the Roman
episcopate of Pius, i.e. a.d. 139 at the earliest, and therefore after Hadrian's death, if
Lipsius' chronology of the Roman bishops be correct (p. 263). Moreover when we
scan its evidence more closely, we do not find that persecution was actually raging
at the time, but only that it had raged in the past, and that it was then again
imminent in the expectations of the writer. ' Persecution cometh ' (BXiij/is (pxerai)
is the prophetic warning which he utters ( Vis. ii. 3 ; comp. Vis. iv. 1 ttjs BXltjiius
rrjs eirepxopivris). Whether his prophecy came true or not, we have no means of
saying. It might have been suggested by some occurrence soon after the accession of
Antoninus, or by the death of Telesphorus at the close of Hadrian's reign, if not by
some earlier event.
The mention of Telesphorus suggests the most probable account of the persecution
under Hadrian, if any such persecution there was. The disordered intellect and
morbid fears of the emperor at the close of his reign were fatal to some of his most
trusted and intimate friends, and this temper might well have broken out in a petulant
attack on the Christians. This hypothesis however does not satisfy the statement of
Jerome, to whom we have traced the tradition. This father evidently conceives it to
have raged in the earlier years of Hadrian, and to have ceased in consequence of the
Apologies presented to the emperor on the occasion of his visit to Athens (A.D. 125)1
Moreover he distinctly exculpates the emperor himself.

(ii) Antoninus Pius [a.d. 138 — 161].
(a) Publius Bishop of Athens.
Euseb. H. E. iv. 23 iXiyxei [robs 'ABr/valovs] oxrav pmpov Seiv drrooravras tou
Xbyov, e| ovirep rbv irpoearCha abrwv Hob7rXiov paprvprjaai Karb. robs rbre owiflr)
Siaypobs' KoSpdrov Si perd rbv paprvprjaavra UoiirXiov KaraoTavros abr&v imsdirov
pipvorai. Eusebius is here speaking of a letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the
Athenians. The mistake of Jerome in placing these incidents under Hadrian is
corrected below, p. 524 sq., where also reasons are given for assigning them to the
reign of his successor. (ft) Ptolemceus, Lucius, and another.
The account of these martyrdoms is given by Justin Apol. ii. 2, and runs as
follows ;
A certain woman, converted to Christianity, refused to gratify her husband in his
foul desires. Being unable to deter him, she obtained a divorce. In revenge he
1 ' Pastorem... Hermas conscripsit, se- Pio episcopo fratre ejus '; see Phdippums
dente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae p. 169.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 493
accused her of being a Christian. She petitioned the emperor to defer the trial until
she had settled some private affairs, and her petition was granted. The husband,
thus baffled, turned upon Ptolemseus, who had been her instructor in the faith. He
persuaded a centurion who was a friend to put Ptolemseus in chains, and examine him
on this single point, whether he was a Christian (dvepwrrjo-ai abrb rovro pMvov el
Xpurriavbs iart). Ptolemseus avowed his faith. Accordingly he was detained in prison
and ultimately brought up before Urbicus the prefect. The prefect again asked him
this same question and this only, whether he was a Christian (opoias abrd tovto piovov
e^rrrdo-Bii, el elrj xpurriaxos). Again he confessed, and this time he was sentenced to
death. As he was led away to execution, another Christian, Lucius, remonstrated with
Urbicus for sentencing an innocent man, simply because he called himself a Christian.
Lucius in turn was asked whether he was not himself a Christian. He confessed and
was sentenced to be executed. This happened likewise with ~ third. Justin adds
that he himself expects to be treated in the same way. It has been shown that
Lollius Urbicus was Prefect of the City in the later years of Antoninus Pius, about
a.d. 155 — 160; see Aube Saint Justin p. 68 sq., following Borghesi (Cavedoni
Nwrvi Cenni Cronologici, Modena 1858, p. 7 sq. ; Borghesi CEuvres VIII. p. 545).
This notice is especially valuable, first because it shows what might happen at any
moment, even when no regular persecution was raging, and secondly because it
exhibits the form of procedure, showing that there is no divergence from the principle
formulated by Trajan, and that the mere confession of Christianity was regarded as a
capital offence independently of any alleged crimes charged on the Christians.
(y) Polycarp and his Companions.
These martyrdoms will be shown hereafter to have taken place in all probability
inA.D. 155.
Once again criticism obliges us to reverse the verdict of tradition. Hadrian, who
is represented as a ruthless assailant of the Christians and to whose reign the fourth
general persecution is assigned, has come out from our investigation with compara
tively clean hands. On the ojher hand the reign of Antoninus Pius, which has been
regarded as a period of unbroken peace for the Church, is found to be stained with
the blood of not a few martyrs, and the instances known are such as to suggest that
sufferings of the same kind were by no means infrequent.
It has been pointed out (p. 492) that the gloomy forebodings of a coming persecu
tion in the Shepherd of Hermas may not improbably refer to the commencement of
Antoninus' reign ; and again in the First Apology of Justin, which was written in the
earlier years of this same emperor, martyrdom is more than once spoken of, as a very
presentdanger (i. 1, 4, n, 24, 25, 39, 45, 57, 68). The mere name of Christian was a
sufficient ground for condemnation (i. 4 rb ovopa ibs JXe7ji;oc Xapfidvert).

(iii) Marcus Aurelius [a.d. 161 — 180].
(a) Justin and his Companions [c. a.d. 163].
The Acts are printed in Otto's Justin Martyr, Op. It. p. 266 sq., ed. 3. Their bald
simplicity is the best guarantee of their genuineness, of which indeed there can be no
reasonable doubt. It seems plain also that the Justin here intended is none other

494 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
than the Apologist, from the answer which he gives to the Prefect, ' I strove to learn
all philosophies (Xbyovs), but I threw in my lot with (o-vveBipr/v) the true philosophy of
the Christians (tois dXr/Bio-i Xbyois rois twv xpi-ariav&v)'. The date is ascertainable
within narrow limits. Q. Junius Rusticus, the City Prefect by whom he is tried,
seems to have entered upon this office A. D. 163 (Aube Saint yustin p. 74, after Bor
ghesi CEuvres viii. p. 549, IX. p. 307). The only objection to this view is the fact that
in his Second Apology (§ 3), which was written some years earlier, Justin expresses his
apprehension lest Crescens might compass his destruction, and that Justin's pupil
Tatian (ad Graec. 19) likewise refers to these plots of Crescens. There is nothing
however in the language either of Justin or of Tatian, which shows that the appre
hensions were immediately justified by the event. Indeed the opposite might plausibly
be inferred from the fact that Tatian speaks of Crescens as plotting against himself as
well as against Justin. If the one escaped, why not the other ?
The names of Justin's companions who suffered with him are Chariton, Charito,
Euelpistus, Hierax, Pseon, and Liberianus. They are all interrogated one after the
other, confess themselves Christians, and are ordered off to execution. The interro
gations are brief and direct, and there is no exaggeration of language or extravagance
of incident. At the same time they are perfectly natural and lifelike.

(ft) Thraseas, Sagaris, and others [c. a.d. 165].
The authorities are Polycrates of Ephesus in Eus. H. E. v. 24 (ti Si Kal HoXimpTos
0 iv Spipvij Kal iirlaKoiros xal pdprvs, Kal Qpaalas iirlaKoiros Kal pjdprvs dirb Bbpevelas,
os ivUpbpvri KeKolprrrai' rl Si Set Xiyeiv "Zdyapiv iiriaKoirov Kal paprvpa, os iv AaoSiKelf
KeKolpiyrai, (ti Si Kal THairlpiov tov paxdpiov, Kal JieXlTwva rbv ebvovxov k.t.X., Melito in
Eus. H. E. iv. 26 iirl ~2.epovMd.ov IlatfXou dvBvrrdrov, $ ISdyapis Kaipip ipapripr\oev,
iyivero £t)rritris iroXXrj iv AaoSiKela irepl tou 7rao-x<t ipiretrbvTos Karb, Kaipbv iv helvtus
rdis r)p.ipais. Thraseas was likewise mentioned by Apollonius, Eus. H. E. v. 18 ml
Qpaaia Si rivos twv rbre paprvpwv pvijpoveiiei. His name appears also in Vit. Polyc.
20 /kto rijv airbBeviv rov awparos Qpaaiov tov pdprvpos '. and in Wright's Syriac
Martyrology p. 10 under Oct. 27 we read, 'In the city of Eumeneia in Phrygia,
Thraseas, Polycarpus, Gaius, and eight others '.
Waddington (Pastes Asiatiques p. 228), following Borghesi (CEuvres VIII. p. 504,
comp. ix. p. 310), places the proconsulate of Paullus, whose nomen here should be written
Sergius instead of Servillius, within the years a.d. 164 — 166. In the years a.d. i64and
a.d. 167 the Paschal full moon fell on a Sunday, and this maybe what Melito means
by ipireaovros Karb. Kaipbv (see Salmon in Smith and Wace Diet, of Christ. Biogr. ill.
p. 896 s. v. Melito). The later date however would seem to be almost too late for the
cursus honorum of Sergius Paullus, so that, if our interpretation of Melito's words be
correct, we should probably adopt a.d. 164. At all events this date cannot be very
far wrong. But the order — Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris — seems to be chronological;
and if so, the martyrdom of Thraseas must be placed some time between a.d. 155 and
a.d. 164. Like Polycarp, he suffered at Smyrna ; and, if it was at a recurrence of the
same quinquennial festival, the year must have been A.D. 159 or 163. But where so
many ' ifs ' are involved in the process, though no one may be improbable in itself,
the final result must be precarious. It may be a question whether Papirius and
Melito are here included among the martyrs. Papirius is the bishop of Smyrna next
in succession to Polycarp (see above, p. 448).

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 495
These sporadic martyrdoms, of which the notices have been accidentally pre
served, are valuable as showing the dangerous position of the Christians throughout
the reign of M. Aurelius.
(y) Felicitas and her Seven Sons [a.d. 162 ?].
This document may be conveniently read in Ruinart Acta Martyrum Siiuera p. 72
sq. (Ratisb. 1859), or in Doulcet Rapports de I'Eglise Chritienne etc., p. 190 sq.; see
also the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, Julius, III. p. 12. Doulcet has given a list of the
Paris MSS containing it, and has printed it from ' the most correct and most ancient ' of
these. A much longer recension of these Acts is likewise given in the Bollandist
Act. Sanct. I.e. p. 14 sq.; but this is obviously enlarged from the shorter form at a later
date and may be dismissed from our consideration.
The pontiffs make a representation to the emperor Antoninus that the gods will
not be appeased so long as the widow Felicitas and her sons insult them. Antoninus
therefore orders Publius the City Prefect to compel them to sacrifice. The prefect
obeys ; but neither by blandishments nor by menaces can they be induced to yield. The
mother encourages her sons, one at least being a very young child, in their resistance.
The names of the sons are Januarius, Felix, Philippus, Silanus, Alexander, Vitalis,
and Martialis. Publius sends his report to the emperor who delivers the prisoners
to different judges that they may be put to death by different modes of punishment
(misit per varios judices, ut variis suppliciis laniarentur). Accordingly the first is
beaten to death with leaded thongs ; the second and third with clubs ; the fourth is
thrown down a precipice; the fifth, sixth, and seventh, suffer capital punishment; the
mother herself likewise is beheaded.
Tillemont (Mimoircs 11. p. 324 sq.) touches lightly on these Acts ; but they have
been the subject of fuller discussion in Borghesi CEuvres VIII. p. 545 sq. (reprinted
from Cavedoni Aruovi Cenni Cronologici p. 7 sq.), Aube Comptcs Rendus de VAcad.
des Inscr. 1875, p. 125 sq. (reprinted in Histoire des Persicutions p. 439 sq.), Doulcet
Rapports de ritgHse Chritienne p. 187 sq.; besides several papers of De Rossi in the
Bulletmi di Archeologia Cristiana.
It is a general opinion that the document was originally written in Greek. So
Tillemont, Borghesi, and Doulcet. This opinion is founded on such expressions as
regi Antonino, a rendering of the Greek fiaaiXei, for ' rex ' is not used of the Roman
emperor till much later ; seditio pontificum, where ' seditio ' is a mistranslation of
oinratsis 'a conference'; and the like.
The authenticity of these Acts has been maintained by De Rossi, Borghesi, Doulcet,
and others, but attacked by Aube. Renan (Marc-Aurile p. 58) accepts Aube's
view. Tillemont writes of them cautiously that they ' have not all the characteristics
of genuine Acts *. This is a too lenient judgment. Their internal characteristics
seem fatal to their authenticity. Like the legend of Symphorosa and her seven sons,
which I have considered already (p. 486 sq.), this is only one of several reproductions
of the story of the Maccabaean mother. Moreover its fabulous character is shown by
the incidents themselves. The conduct of the pontiffs is hardly explicable ; the part
ascribed to the emperor is still less credible. I am very far from saying that under
Antoninus Pius or M. Aurelius — more especially under the latter — the execution of
eight Chrislians in Rome itself, and by the emperor's own orders, is an incident
beyond the range of possibility or even of probability. The fate of Justin and his
companions, who were put to death in Rome itself by the City Prefect, the intimate and

496 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
trusted friend of M. Aurelius, under his very eyes, and the martyrdoms of Vienne and
Lyons, for which M. Aurelius made himself directly responsible (see below, p. 499 sq.),
show how little the Christians could hope from the tender mercies of this otherwise
humane and philosophic emperor. But the procedure, which refers them to other
judges after they have been tried and have confessed their guilt before the City
Prefect, is unintelligible; and the childishness which adopts this course, that different
judges may inflict different punishments, condemns itself by its absurdity.
Is there then no foundation of truth in this story ? The answer to this question
must be sought in the early records and monuments, which are independent of the
Acts. In the Bucherian Calendar, which in its present form belongs to the age of
Liberius (a.d. 354), but was compiled some twenty years earlier, among the depositions
of the saints under ' vi Id. Jul.' we have the entry; ' Felicis et Philippi in Priscillae;
et in Jordanorum, Martialis, Vitalis, Alexandri; et in Maximi, Silani (hunc Silanum
martyrem Novati furati sunt); et in Pretextati, Januarii' (Ruinart p. 632). This
10th of July is accordingly designated ' the day of the Martyrs '' elsewhere in an early
sepulchral inscription, in which we read VII . IDVS . JVL . DP . POSTERA . DIE .
martyrorvm (Corsini Append, ad Notas Graecorum p. 12; comp. Bull, di Archeol.
Crist.\%l\, p. 149). Of the four cemeteries named in the Bucherian list the first three
were on the Salarian, the fourth on the Appian way. On the Cemetery of Priscilla
see De Rossi Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1880 p. 5 sq.; and on the memorial of Felix
and Philippus erected there comp. especially pp. 5 sq., 25, 43 sq., 47 sq. The
epitaph on these two persons ascribed to Damasus has been preserved (see p. 44).
It speaks of them as martyrs, but says nothing of their being brothers or sons of
Felicitas. The Cemetery of the Jordani, in which Martialis, Vitalis, and Alexander
were laid, was ravaged by the Goths A.D. 537, when tbe inscription placed in their
honour by Damasus was destroyed (see Doulcet p. 206). But it is related of Pope
Symmachus (a.d. 498 — 514) that he renovated this cemetery 'propter corpus sancti
Alexandri ' ; and a fragment of an inscription has been restored so as to refer to this
event, [reddit . alexand]ro . septem . de . [fratribvs . vni] (see Bull, di
Arch. Crist. 1873, pp. 17, 46). If this restoration be correct, the story of the seven
brothers had already taken shape, but it cannot command entire confidence, where so
much is conjecture. The Seven Virgins likewise were buried in this cemetery, and
the reference may be to these. On the Cemetery of Maximus, where the bones of
Silanus lay, until according to the story they were removed by the Novatians, see
Bull, di Arch. Crist. 1863, p. 4r sq. In this cemetery was buried also the body of
S. Felicitas. Of Pope Boniface who was residing here at the time of his election
(A.D. 418, Dec. 29), it is stated in the Liber Pontificalis, that he 'fecit oratoriumin
coemeterio sanctae Felicitatis juxta corpus et ornavit sepulchrum sanctae martyris
Felicitatis et S. Livanii (Silvani ?) '; and on this building was an inscription containing
the verse Insontes pueros sequitur [parens] per amoena vireta.
Pope Damasus also wrote an inscription for her tomb, in which was the line
Femina non timuit gladium, cum natis obivit.
Hitherto we have not found the actual tombs of any of these martyrs; but the case
is different with Januarius the remaining one of the seven. For a description of the
Cemetery of Praetextatus on the Appian way, see Bull, di Arch. Crist. 1863, p. r sq.,
1872, p. 45 sq. Here the tomb of Januarius was found in 1858 with the inscription
by Damasus beat[issimo . martyri] . jan[vario . daJmasvs . Efnscop] ¦ n-

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 497
[CIT]. The architecture of the chamber in which it is placed is confidently assigned
by De Rossi to the age of the Antonines.
A basilica of S. Felicitas was likewise discovered in the year 1812 near the Baths
of Titus; and on one of the walls were inscribed words which might be read 'AXefax-
Spoli Tore So/bos 06V (Piale in Guattani's Memorie Enciclopediche sulle Antichitd etc. di
Roma, 1816, p. 153 sq.). It is conjectured that Alexander was the husband of Felicitas
(the legend gives her a son Alexander, still an infant, when he was martyred), and that
as a widow she occupied the house after his death (Doulcet p. 210; comp. De Rossi
Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1869, p. 45, 1876, p. 47). In this building Gregory the
Great delivered his extant homily (In Evang. Horn. i. 3, Op. v. p. 15 1 sq., Venet. 1 769)
in honour of S. Felicitas. It is described as ' habita ad populum in basilica sanctae
Felicitatis martyris in die natali ejus ', and in the course of the homily Gregory says,
'Adest beata Felicitas cujus hodie natalitia celebramus... septem quippe filios, sicut
in gestis ejus emendatioribus legitur, sic post se timuit vivos in carne relinquere, etc'
It is supposed that these ' gesta emendatiora ' are the Acts of which we are speaking,
and that Gregory contrasts them with the longer form which (as I have mentioned)
is printed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum.
But this seems to me very questionable. This same Gregory, sending as
reliques to the Lombard Queen Theodolind oil from the tombs of the martyrs at
Rome, accompanies them with a list (Ruinart p. 634, De Rossi Rom. Sotterr. I. p.
176). In one part of the list we have ' Sanctae Felicitatis cum septem filios suos '
(sic)} and much lower down at intervals, separated from each other, the names of the
July Martyrs in three groups; (1) 'Sancti Vitalis, Sancti Alexandri, Sancti Mar
tialis', (2) 'Sancti Felicis, Sancti Philippi et aliorum multorum sanctorum',
(3) ' Sancti Januari ', in accordance with the grouping of the Liberian catalogue (see
above, p. 496); Silanus not being mentioned, doubtless because his body had disap
peared and was supposed to have been stolen away by the Novatians. Thus Gregory
not only betrays no knowledge that the July Martyrs are sons of Felicitas, but treats
them as separate persons. Moreover the ' birth-day ' of S. Felicitas is uniformly
placed on Nov. 23, and the birth-days of the Seven Martyrs named as above on
July 10; whereas the extant Acts evidently represent the mother as suffering at the
same time with her sons1. On the other hand the form of entry in the Old Roman
Martyrology seems to point to the later legend which makes these martyrs sons of
Felicitas. On vi Id. Jul. [July 10] we read ' Romae, Septem fratrum ', and on ix
Kal. Dec. [Nov. 23] ' Felicitatis, matris vii filiorum '. The Hieronymian Mar
tyrology has on the former day ' natalis sanctorum septem germanorum, id est Felicis,
Philippi, Vitalis, Martialis, Alexandri, Silani, Januarii ', and on the latter ' Fe
licitatis '.
Doulcet in an interesting essay (p. 187 sq.) has gathered together the particulars
which I have given respecting the monuments, for the purpose of establishing the
authenticity of the statements in the Acts. To myself they seem to fall far short of
proving this. They do indeed appear to show that the July Martyrs were real
'Et matrem eorum capite truncari Some mss have 'et paullo post ab alio
jussit' (Doulcet, p. 192 sq.), where it may jussa est decollari ', which is evidently an
be a question whether the subject is emendation to reconcile the narrative
Antoninus', or the last-mentioned judge with the fact of the mother being com-
who condemned three of the brothers. mcmorated more than four months later
For'et'Ruinartreads 'alius', i.e. 'judex'. than the sons.

IG. I.

32

498 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
persons, but they indicate that in the earlier forms of the story they were not repre
sented as sons of Felicitas, or even as brothers one of another. The separation into four
groups in the Liberian list, and the four different places of sepulture, suggest that they
had no other connexion with one another, except the day of their martyrdom, and
the link of Christian brotherhood. They may not even have suffered in the same
year. An easy explanation offers itself of the independent martyrdom of so many
persons on the same day of the same month. This day, vi Id. Jul., was the accession
of Antoninus Pius. As such, it would naturally be the day on which M. Aurelius
was associated in the honours of the imperial dignity. Thus during the reign of the
former certainly, and during that of the latter very probably, it would be kept as a
day of festivity (see Fronto Epist. p. 167, Naber). But these imperial anniversaries
were especially fatal to the Christians. There was a double reason for this. On
the one hand the festivity demanded victims for the arena, and thus whetted
the appetite of the people for the blood of tbe ' atheists '. On the other the occa
sion suggested a test — the worship of the ' genius * of the emperor — with which a
Christian could not conscientiously comply, and thus it supplied the victims which the
festival required. It seems not improbable also (though here the evidence is more
scanty) that Felicitas likewise was a real person, and she may even have had a son or
sons who were martyred. But the legend, as we have it, has fitted her martyrdom
into a framework adopted from the Maccabaean story ; while names for her sons— thus
made seven in number — have been borrowed from the July Martyrs. How this
conjunction was effected, it would be impossible to say. Perhaps it was suggested by
the fact that one of these martyrs, Silanus, was laid in the same cemetery with
Felicitas herself. Nor again is it easy to say what was the original nucleus, and what
are the later accretions, in the existing Acts of Felicitas, as published by Ruinart.
Reasons have been given above (p. 497) for suspecting that the gesta emendaliora,
known to Gregory the Great, did not contain the names of the July Martyrs; but, if
this suspicion be correct, we are still unable to say what relation they bore to the
existing Acts.
It still remains to enquire at what date these martyrs may have suffered. And
here we first interrogate the Acts. But their evidence on this point has been dif
ferently interpreted. Ruinart assigns the martyrdoms to the reign of Antoninus
Pius, about a.d. 150; De Rossi, Borghesi, Doulcet, and others, to the joint sovereignty
of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, a.d. 162 ; Aube, to that of Severus and Caracalla, A.D.
198 — 203.
The reigning and acting sovereign is mentioned in various ways; 'Antonini Im
peratoris', ' Antonino Augusto ', ' Imperator Antoninus ', 'Dominus noster Imperator
Antoninus', 'Imperatori', 'Antoninus'. But elsewhere a plural is used ; 'Dominorum
nostrorum jussa ', ' amicus Augustorum ', ' Augustorum instituta '- These last ex
pressions imply a divided sovereignty ; for, though we might perhaps explain ' Augus
torum instituta ' of the decrees of successive sovereigns, ' amicus Augustorum ' resists
this interpretation. The reign of Antoninus Pius therefore is eliminated; and we have
only to consider the other two alternatives.
The objection to the latter of the two, the joint rule of Severus and Antoninus
(Caracalla), is the prominence given to Caracalla, then a boy from 10 to 15 years old .
Nor indeed is it easy to find a time when he would be in Rome and alone within
the possible limits of date. Severus was in the East nearly the whole time, ana
1 He was born April 4, A. D. 188 ; see Horner Septimius Severus p. 44-

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 499
Caracalla apparently was with him. They returned to Rome together A.D. 202
(Herodian. iii. xo. 1). The Acts therefore point to the divided sovereignty of M.
Aurelius and L. Vems. The name of the City Prefect is given as Publius ; and
Borghesi seems to have established the fact that Publius Salvius Julianus was prefect
in A.D. 161, 162 (CEuvres vm. p. 548 sq., ix. p. 302 sq.), being succeeded in the
office by Rusticus not before A.D. 163 '.
This date is further confirmed by other considerations lying outside the Acts
themselves, (a) The great inundation of the Tiber, followed by a terrible famine, as
recorded by Capitolinus (Marcus 8), has been shown to have occurred in a.d. 162;
see Borghesi I. c. p. 549. This would furnish the occasion when the pontiffs declared
' deos nostras sic irasci ut penitus placari non possint '. (j3) We have seen that
De Rossi confidently ascribes the burial chamber of Januarius to the age of the
Antonines. This is disputed by Aube, p. 453 sq. Judging from analogous cases,
I should have thought it somewhat difficult to assert with confidence that the archi
tecture and decorations of a building must fix its date about A.D. 160, and would not
allow of its having been built forty years later. But it is presumptuous in any one
who has not made a special study of the subject to challenge a verdict which is
founded on patient investigation and long experience. (7) Lastly : the day of the
martyrdom of the seven sons (this does not apply to Felicitas herself) — the roth of
July — is a strong point in favour of the earlier date. This day, as we have seen
(p. 498), was a festival under Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius, and therefore a likely
time for martyrdoms under these emperors ; but no such coincidence can be found for
the reign of Severus.

(8) The Gallican Martyrs [a.d. 177].
The history of the persecutions at Vienne and Lyons is recorded in a contemporary
letter from these churches to 'the brethren in Asia and Phrygia'. The document
itself indeed has been lost, but very large parts of it are preserved by Eusebius H.E.
v. 1,2. In fact so far as regards the actual persecution, Eusebius has probably not
passed over anything of very material importance. The date is fixed definitely to the
17th year of M. Antoninus, a.d. 177 (H.E. v. procem.).
The persecution was wholesale, so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear
out of doors (§ 5). No difference of age or sex was made. The nonagenarian Pothinus,
the slave girl Blandina, the young lad Ponticus, all were remorselessly slaughtered.
The prisoners were put to the most cruel tortures. All the elements of power com
bined to crush the brethren. The multitude was infuriated against them (§ 7 -qypiwpivw
irX?jSei eis irpos exBpovs Kal iroXepdovs aiiXei ylveaBai : comp. ii. ra dirb rov o^Xou iravSij-
pel euprjSbv iiriQepbpeva). Even their very kinsmen and connexions turned upon
them like wild beasts, exasperated by the foul libels disseminated against them (§ 15).
The governor of the province made a public proclamation that all the Christians
should be sought out (§ 14 Sijpocrla eKiXevaev 0 rjyepuav avaiirre'urBai irdvras rjpds).
Lastly, the emperor himself was consulted concerning some of the prisoners, and his
1 The name Publius however, assigned was City Prefect (C. I. L. II. 2073), and
to the Prefect, is equally consistent with he must have held the office about a.d.
the later date assigned by Aube" to the 200 (Doulcet p. 199; comp. Aube" pp. 457,
martyrdom. Publius Cornelius Anullinus 464, Borghesi CEuvres ix. p. 333).

3

9-

500 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
sentence was awaited (§44). He replied that those who denied their Christianity
should be let off, and the others put to death. The principle of Trajan's rescript.
was acted upon, so far as regards the grounds of condemnation. 'Nomen ipsum',
the mere profession of Christianity, was sufficient to condemn the accused. On the
other hand the governor departed from the directions of this rescript in hunting out
the Christians. Altogether it was the most bloody persecution on record up to this
date, except perhaps the Neronian ; and for it Marcus Aurelius is directly and person
ally responsible.
Eusebius prefaces his extracts from the Letters of the Gallican Churches by saying
that we may conjecture from this one example how the persecution raged in various
parts (Kara riva pipij) of the earth ; and again at the close he adds that we may fairly
infer from this account what would probably happen in the other provinces (ev rats
XoiiraTs eirapxlais). The reasonableness of this suspicion can hardly be denied.
Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart. 49) states the number of the martyrs to have been
48, but his existing text gives the names of only 45. Perhaps three have fallen out
in the course of transcription. He would find a list in the Letter to Eleutherus
mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. v. 4). As his threefold division of the martyrs cor
responds with Eusebius' account, it is clear that he derived his information from this
source. Of the names mentioned in the extracts of the Gallican Letter preserved by
Eusebius (H. E. v. 1), Attalus is wanting in Gregory. For Gregory's account of
these same martyrdoms in his Hist. Franc, i. 26, see below, p. 551.
Connected with this general onslaught and consequent upon it, are certain sporadic
martyrdoms in Gaul, the later gleanings of the persecution ; but they are not recorded
on any trustworthy authority. Such is the story of Benignus and his converts. Of
these I have spoken already (p. 431). Such likewise are the sufferings of Epipodius
and Alexander at Pierre Encise a suburb of Lyons, and again of Symphorianus at
Autun. Their Acts are included by Ruinart in his collection (p. 119 sq.); but they
condemn themselves by their internal character. Such again are some martyrdoms, in
addition to these, recorded in the pages of Gregory of Tours ; but a place in his narra
tive is no guarantee of historic truth. It is much to be regretted that Eusebius did not
give all the documents connected with the persecution at Vienne and Lyons complete.
We should then possibly have found some attachment to authentic history in some of
these stories. Without this aid, it would be only lost labour to attempt to extricate
the historic facts which underlie the legends. Some of these martyrdoms are dealt
with by Tillemont Mimoires in. p. 30 sq.

(e) Ccecilia and her Companions [a.d. 177 — 180?].
Caacilia was a lady of illustrious birth, who had been brought up from her cradle
as a Christian. She was betrothed to a young man, * heathen named Valerian, but
had dedicated her virginity to God. On the day when the marriage was to have
been consummated, she persuaded him to seek the counsels of Pope Urban. He did
so, and was converted and baptized. Valerian had a brother Tiburtius, still a heathen.
He was overcome by the discourses of Valerian and Caacilia; and after catechetical
instruction from Urban, he followed his brother's example. A persecution was raging
at this time. Turcius Almachius, the Prefect of the City, was slaughtering the saints
daily, and had ordered their bodies to remain without burial. Tiburtius and Valerian
disobeyed these orders and devoted themselves to the pious work of burying the dead.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 50 1
Summoned before the prefect, they confessed their Christianity and were ordered
away to execution. They were led away by Maximus the chamberlain ('cubicularius')
of the prefect to the place called 'Pagus', situated at the fourth milestone from the
city. There they were slain by the sword. But meanwhile Maximus himself had
been so impressed by their demeanour and conversation, that he was baptized — he
and his family; and many others were converted by his instrumentality. For this
Almachius sentenced him to be beaten to death with leaded thongs. His body was
laid by Caacilia in the same tomb with those of her husband and brother-in-law.
After this she herself was brought before the prefect. Having boldly avowed her
religion and rebuked the prefect, she was by his order confined in her bath which was
heated intensely for the purpose of scorching her to death. A day and a night she
remained there, suffering no inconvenience. Then the prefect sent an executioner to
behead her. Striking three blows and failing to sever the head, the executioner left
her, while the Christians whom she had converted stanched the wounds with linen
cloths. For three days she survived, during which time she left her house to his
'holiness' Pope Urban to be a church for ever. Then she delivered up her soul to
God. The day of her departure was the 22nd of November. Her body was taken
up by Urban, who buried it 'among other bishops his colleagues, where all the con
fessors and martyrs are deposited'. According to her injunctions her house was con
verted into a church.
Such is the skeleton of the story of S. Caecilia, divested of the miracle and
romance. It is contained in her Acts, of which an account will be found in De Rossi
Roma Sotterr. II. p. xxxii. sq., and in Aube Les Chretiens dans I' Empire Remain
(a.d. 180—249) i88i,.p. 352 sq. They may be conveniently read in Surius under
Nov. 22. His text is a re-translation from the Metaphrast, who had translated them
from the original Latin into Greek. For the Greek see 5. Caeciliae Virginis et Mar
tyris Acta etc. a J. Laderchio 1. p. 229 sq. (Romae 1722). The various Acts are
given in this volume as edited by Bosio.
These Acts are plainly not authentic. To say nothing of their general character,
they abound in the supernatural, while they betray themselves by their anachronisms
and inconsistencies. Thus Cecilia is stated to have been martyred under Pope
Urban (a.d. 222—230), and a violent persecution was raging at the time — so violent
that the Christians are hunted out of their hiding-places and decent burial is denied
to the slain. But this period falls within the reign of Alexander Severus, when the
Christians were not only unmolested, but even regarded with favour. Moreover the
Acts speak of more than one emperor, 'Domini nostri invictissimi principes', 'ab
invictissimis principibus ', 'imperatores'; but there was no divided rule during this
period. Again the names of the prefect, Turcius Almachius (TobpKios 6 Kal 'AXpdKios),
are suspicious, and savour of a later date.
The Acts of Pope Urban are a sequel to those of S. Caecilia, written perhaps
much later, but certainly founded on them. The same prefect Turcius Almachius
appears in them, and the dimensions of the persecution are still further magnified.
Altogether these Acts only increase the difficulty, without throwing any light on the
facts underlying the fiction. The different recensions of these Acts will be found in
the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum May 25. The least extravagant form of them is there
accepted as genuine, and attributed to the notaries of the Roman Church under Anteros
the successor of Urban in the papal chair. Their spurious character is laid bare by
Tillemont Memoires III. p. 686 sq., and by Aube Les Chritiens etc. p. 381 sq. ; comp.
also Lipsius Chronol. der Rom. Bisch. p. 179 sq.

502 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
If therefore we had possessed only the Acts, we might have rejected the whole
story of Caecilia as pure fiction without any basis of historical truth. Indeed, the
narrative would, if true, have had no interest for my present investigation, inasmuch
as the martyrdom is placed by these Acts outside the limits of time with which I am
concerned. But we are compelled by certain historical incidents, relating to the real
or supposed remains of Caecilia, to reconsider the matter.
In the year 817 Pope Paschal I. removed to the different churches within the city
the reliques of 2300 martyrs buried in the extra-mural catacombs — among them
those lying in the Papal crypt in the Cemetery of S. Callistus. Desiring to translate
the remains of S. Caecilia with the rest, he could nowhere find them. He therefore
accepted the common rumour that they had been carried off by the Lombards under
Aistulph (a.d. 755). Four years later however the saint herself appeared to him in a
vision, and told him that he had been so close to her that they ' could have con
versed together ' (' ut proprio loqui invicem ore valeremus '). Acting upon this hint
he renewed the search and, as he tells us in the diploma issued on the occasion
(Labb. Cone. ix. p. 593, ed. Coleti, Mans. Cone. xiv. p. 374), 'Ipsius venerabilis virginis
corpus. ..in Coemeterio Sancti Xysti sito foris portam Appiam, sicut in sacratissima
illius passione manifeste narratur, inter collegas episcopos, in aureis indumentis cum
venerabili sponso1 reperimus, ubi etiam linteamina, cum quibus sacratissimus sanguis
ejus abstersus est de plagis quas spiculator [speculator] trina percussione crudeliter
ingesserat, ad pedes beatissimae virginis in unum revoluta plenaque cruore invenimus'
(see De Rossi Rom. Sotterr. 11. p. 133). Compare Laderchi 5. Caec. Virg. et Mart.
Act. 1. p. 200, where this Diploma is annotated by Bosio. The same account is given
also by the writer who continued the Liber Pontificalis from A.D. 757 — 858, -and
who therefore was contemporary or almost contemporary with the discovery; but
the similarity of language shows that he had the account of Paschal himself before
him, and does not write independently. For ' Sancti Xysti ' however the Liber
Pontificalis substitutes ' Praetextati ' — an error which is explained by the circumstances
mentioned below in the note. The burial place named by Pope Paschal is the Crypt
of S. Xystus (or Sixtus) in the Cemetery of S. Callistus, 'in Coemeterio S. Callisti
ad S. Xystum'. It was the common burial place of the popes in the third century and
the earlier years of the fourth, the principal personage being Xystus II, the martyr in
the persecution under Valerian (A.D. 258). Sometimes however instead of 'ad S.
Xystum ' it was called ' ad S. Caeciliam ', from the other famous martyr who lay in
this locality. From this its original resting-place the body of S. Caecilia was trans
lated with all honour to the basilica which bears her name in the Trastevere. At the

1 The ' venerabilis sponsus ' here men- their original resting-place to this crypt
tioned is doubtless Valerian ; but Valerian, of S. Xystus. Other independent reasons
Tiburtius, and Maximus, were buried not exist for supposing that such a translation
in the Cemetery of S. Callistus, but in took place (De Rossi Rom. Sotterr. n. p.
that of Pratextatus, on the other side of 134 sq.). This hypothesis will explain
the Appian way. Unless therefore the the error of the Liber Pontificalis which
words ' cum venerabili sponso ' are a places the body of S. Caecilia herself in
later insertion in the diploma, being the Cemetery of Pratextatus. Some
taken from the Liber Pontificalis, there copies of Paschal's letter combine the
must have been before Paschal's time a two, and write ' S. Sixti seu Praetex-
translation of Valerian's remains from tati'.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 503
same time Paschal removed to the same place the bones of Valerian, Tiburtius, and
Maximus, and those of Urban and Lucius the ' pontiffs '.
In the year 1599 Sfondrati Cardinal of S. Caecilia, at that time engaged in
restoring the Church, opened the graves beneath and behind the high altar, and
discovered the sarcophagus as deposited there by Pope Paschal. Within the sar
cophagus, enclosed in a coffin of cypress wood, was the body of a young woman lying
on the right side, her knees slightly drawn and her face turned towards the ground.
Her dress, inwoven with gold thread, was stained with blood. At her feet were the
linen cloths saturated with blood, as described by Paschal. Tbe modern statue by
Maderna is intended to represent the attitude of the body as it was found. The body
was seen among many others, including Pope Clement himself, by Baronius (Annal.
ann. 821, §§ xv, xvi) and by Bosio (Historia Passionis S. Caeciliae, Romae 1600),
both of whom have left descriptions. At the same time the remains — or what seemed
to be such — of the other bodies deposited there by Paschal were found.
There seems no reason therefore for questioning the identity of the body discovered
at the close of the sixteenth century with the body removed from the Cemetery of S.
Xystus by Paschal and deposited there as that of S. Caecilia nearly eight centuries
before. But can we trace it farther back than this?
The recent discoveries of De Rossi in the immediate proximity to the Crypt of
S. Xystus (Rom. Sotterr. 11. p. 113 sq.) enable us to give a partial answer to this
question. Leading out of the papal crypt, he found another chamber, to which the
passage had been blocked up. It contained a large niche which was empty. Above
this was a picture of a female saint, dressed in rich robes betokening noble birth.
At her foot were written the names of several priests and of a ' scriniarius '. Below
this picture is another of a bishop, bearing the name s. VRBAXVS. By its side are
some letters which De Rossi fills in with great probability [dejcori . [ca]ec . [m]ar.,
i.e. ' decori Caeciliae Martyris '. In this same chamber were found also the fragments
of an epitaph which, by supplying the missing letters, gives the name 5EIITI1II02 .
nPAirfE32T]AT02 . KAIK[IAIAN02]. This inscription he judges from the style to
belong to the beginning or middle of the third century. In the same chamber also he
found another inscription [octajvivs . caecilianvs . v. c. [in . pa]ce . de
posit . (where v. c. stands for ' Vir Clarissimus '), with the monogram vjf .
Moreover in other parts of the Cemetery of Callistus — more especially in the Crypt of
Lucina — were found other memorials of Christian Caecilii and Caeciliani from the end
of the second century onward ; and above ground in this very region were colum
baria and other sepulchral monuments of the heathen Caecilii from the time of Au
gustus (Rom. Sotterr. I. p. 310 sq., II. p. 137 sq., p. 361 sq.).
There can be very little doubt therefore that we have discovered the place from
which Paschal removed the body — or what he supposed to be the body — of
i>. Caecilia in the 9th century. Indeed De Rossi, drawing his inference from the
names themselves and from the character of the writing, believes that the priests
and the scriniarius, whose names appear at the foot of the saint, are the persons who
witnessed the discovery and removal of her remains on this occasion. This is evidently
the locality intended in the Acts, where Pope Urban is stated to have buried Caecilia
inter alios collegas suos episcopos, ubi sunt omnes confessores et martyres depositi '
(§26). But if so, what inferences may we draw from the tomb and its surroundings?
The answer given by De Rossi is as follows ; that Caecilia was, as she is represented
in her Acts, a lady of noble birth; that the land here belonged to her gens; that some

504 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
members of the family were converted to Christianity in the second century, so that
Caecilia was a Christian from her cradle, as the Acts state; that these Christian
Caecilii made over the subterranean vaults for the purposes of Christian burial, and
consequently they themselves were laid here ; that this was the origin of the Cemetery
of S. Callistus, or at least of parts of it; that, inasmuch as we find a member of the
family bearing the name Prsetextatus, we not improbably have here an explanation of
the name of a neighbouring Cemetery, Coemeterium Pretextati (comp. Bull, di
Archeol. Crist. 1872, p. 47 sq.), and of the circumstance that her husband is said to
have been buried in this Cemetery ; that the main outlines of the story are true ; that
they were preserved by tradition in the family ; and that some member of it dressed
up the tradition with the usual exaggerations, embellishments, and distortions, not
before the end of the fourth century, in the form which is presented in the ex
tant Acts.
This is a mere outline of De Rossi's theory, which ought to be considered in all
its subsidiary details before justice can be done to it. Without pledging ourselves to
every point in it, we may allow that (granting the preservation of a body under such
circumstances for so long a period of years, and this after all is the real difficulty) it
seems to explain all the facts of the case. We may therefore accept it provisionally,
until some better explanation is offered. Yet Aube most unaccountably (p. 352 sq.),
though he devotes between 60 and 70 pages to the subject and even criticizes De
Rossi's opinion respecting the date of the martyrdom, entirely ignores both the history
of the supposed remains and the recent discoveries in the Cemetery of Callistus.
Lipsius (p. 181 sq.) does indeed refer to these points; but he is far from doing justice
to the theory and does not examine it as a whole. Renan (Marc-Aurile p. 453 sq.)
only touches the subject, so far as to question whether the Caecilii of the Christian
inscriptions bore the name ' by right of blood '.
But the question still remains. Granted that Caecilia was a real person, when
was she martyred ? The Latin Acts, as we have seen, place the martyrdom under
Alexander Severus ; the Greek Menaea (Nov. 22) under Diocletian. De Rossi (11.
p. 147 sq.) falls back on a notice in Ado, who writes 'passa est autem beata virgo
Marci Aurelii et Commodi imperatorum temporibus', i.e. a.d. 177 — 180, when father
and son were joint-emperors. This date had also been adopted, though hesitatingly,
by Tillemont (Mimoires ill. pp. 260, 689 sq.), who however suggests Sicily as the
place of martyrdom on the strength of a line in Venantius Fortunatus, Miscell. viii. 6
(p. 271 Migne), ' Caeciliam Sicula profert, Seleucia Teclam '. This date agrees with
the plural, which occurs several times in the Acts, ' domini ', ' imperatores ,
' principes ', and points to a divided sovereignty. Nor is there any force in the
objection of Aube (p. 402) that under M. Aurelius 'a high functionary of State' would
not have used such an expression as ' domini nostri invictissimi imperatores ', these
adulatory forms only commencing to be used under the Severian dynasty and not
becoming common till towards the end of the 3rd century. For (1) it is not asserted
that the Acts were contemporary or nearly contemporary documents, or that they
preserve the exact expressions used. The contention is that though the Acts were
written down in their present form some two or three centuries later, yet they have
preserved the tradition of a divided sovereignty. But (2) Fronto addresses
Antoninus Pius as 'sanctissime imperator' (p. 169), while his common expression
of M. Aurelius and L. Verus is ' dominus meus '. Still fuller testimony may be
obtained from the inscriptions. Have we not a sufficiently close parallel in such
language as C. I. L. VI. 1001 'Optimo maximoque principi et cum summa benignitate

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 505
justissimo' of Antoninus Pius; viii. 2547 'fortissimo liberalissimoquc principe',
VI. 1009 ' optimo ac piissimo', ib. 1014 'omnes omnium ante se maximorum impera-
torum glorias supergressus bellicosissimis gentibus deletis aut subactis', of M. Aurelius?
The last is dated a.d. 176, and forms part of an inscription commemorating the
Gennanic and Sarmatian victories of M. Aurelius. Thus it is quasi-official, and
shows the sort of language which was applied to the emperors at the time with
their own approval. Hence, so far as it goes, the expression ' invictissimi impera
tores' of the Acts is favourable to De Rossi's date. Moreover De Rossi is
satisfied that the chamber containing the tomb of Caecilia, or at least the original part
of it (for it has been enlarged and lighted from above at a later date), is older than the
papal crypt with which it is connected (II. p. 152 sq.). On this architectural argument
I shall not venture to express an opinion. But the difficulty arising from the date of
Pope Urban (a.d. 222 — 230) still remains. De Rossi's solution is as follows. He
finds notices in the Martyrologies, Itineraries, Catalogues, etc. , at the same time, of a
tomb of a bishop Urban in the Cemetery of Prsetextatus, and likewise of another in
the Cemetery of Callistus. The latter grave is still found in the papal crypt with the
inscription 0YPBAN02 E  Hence he supposes that there were two Urbans — the
one bishop of Rome, the other bishop of some unknown place, but residing in the
, neighbourhood of Rome during the persecution — the former a confessor, the latter
a martyr — the one belonging to the age of Alexander Severus, the other to that of M.
Aurelius. He believes therefore that there is a confusion in the Acts of S. Caecilia,
and that her friend was not the bishop of Rome, but this otherwise unknown person
who afterwards himself suffered martyrdom. To this earlier Urban he assigns the
grave in the papal crypt. The inscription was engraved on a marble slab of an altar-
tomb in a niche, whereas the epitaphs of the bishops of Rome belong to the locull
at the sides of the chamber. This fact indicates an earlier date for Urban, as the
principal position would be filled first (ir. pp. 52 sq., 152 sq.). This confusion of the
two persons likewise explains how Pope Urban is sometimes called a martyr, though
he had no claim to this distinction. Moreover in the list of bishops and others buried
in the papal crypt which was inscribed there by Sixtus III. (a.d. 432 — 440), as ingeni
ously restored by De Rossi, Urbanus occurs, not among the popes, whose names stand
together at the head of the list, but lower down among others (11. p. 33 sq.). Alto
gether De Rossi has worked out his view with great penetration and ingenuity ; and no
abbreviation, such as I have attempted, can do justice to it. The theory of the two
Urbans was not first started by De Rossi. It had been suggested before by Tillemont
(Mlmoires m. p. 686), and adopted by Sollier (Usuardi Martyr. 25 Maii) and others,
to explain the phenomena; but De Rossi's investigations and c.ombinations have
given shape and consistency to it. It cannot indeed be regarded as certain ; but it
may be accepted provisionally, as the only theory hitherto propounded which explains
the facts. Lipsius subjects it to a. rigid criticism, but he is obliged in the end to
confess that this hypothesis may possibly be correct (p. 183). He will not however
allow that the Urban of the papal crypt lived as early as the time of M. Aurelius.
Yet, if a second Urban be once conceded, this date has greater claims to
acceptance than any other, both by reason of the architectural argument, of which
I shall not attempt to appraise the value, and also on account of the direct statement
of Ado, which is the more valuable because it is quite independent of, and indeed
contradictory to, the Acts. On the other hand I cannot attach much weight to De
Rossi's argument (11. p. 150) from the resemblance of the imperial edict in the Acts
§ 24 ' Domini invicti imperatores jusserunt, ut qui non negaverint se esse Christianos

506 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
puniantur, qui autem negaverint dimittantur ', with the account of the rescript of
M. Aurelius in the Gallican persecution (Eusebius H. E. v. 1), which in Rufinus'
translation runs 'Cum a Caesare rescriptum fuisset, ut persistentes quidem punirentur,
negantes autem dimitterentur'; because it might have been borrowed directly from
this source. Nor indeed was this principle peculiar to the reign of M. Aurelius, but
it guided the persecutions throughout the second century.
Aube (p. 416) throws out another suggestion. A certain Urbanus is mentioned in
Cyprian's correspondence (Epist. xlix, li, liii, liv, ed. Hartel) as a priest and confessor
at Rome. He at first took a strong line against the lapsed, but afterwards, towards
the end of a.d. 251, he gave way and was reconciled to the Roman bishop Cornelius.
Why, he asks, may this person not have been afterwards elected bishop, not at
Rome, but in the neighbourhood ; have converted Caecilia and her companions ; and
have perished after them, somewhere about A.D. 257 — 260, in a persecution which
their imprudence had stirred up ?
This has no advantage over De Rossi's view, while it is entirely destitute of the
external support which the latter can claim. .The representations in the Acts are not
indeed consistent with De Rossi's date, but neither are they with Aube's. The names
of the Prefect, Turcius Almachius, are borrowed from a later epoch than either. A
complete list of the City Prefects from a.d. 254 to A.D. 354 is extant, and neither name •
is found during the third century. The Turcii came into prominence in the age of
Constantine; one Turcius Aproniamis was City Prefect in A.D. 339 and another in
a.d. 363 (Bosio in Laderchi S. Caec. Virg. et Mart. I. p. 65 sq. ; Tillemont Empereurs
IV. pp. 325, 526, Paris 1697). The latter served under Julian. The fact that the
family was known to have remained pagan long after the great change under Con
stantine, and to have more than once held the City Prefecture, might suggest the use
of the name to the writer of these Acts. The surname Almachius is not known to
have been borne by the Turcii. De Rossi indeed proposes to substitute Amachius (ll.
pp. xxxvii, 149), but be seems to have overlooked passages in which Almachius (or
Almacius) occurs. Besides the passages quoted in Devit (Lexic. Forcellin. Onomast.
s. v.) it is found also in a Numidian inscription (C. I. L. VIII. 4469) belonging to
the age of Constantine or his successor. So far as we can see, it appears for the first
time about the middle of the fourth century. We may say generally of the setting
of the story of S. Caecilia, that it belongs neither to the second century nor to the
third, but to the fourth or fifth. Whether the plurality of emperors formed part of
the later setting, or was a survival of the original tradition, we have no means of
determining. In itself it might be either. But the fact that evidence (such as it is)
exists for placing the martyrdom under the divided sovereignty of M. Aurelius and
Commodus inclines us to the latter alternative.
Reasons are given by De Rossi (11. p. 153 sq.) for the belief that the true day of
the martyrdom was Sept. 16 (as given in the Hieronymian Martyrology), and that
Nov. 22, the day commonly assigned to her, is the anniversary of her translation to
the Transtiberine Church. For a similar transference, see below, II. p. 432.

(£) The Madaurian Martyrs [a.d. 180].
These sufferers bore Punic names; Namphamo (commonly, but incorrectly,
written Namphanio), Miggin, Lucitas, and a. woman Samae. Our knowledge ot
them is entirely derived from the correspondence of thc heathen grammarian Maximus

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 507
of Madaura with S. Augustine (Augustin. Epist. xv, xvi, Op. 11. p. 19 sq.). Maximus
writes; ' Quis enim ferat Jovi fulmina vibranti praeferri Migginem; Junoni, Minervae,
Veneri, Vestaeque, Samaen; et cunctis, proh nefas, diis immortalibus archiniartyrem
Namphamonem ; inter quos Lucitas etiam haud minore cultu suscipitur, atque alii
interminato numero, etc.'; and Augustine rebukes him for ridiculing Punic names,
'cum simus utrique in Africa constituti ', adding ' Namphamo quid aliud significat
quam boni pedis hominem '? The principal name in this group occurs frequently in the
African inscriptions (C. I. L. viii. p. 1030, index) variously spelt, Namphamo,
Nampamo, Namfamo, Namefamo, Namephamo, with the allied names Namphame,
Namphamilla, Namphamina. De Rossi (Bull, di Arch. Crist. 1873, p. 68 sq.)
compares it with Agathopus, Calepodius, both occurring not uncommonly in Christian
nomenclature. Of the others, we find Miggin, ib. no. 10686, where it occurs twice in
a Christian inscription (comp. Migginnia, ib. no. 2186; see also Ephem. Epigr. v.
p. 476); but the nearest approaches to Samae are Samate (no. 7789) and Sammia (no.
8553); and I cannot find anything at all resembling Lucitas in the African collection.
In a Norican inscription however (C. I. L. III. 5289) we meet with Loucita (see
Ephem. Epigr. IV. p. 522).
From the language of Maximus this Namphamo seems to have been the proto-
martyr of Africa ; and, if so, he would have suffered when Saturninus was proconsul
(Tertull. Scap. 3 'Vigellius Saturninus qui primus hie gladium in nos egit lumina
amisit'}. Bui ibis is, the same proconsul who condemned the Scillitan Martyrs, of
whom I shall have to speak presently. So long therefore as the Scillitan Martyrdoms
were assigned to the reign of Severus, the Madaurian were dated accordingly, a.d. 198
or 200 or 202, by different critics. It may now however be regarded as certain
thatthe Scillitans suffered July 17, A.D. 180. And, as the proconsuls entered upon
their duties about May, Namphamo and his companions must have been martyred
almost immediately before them. Gbrres indeed contemplates the possibility of their
having suffered ' already in 179 still under M. Aurelius '; but this could not be, unless
indeed Saturninus was continued in office more than the normal year of the procon
sulate. Baronius in his Martyrologium assigns the martyrdom of Namphamo and his
companions definitely to July 4, and Gbrres regards this as an arbitrary date of the
Cardinal's invention. But I suspect he had some authority for it. Otherwise it was
an eminently felicitous guess. In the old Carthaginian Calendar (Ruinart Act. Mart.
Sine. p. 633) these Madaurian martyrs are not mentioned ; but, if I mistake not, there
is a lacuna at the place where they would come, if their day was July 4.
I add, by way of caution, that if the correspondence of Maximus and Augustine
be our sole authority for these martyrdoms, then there is no solid ground for supposing
the others to have been martyred at the same time with Namphamo, though this
is not improbable in itself. The language of Maximus would be satisfied if they
suffered separately and in different reigns. It should be added also that the inferences
drawn as to the date depend entirely on the interpretation of archimartyr as equi
valent to protomartyr. This seems highly probable, but it is not certain.
On these martyrdoms see Aube Les Chritiens dans VEmpire Romain A.D. 180—
349i p. 199 sq., and especially Gbrres Das Christenthum etc. zur Zeit des Kaisers
Commodus \i, 261 sq., in yahrb. f Protest. Theol. 1884. The former has the disad
vantage of having been written before the true date of the Scillitan martyrdoms was
ascertained.

508 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

(ij) The Scillitan Martyrs [a.d. 180].
Their genuine Acts in Greek were first published by Usener in a programme, Index
Scholarum Bonnens. 1881, from the Paris MS Graec. 1470. This gave occasion to
Aube's Etude sur un nouveau texte Grec des Actes des Martyrs Scillitains (Paris 1881).
See also Gbrres Das Christenthum etc. p. 252 sq. The papers of Aube and Gbrres
contain everything that is important on the subject. AuW has printed all the
different recensions of the Acts.
By Usener's discovery the older discussions have been more or less antiquated.
The more important of these are Tillemont Mimoires III. pp. 131 sq., 638 sq.,
Ruinart Act. Mart. Sine. p. 129 sq., Aube Les Chritiens etc. pp. 191 sq., 499 sq.
Of the genuineness of the newly discovered Greek Acts there can be no reasonable
doubt. They betray their antiquity by their modes of expression, as for instance when
the writings which we call the New Testament are described as al KaB' i)pS.s filfiXtn
Kal irposeirirovTOis iirio-ToXal naiJXou rov balov dvSpbs. But it may be questioned
whether we have before us the original or a translation. The former view is taken by
Aube (Etude etc. p. 12 sq.), and I am disposed to agree with him, though I am
not able to accept all his arguments1. So also Renan Marc-Aurile pp. 456, 457,
Doulcet Les Rapports etc. p. 126, and apparently Gbrres p. 254. Usener on the
other hand regards the document as a translation from the Latin, and this is the view
of Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XXIV. p. 382, 1881).
The Latin Acts appear in four different recensions, which will be found
in Aube' (Etude p. 30 sq.). They are all evidently derived ultimately from the
form preserved in the Greek. Where the Greek has tou reap' i)pwv avroKpanpos,
and one Latin ' domini nostri imperatoris ', the others have the plural ' dominis
nostris imperatoribus '; and to this expression one (called Acta Proconsularia
and first published by Baronius Eccl. Hist, ad ann. 202) adds 'Severo et Antono'.i.e.
'Antonino' ( = Caracalla). Hence the incorrect date assigned to these martyrdoms.
At the commencement the dating is given ' Praesidente (with w. 11. ' Praesente,'
' Praestante ') bis Claudiano consule ', for which another form has ' Existente Claudio
(Claudiano) consule'- So long as these martyrdoms were assigned to the joint reign
of Severus and Caracalla, this was supposed to refer to Ti. Claudius Severus who was
one of the consuls a.d. 200. Leon Renier however (Borghesi CEuvres vm. p. 615)
acutely conjectured that we ought to read, ' Praesente II Condiano Coss.', these being
the consuls of the year a.d. 180. This conjecture is confirmed by the Greek Acts
which have, 'Eirl JUpaavros [1. \T.paioevTos~\ rb Sevrepov Kal JLXavSiavov [1. KovSiavov]
twv virdrwv. This same notice is repeated likewise at the close of these Acts. This
alteration of the dates removes another great difficulty. Tertullian (ad Scap. 3) speaks
of Vigellius Saturninus (presumably the same Saturninus here mentioned) as the first
persecutor of the Christians in Africa2. But in the Apologeticum of this same father,
which can hardly be dated later than a.d. 200 (Aubi Les Chritiens etc. p. 195 sq.)!
1 Thus for instance he states (p. 17) ments which tell in his favour.
that SexBivres is never used as a passive, 2 If he was proconsul in A.D. 180, he
but this statement is refuted by such pas- would probably be consul about A.D. 167,
sages as Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6. 4; see buthemusthavebeen.M^to.asthename
Veitch Greek Verbs s. v. Sixopai. On the does not occur in the fasti. An Aemihus
other hand he has omitted some argu- Saturninus was consul a.d. T74.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 509
mention is made again and again of bloody persecutions. Yet Caracalla was not
associated with Severus in the empire till a.d. 198; and the interval thus limited
(a.d. 198 — 200) would afford insufficient time for such experiences as the language of
Tertullian implies.
The Scillitan (Scilitan) Martyrs derived their name from a town in Numidia,
which region at this time belonged at least in part to Proconsular Africa 1. Hence they
were tried by the Proconsul at Carthage. The name of the town is given by most
recent writers as Scillium (Sillium). I may perhaps have overlooked some ancient
authority which justifies this form ; but I have not found the name anywhere. The
termination of the adjective might rather suggest Sci/lis or Scillita, and would be
consistent with other forms also. In the Greek Acts the place is called 'lo-xXrj ttjs
Nouoiota; but the first word is probably corrupt, and the correct reading may be
ZxiXrj. The name would seem therefore to have been Scilla. It is indeed so called
(Scylla) by Notker (Patrol. Lat. cxxxi. p. 1121). In one of the Notitiae (p. 79, ed.
Parthey) a Numidian episcopal see XktJXij is mentioned. I do not know whether
this is the place with which we are concerned. A Scillitanus (Scilitanus, Sillitanus,
Silitanus) is found in several lists of the African bishops (Victor Vitensis p. 1 2 1 , ed.
Petschenig; Labb. Cone. III. p. 192, 211, 236, v. 264, VII. 151, ed. Colet); but
they do not all belong to the same place (see Corp. Inscr. Lat. vm. p. 33).
The Scillitan martyrs were twelve in number. Six of these — three men and three
women — were brought before the proconsul together for trial. Their leader was
Speratus. Of the others one at least, Nartzallus (NdprfaXXos, Nd/iTfaXos), bears a
Punic name which occurs in the African inscriptions (C. I. L. vm. 5282 ' Narsalus ';
comp.t'i. 1387 'Nartialis'). A second name also, Cittinus (Kitticos, Kittt>os), occurs
several times in these inscriptions (C. I. L. vm. 2564, 5127, 9064, 9131, Cittinus,
Citinus; comp. 9187, 9188, Cittina). When asked, they all confessed themselves
Christians. Saturninus the proconsul offered them a respite of thirty days for recon
sidering the matter. They declined the offer, and were condemned to death.
Sentence was passed at the same time on six others — four men and two women — who
are described as not appearing in court (tous acjidcTous), but whose names are given.
Probably they had been tried and confessed themselves Christians before, but their
sentence had been deferred. All the twelve were executed by the sword on July 17.
The Scillitan martyrs were held in high honour. Their festival appears in the early
Carthaginian Calendar, in the Old Roman Martyrology, and in the Hieronymian Mar-
tyrology, in which last however, as usual, there is much confusion and repetition.
A basilica was erected in their honour at Carthage, in which one at least of Augus
tine's sermons was delivered (Aug. Serm. 155, Op. v. p. 741, ed. Bened.). This
church was devastated in the Vandalic invasion (Vict. Vit. i. 9).
The two last-mentioned groups of martyrdoms, the Madaurian and the Scillitan,
as we have already seen, do not belong strictly to the reign of M. Aurelius. He died
on March 17 of the year, and they took place in July. But Saturninus the perse
cuting magistrate, who according to custom would start for his province in the middle
of April, must have been appointed by M. Aurelius, and his treatment of the Chris
tians may be regarded as a continuation of this emperor's policy. The reign of his
son and successor Commodus is represented as a period of unbroken peace by the
historians of the Church (Euseb. H. E. v. 21 ; comp. Anon, in Euseb. H. E. v. 16:
1 On the relations of Numidia to Pro- verw. 1. p. 307 sq., and especially Momm-
consular Asia seeMarquardt Rom. Stoats- sen C. I. L. vnr. p. xv. sq., p. 467 sq.

510 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
see above, p. 482 sq.). There were indeed outbreaks from time to time at the commence
ment of this reign, while the emperor was still guided by the friends and counsellors
of his father 1, but as soon as Marcia's influence over him was established, the Church
was free from molestation. The relations of the Church and the Empire in this reign
are considered in two good articles by Gbrres, yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, p. 228
sq-. P- 395 sq.
But not only are the sufferings of the Christians during this reign learnt from
direct notices of martyrdoms. The same inference is drawn from the language of the
Apologists2. Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Theophilus, all tell the
same tale. The first indeed wrote before Marcus had actually ascended the throne;
but he was already supreme in the counsels of Antoninus Pius, and among the
chief maligners and persecutors of the Christians were his most intimate and trusted
friends, such as Fronto and Rusticus. Again, the last may have written some months
after his death, but the retrospect which he gives must refer especially to the period
comprised by his reign. The two remaining writers, Melito and Athenagoras,
addressed their apologies to him in his mid career as a sovereign — the one probably
about A.D. 170, the other almost certainly in a.d. 177. To this list should be added
Minucius Felix, if indeed we may with confidence accept the earlier date which
many recent critics have agreed to assign to him 3.
The facts which have been elicited in the previous investigation make up a serious
bill of indictment against the administration of M. Aurelius. Whether the Romans
owed more to Hadrian who left them Antoninus, or to M. Aurelius who left them
Commodus, I shall not stay to discuss ; but there can be no question that the Chris
tians received far fairer treatment under the former emperor than under the latter.
The persecutions under M. Aurelius extend throughout his reign. They were fierce
and deliberate. They were aggravated, at least in some cases, by cruel tortures. They had
the emperor's direct personal sanction. They break out in all parts of the empire, in
Rome 4, in Asia Minor, in Gaul, in Africa, possibly also in Byzantium 5. Yet unquestion-
1 Herodian. i. 6. 1 bXlyov piv ovv rtvbs Christiani gaudete, exclamavit,' Epiphan.
Xpbvov iravra iirparrero [6 HoppoSos] rrj Ha>r. liv. I (p. 463) Outos [6 QeoSorm
yvwprj Till' irarptpwv rplXwv k.t.X., i. 8. 1 dirb BufaxTfou] Spa rusl irXeloaw iv Kiupip
Xpbvov piv ovv rivbs bXlywv irwv riprjv Siwypov ivardvros, ouk dtSa elrreiv b Tiji
jracraK dirivepe rois irarptpois (plXois, irdvra toiovtw (1. iv irolw robrw ?) Siuypif, arri
re (irparrev iKelvois ovpfiodXois xpd'pevos. tov tt)s irbXews dpxovros ffvXXij<pdels pero.
i The passages will be found below, irXeibvwv Kal i^eratrBels obv tois dXKms
p. 518 sq. virip Xpivrov, ol piv dXXoi irdvres OeoS

3 See below, p. 518 sq. SouXoi rb vIkos dtreveyKapevoi
' In estimating the persecutions of this (rvxov iirovpavtwv, virip Xpiorov paprvpri-
reign we should probably add to the eavres, ovros Si k.t.X. The passage of
Roman martyrdoms already mentioned Tertullian evidently points to the terrible
(p. 493 sq.) the sufferings of many or most punishment, which Severus inflicted upon
of those confessors, who were condemned Byzantium (a.d. 196) after a three years
to the Sardinian mines and were after- siege, for espousing the cause of his rival
wards released under Commodus (Hippol. Niger (see Hofner Septimius Severus p.
Har. ix. 1 2). 1 7 2 sq.), and which Caecilius Capella here
5 The authorities for the persecution in regards as a day of vengeance for the
Byzantium are Tertull. ad Scap. 3 ' Cae- Christians, of whom he himself had been
cilius Capella in illo exitu Byzantino, the persecutor. Baronius (Ann. 196) and

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS.

5H

ably M. Aurelius was more logical from a Roman point of view than Hadrian. To be ' a
Roman' was before all things his ideal (Med. ii. 5, iii . 5), and these Christians scorned the
state-worship, which was the very core of Roman public life. Probably he held himself
to be acting out the character which Capitolinus (Marcus 24) assigns to him, ' contra
manifestos et grnvium criminum reos inexorabilis permanebat ', when he condemned
scores of men to death for no other cause than that they confessed the name of
Christ. If moreover he believed the foul aspersions of his 'darling master' ('jucun-
dissime magister') Fronto on the Christians, he would doubtless consider that he was
treating them with only too great leniency.
Doubtless we should have heard very much more about the persecutions during
this reign, if the emperor's exceptionally high character as a man and as ruler had not
stopped the mouths of the Christians. But they were restrained by every motive of
prudence and every instinct of self-preservation from saying too much against the
sovereign whom his subjects lovingly called ' father ', ' brother ', and ' son ', according
to their time of life, who when he died was believed to have been taken back to the
gods that had lent him, and to whom after death divine honours were voluntarily
paid with such universal consent that it was held sacrilege not to set up his image in
a house (Capitol. Marcus 20). If the Christians ventured to brand such a man as a
persecutor, the retort would be obvious ; ' You condemn yourselves by this charge.
He could only have treated you harshly, because you deserved harsh treatment. This
was not persecution ; it was just punishment. ' It is indeed, from every point of view, ;i
'tragic fact' — a mournful satire on the one-sidedness of human nature even in its
higher types — that M. Aurelius ranks among the sternest persecutors of the
Christians.

Tillemont (Mimoires II. p. 315 sq.) assign
this persecution to the reign of M. Au
relius ; and among recent writers Renan
also (Marc-Aurele p. 279 sq.) takes this
view. This Theodotus the leather- seller
is stated by Epiphanius to have fled to
Rome and promulgated his heresy there
after denying his faith during the perse
cution at Byzantium ; and we know from
an independent source (HippolJ?] in
Euseb. H. E. v. 28) that he was ex
communicated by Victor Bishop of Rome
(a.d. 189 — 198 or 199). But some years
would probably have elapsed before he
became sufficiently famous to call down
this censure on his head. This is an
argument (so far as it goes) in favour of
the reign of M. Aurelius. On the other
hand Burton (First Three Centuries II. p.
211 sq.) gives a wholly different explana
tion. He supposes that Caecilius com
manded the garrison of Byzantium on
behalf of Pescennius Niger; that the
Christians there refused to take up arms

and actively espouse the cause of this
rival sovereign; that they thus incurred
the hatred of Caecilius and the Byzan
tines ; and that in consequence they were
harassed and persecuted by them. This
view harmonizes better with the incidents,
and I am disposed on the whole to adopt
it. The vengeance is thus brought into
close proximity with the suffering; and
the saying of Caecilius gains in point.
Moreover the incident then becomes
a better illustration of the lesson which
Tertullian would enforce; for he is giving
examples of divine judgments overtaking
the persecutors of the Christians (see
below,p.522 sq.). But if we were to place
the persecution under M. Aurelius, the
retribution would be delayed 16 years at
the least, and there would be no very
direct connexion between the offence and
the punishment.
On the whole therefore we may hold
the memory of M. Aurelius clear of this
additional stain of blood.

12 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

3. HEATHEN WRITERS.
The following passages, so far as I know, contain all the notices of
the Christians in heathen writers during the three reigns.
(i) Epictetus [c. a.D. 120].
Arrian, Diss. iv. 7. 6.
EiTa viro pavias pev Bvvarai tis ovrw SiareBrjvai repos ravra, Kal viro
eBovs ol TaXiXdioi.
Epictetus is here discussing the attitude of fearlessness before a tyrant's menaces.
As he still survived under Hadrian, with whom he was on intimate terms (Spartian,
Hadr. 16), his knowledge of the Christians was probably drawn from the persecution
under Trajan. It is worthy of notice that Junius Rusticus, the honoured friend and
teacher of M. Aurelius and the persecutor of the Christians (see above, pp. 445, 494),
who was himself an accomplished Stoic (Dion Cass. lxxi. 35, Capitol. Marc. 3,
Orelli Inscr. 1190), was the first to place ' the memoirs of Epictetus ' (rd 'EirmrriTeia
viropvrjpara, i. e. the work of Arrian which we possess and which contains this notice
of the Christians) in the hands of his imperial pupil (M. Antonin. Med. i. 7). Doubt
less however it is a mistake of Themistius (Orat. 5, p. 63 D; comp. Suidas s. v.
'EtIkttitos) to represent Epictetus as still surviving and being promoted by ' the two
Antonines'; see on this point Gataker on M. Anton. Med. viii. 31.
(ii) Phlegon [a.d. 137].
(a) Chronica xiii. (Orig. c. Cels. ii. 14).
^Xtyojv pevroi iv TpirrKaiBeKarw ij Tecrcrapeo-KaiBekdrw, dipai, T(*V Xpovi-
KioV Kat Trjv irepi tivwv peXXdvrwv rrpdyvwcnv eBwKe tw Xpto"r<3, OTiyX"""
iv tois irepl Uerpov cos rrepi tov Irjo-ov- Kal ipapTvprjcrev oti Kara Ta eipij-
piva vir avToB ra Xeyopeva drnjvTrjo-e- irXrjv KaKelvos Kal Bia rwv Kara Trjv
irpdyvwo-iv aKwv wmrepel ov Kevdv Beiorepas Svvapews diredyrjvaro eivat Toy
iv tois irarpaai rdtv BoypiaTwv Xoyov.
It may be questionable whether Phlegon, when mentioning the eclipse, connected
it with the Crucifixion (see Lardner's Works vii. p. 105 sq., London 1835); but it
seems clear from this passage that he mentioned Christ in some terms or other.
(b) ib. (Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33).
ITepl Be rrjs iirl Tiftepiov Kaicrapos iKXeiij/ews, ov ftacriXoiovTOs Kai 0
Tryo-oos eoiKev io-ravpiScrBai, koI irepl Ttov peydXwv Tore yevopivwv creicrpoiv
Trjs yrjs dveypadre Kal <&Xeywv iv tco TpwKaiBeKaTw ij ™ Teo-crapeo-KaioeKaTip,
olpai, TOJV Xoovikoji/.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 513
(c) ib. (Orig. c. Cels. ii. 59).
Oterai 8e [0 KeAo-os] repareiav eivat Kat tov rreurpov Kal tov ctkotov
irepl wv Kara to SvvaTOV iv tois avaiTepa) aireXoyrjcrdptBa, rrapaBipevoi tov
$Aeyovra toropijo'avTa KaTa tov ^povov tov ira&ovs tov crwTrjpos TOtavra
dirnvrnKevai. (d) Euseb. Chron. 11. p. 148 (ed. Schone).
Tpdipei Be Kal $Aeycov d Tas 'OXo/AirtdSas [cruvaya'ycoV] irept to>v avTcov ev
T<3 ty' prjpacriv avrdis Ta'oV T<3 S' eVei rrjs erft' 'OXvpmdBos iyevero IkAeiuVis
rjXiov peyio-rrj twv iyvwpicrpevwv irporepov, Kat viif copa cktj; rrjs rjpepas
iykvero, wcrre Kat dorepas iv ovpavw cpavijvai. creicrpos re peyas Kara
Btfjwtav yevdpevos ra iroAAa Ntxatas KarecrTped/aTo. Kat Tairra pev d
BijXwdels dvrjp.
For other references to this statement see Lardner's Works VII. p. 107 sq.,
Miiller Fragm. Hist. Graec. ill. p. 606 sq. The date given above (a.d. 137) is
the year to which this work, the Chronica, was brought down, and in which there
fore presumably it was completed. Phlegon was the secretary of the emperor
Hadrian, whose autobiography was published in his name (Spartian. Hadr. 16,
Vopisc. Saturn. 7 ; see above p. 465).
(iii) Fronto [c. a.d. 150 — 160].
(a) Minucius Felix Octav. 9.
Et de convivio notum est. Passim omnes locuntur. Id etiam Cir-
tensis nostri testatur oratio. Ad epulas sollemni die coeunt etc.
(b) ,£31.
Et de incesto convivio fabulam grandem adversum nos daemonum
coitio mentita est... sic de isto et tuus Fronto non ut adfirmator testi
monium fecit, sed convicium ut orator adspersit.
It appears from these passages that Fronto of Cirta, the tutor of M. Aurelius, lent his
name to the vulgar libel against the Christians of shameful orgies at their love-feasts
(see above, p. 52 sq.). It is not improbable that many other of the arguments used
by the pagan interlocutor in this Apology were borrowed from Fronto. Fronto lived
on the most affectionate terms with M. Aurelius, as the extant correspondence
shows. On the relation of the Apology of Minucius Felix to Fronto see below,
P- 519- (iv) Celsus [c. a.d. 150 — 160?].
Orig. c. Cels. viii. 69.
'Y/w3v Be [i.e. tcov xpioriaviov] Kav TrXavaTat Tts eVi Aav6Wiov, aAAa
yrreirai Trpos Bavdrov BiKrjv.
IGi I. 33

514 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
It would be impossible to give all the passages from this writer which are quoted
or referred to by Origen c. Celsum ; and a selection would be unsatisfactory. I have
therefore contented myself with a single sentence bearing on the persecutions.
The date of Celsus is uncertain. He has been placed by one critic as early as
Nero, and by another as late as A.D. 240. This last date is plainly impossible, since he
wrote many years before Origen (c. Cels. praef. 4 rjSij Kal irdXai veKpov). Keim (Celsus'
Wahres Wort p. 261 sq., 1873) dates the work a.d. 176 — 178 ; and this view has found
considerable favour with subsequent writers. It is accepted in the main for instance
by Aube (La Polimique Pa'ienne p. 164 sq., 1878), who places it during the joint reign of
M. Aurelius and Commodus (a.d. 176 — 180). Renan also (Marc-Aurilep. 345 sq.)
takes this view. The chief ground for this date is the identification of this Celsus
with the Celsus to whom Lucian dedicates his Alexander, written after the death of M.
Aurelius (a.d. 180). Pelgaud however (JEtude sur Celse p. 151 sq., Lyon 1878), while
rejecting this identification, nevertheless adopts substantially the same date. Is there
adequate ground for this identification ?
Origen declares himself wholly ignorant who the writer of the work before him
was. He had not seen it before it was sent to him by his friend Ambrosius with a
request that he would answer it (praef.). He knows of only two literary persons
bearing the name Celsus who can come under consideration, both Epicureans, the one
under Nero, the other under Hadrian and subsequent emperors (Kara 'ASpiavbv koX
Karwripw, i. 8). As the former was too early, he assumes that the latter must be the
person in question. In fact, he arrives at this result by a process of exhaustion. This
latter Celsus is doubtless the same to whom Lucian dedicates his work, and whom we
may infer from Lucian's language to have been an Epicurean (Alexander 25, 43, 61).
Origen speaks of him as having written against magic (c. Cels. i. 68) ; and in like
manner Lucian ascribes such a work to his friend Celsus (Alexander 21). But the
writer of the ' True Word ' is anything but an Epicurean. He may be described
roughly as a Platonist eclectic. Moreover, so far from deriding magic, he evidently
regards it with favour (c. Cels. i. 68). All this puzzles Origen exceedingly (e.g. iv.
54). He can only suppose that Celsus is playing a part, that he may assail Christi
anity from the vantage ground of a more respectable philosophy. This supposition
however is highly incredible. A man known to be an Epicurean would have fatally
discredited himself as a controversialist, if he had feigned himself a Platonist for the
purposes of controversy.
This identification therefore must be discarded ; and we must regard Celsus as an
otherwise unknown person. We are thus left without any direct clue to the date.
In the absence of decisive evidence, great stress has been laid by three of the writers
already mentioned, Keim, Aube, and Pelgaud, as well as by several others, on a reference
which they discover to a divided sovereignty. Celsus writes (viii. 71), ob pr)v oiSi
iKeivo dvcKrbv aov Xiyovros lis, av ol vvv fiaaiXebovres i)pwv aoi ireusBivres <M«,
tous avBis fiaaiXevovras irelaeis. This, it is supposed, can only refer to a joint-
empire such as that of M. Aurelius and L. Verus a few years earlier (A.D. 161— 169),
and that of M. Aurelius and Commodus at the time when this treatise is supposed
to have been written (a.d. 177 — 180). If the passage had stood alone, the argu
ment might have had a certain very slight value. But elsewhere Celsus uses the
singular (viii. 73 irpoTpiirerai i)pas d KiXaos dprjyeiv tco fiaaiXel iravrl oBivd).
This language however might be explained on the ground that M. Aurelius alone was
in command of the army at the time. But there are other passages which will not
admit this interpretation. Thus Celsus quotes as worthy of acceptance the Homeric

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 515
maxim els fiairtXevs (£otm), and he continues, aV touto Xuctjjs rb Soypa, eUbrws dpv-
veirai <re 6 /SacriXeus. Could any language more unfortunate be conceived, if at
this very time there were two Augusti? Why should he, when he was expressly
enforcing the duty of loyalty to two emperors, quote as authoritative a passage which
declares emphatically that there ought only to be one ? These expressions therefore
seem to me to be almost absolutely decisive that there were not at this time, and
(I would add likewise) there had not been very recently, two joint sovereigns. In
other words they seem to indicate a date before A.D. 161, when M. Aurelius and
L. Verus were associated in the imperial power. I should be disposed therefore
provisionally to assign the ' True Word ' to the reign of Antoninus Pius. The ex
pression ol vvv fiamXevovres will create no difficulty on this hypothesis. Though there
was only one emperor at this time, yet Justin can nevertheless speak of Pius, Marcus,
and Lucius, as /Sao-iXeis (Apol. i. 14, 17); and Melito describes M, Aurelius as
administering all the affairs of State with or for Antoninus Pius (Euseb. H. E. iv. 26;
see below, p. 520).
An account of the various opinions relating to the date of this work of Celsus will
be found in Keim p. 261 sq., Aube p. 172 sq., and Pelgaud p. 187 sq.
(v) Galen [c. a.d. 160].
(a) Op. vm. p. 579 (ed. Kiihn).
Iva prj Tts evBvs kot dpxds, cos ets Mcoiicroo Kat XpioTOo Biarpiftrjv
at^tyju-evos, vopwv dvairoBeiKTwv aKovrj, Kat Tavra ev ots rjKicrTa XPV-
(b) ib. p. 657.
©cittov ydp av Tts toos drrd MaiiicroC Kat XpicrroO peTaBiBdijeiev rj tovs
tois aipecrecri TrpooTenjKOTas tarpons Te Kat cpiXocrocpovs.
The year given (a.d. 160) is an approximate date for this treatise. It was written
before Galen's second visit to Rome (see De Libris Propriis 1, Op. xix. p. 12). I do
not know whether the exact year is determinable.
(c) Abulfeda Historia Anteislamica p. 109 (Fleischer).
Galeni tempore religio Christianorum magna jam incrementa ceperat,
eorumque mentionem fecit in libro de sententiis Politiae Platonicae,
his verbis ;
'Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente
assequi nequeunt ; quare indigent ut instituantur parabolis (narrationes
dicit de praemiis et poenis in vita futura sperandis), veluti nostro
tempore videmus homines illos qui Christiani vocantur fidem suam
e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faqiunt, qualia qui
vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem
ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu
rerum venerearum abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos et foeminae et
viri qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam qui
33—2

516 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
in animis regendis coercendisque et in acerrimo studio eo progressi
sint ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus.'
Haec Galenus.
This is Fleischer's translation from the Arabic. A similar statement is attributed
to Galen ' in Commentario in Phaedonem Platonis ' in Gregor. Barhebr. Chronicon
Syriacum II. p. 55 (Bruns et Kirsch); but it is mixed up with some demonstrably
false matter. (vi) Apuleius [c. a.d. 160 — 170?].
Metam. ix. 14.
Tunc spretis atque calcatis divinis numinibus, in vicem spretae
religionis mentita sacrilega praesumptione Dei quem praedicaret
unicum, confictis observationibus vanis, fallens omnes homines et
miserum maritum decipiens, etc.
This woman, whose character is painted in the darkest colours, is supposed to be
represented here as a convert to Christianity; but this is doubtful. There must how
ever have been Christians at this time, or soon after, in Madaura the native place of
Apuleius, as may be inferred from the martyrdoms which occurred there a few years
later (see above, p. 506 sq.).
For the date of this work see Teuffel Gesch. der Rom. Liter. § 345.
(vii) Lucian [c. a.d. 165, 180].
(a) De morte Peregrini n sq.
The passages are quoted above, p. 129 sq. This work was written apparently
soon after a.d. 165.
(b) Alexander 25.
eKcpepet [d 'AAefavSpos] cpdftrjTpov ti iir avTois, Xiywv dBewv epire-
rrXrjrrBai Kat XpicrTiavcov tov IIo'vtov, o't irepl avrov ToXpwm Ta KaKurra
ftXacrcprjpeiv, 00s eKeAeoe Atr?ois eAaovetv, et ye etfeAoucriv lAeuv evav
rdv ©eov. (C) ib. 38.
Kat ev pev T-rj rrpwrrj [i^iiepa] irpdpprjcrvs rjv wcrirep 'ABrjvrjcri toi-
avrrj- Et Tts at5eos ij XptcrTtavds rj 'HmKovpeios rjKei KaTacrKOiros riov
dpyiwv, epevyerw, ol Be rria-TevovTes Tt3 ®ec3 TeAet'crtJcoo-av Tvyrj r§ ayaf/jj.
cit' evBvs iv dpxo i£eXacris eyiyvero- koX 6 pev rjyeiro Aeycov, E(W XpuTTl-
avovs, to Be irXrjBos arrav iirecpBeyyeTO, "E|co 'ErrtKoopet'ous.
This scene is laid in Italy. The work was written after the death of Marcus
(a.d. 180).

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 517
(viii) Aristides [a.d. 150 — 180?].
Orat. xlvi (Op. n. p. 402, ed. Dindorf).
IIpom/AaKi^ouo-t 8' cos Kpetrroves, Suo rots ecr^aTots Kat tois evavTico-
totois Ivo^ot kokois ovtcs, TaTretvorijTt Kat avBaBeiq., rots iv rjj IlaAato-Ttvi/
Bwo-efticri irapairAijcrtot tous Tpoiroos. Kat yap eKetvots tovt eari crvp-
fioXor Trjs Bvcrcrefteias, oti tous Kpetrrous ou vopitftvcri, ko.1 ovtoi rpoirov
nvd dcptcrTdm twv "EAAiivtov, piaAAov Be Kal irdvrwv tojv KpetTrdvcov k.t.A.
The main persons described in the passage are evidently the Cynics, and to these
0JV01 refers; see Bernays Lucian u. die Kyniker pp. 38 sq., 100 sq. Consequently of
iv WaXawsrlvrj (afterwards referred to in iKetvois), to whom they are compared, might
be either Jews or Christians (see above, p. 331). But the points of comparison with
the Cynics require us to understand the expression of the Christians rather than the
Jews; comp. Lucian Peregr. 11 (see above, p. 129 sq.), where we have Tepl ttxv
WaXaurrlvirv, rbv iv ttj UaXaiarlvri dvao-KoXoirio-Bivra. Jebb wrongly supposes that
the Christians are the principal persons attacked, though many points in the descrip
tion will not suit them, and accordingly explains ' the people in Palestine ' to whom
they are compared as referring to the Jews.
The date of these Orations seems to be indeterminable.
(ix) Marcus Antoninus [c. a.d. 174].
Meditationes xi. 3.
To Be iroipov tovto, iva dird ISikijs Kptcrecos epxrjrai, prj Kara ij/iXrjv
irapara^iv, cos ot Xptortavot, dXXd AeAoytoytevcos Kat crepviSs Kai, totrre Kat
aAAov irettrat, aTpaytaScos.
The readiness of which he speaks is the readiness to meet death.

4. CHRISTIAN WRITERS.
The following is a selection of passages from Christian writers,
who either wrote during this period or refer to it. The passages are
chosen either with a view to convenient reference (as having been
alluded to in the previous pages) or for their own interest.
(i) Epistle to Diognetus [c. a.d. ?].
C. 5 dyaTrcocrt ira'vras, Kat viro irdvrwv BiwKOvrai' ayvoovvrai, Kai KaraKpi-
vovTaf t/avaTouvTat, Kat £cu07roiouVTai.
The writer is describing the Christians. Notwithstanding all that has been
written to the contrary, the Epistle to Diognetus may, I think, with fair confidence be
placed during the period with which we are concerned, and not improbably in the
earlier years of it,

518 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(ii) Hermas [c. a.d. 135 — 140?].
The references to this writer have been given already (p. 492), where also the
bearing of his allusions to persecutions is considered.
(iii) Justin [c. a.d. 140 — 160].
Dial. c. Tryph. no (p. 337).
KecpaXoropovpevoi ydp Kat crTavpovpevoi Kal Brjpiois irapaftaXXdpevoi
Kat Becrpdis ko.1 irvpl Kal rracrats Tats aAAats ftacravois otl ovk drpio-TaptOa
rrjs dpoXoyias BijXdv icrriv k.t.A.
See also the context. Reference has been made already (p. 492) to the account
of the martyrdoms in the Second Apology, which should be read in full. See also on
the subject of persecutions Apol. i. 3, 4 (p. 54), 7 (p. 56 e), ii (p. 58 e), 26 (p. 70 c),
31 (p. 72 e), 39 (p. 78 B), 45 (p. 83 a), 57 (p. 91 e), 68 (p. 99 c), Dial. 34 (p. 253A),
35 (p. 254 a), 39 (p. 258 c), 46 (p. 265 c), 82 (p. 308 c), 131 (p. 360 c), etc.
The date given is intended roughly to comprise the period of Justin's literary
activity. The Dialogue was probably written somewhere midway in this period.
(iv) Minucius Felix [c. a.d. 160?].
Octavius 37.
Quam pulchrum spectaculum Deo, cum Christianus cum dolore
congreditur, cum adversum minas et supplicia et tormenta com-
ponitur, cum strepitum mortis et horrorem carnificis inridens in-
culcat, cum libertatem suam adversus reges et principes erigit.-.et
quot ex nostris, non dextram solum sed totum corpus uri, cremari, sine
ullis ejulatibus pertulerunt...pueri et mulierculae nostrae cruces et
tormenta, feras et omnes suppliciorum terriculas, inspirata patientia
doloris, inludunt.
The resemblances between Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum of Tertullian
(written not later than a.d. 200) are too striking to be accidental. The date of
Minucius therefore depends on the settlement of the question which of the two is the
plagiarist. Among older critics it was generally assumed that Minucius borrowed
from Tertullian, and accordingly he was generally assigned to the reign of Alexander
Severus or thereabouts, though there were some important names among the dis
sentients1. Ebert however (Abhandl. d. Sachs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. v. p. 321 sq., 1868;
comp. Christi. -Latein. Literaturri.2^ sq.) by his thorough investigation of the subject
changed the general current of opinion. He was thought to have established the
priority of Minucius, and is followed in this by Keim (Celsus' Wahres Wort p.
r53 scl-)> Teuffel (Gesch. d. Rom. Litlerat. % 350), Aube (La Polimique Pdiennt
p. 78 sq.), Gbrres (yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, p. 433 sq.), Renan (Marc-Aurik
1 An account of the earlier literature 153 sq. ; comp. also Gbrres, p. 433-
of the subject will be found in Keim p.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 5 19
p. 389 sq.), and most subsequent writers. On the other hand V. Schultze (yahrb. f.
Protest. Theol. 1881, p. 485 sq.) has attempted to answer Ebert, and he has succeeded
in convincing Salmon (Smith and Wace Diet, of Christ. Biogr. s. v. Minucius Felix).
Again Schulze himself has been answered by Schwenke (yahrb. f. Protest. Theol.
1883, p. 263 sq.), and his reply is as convincing as it is acute. The relation of
Minucius Felix to Celsus has been considered by Keim (I.e. p. 157 sq.), and his
resemblances to Athenagoras are discussed by Loesche (yahrb. f. Protest. Theol.
1882, p. 168 sq.), but nothing tangible is elicited, so far as regards the date.
The priority of Minucius being assumed, Keim saw reasons for dating the
Octavius a.d. 177. One of his strongest arguments was the supposed mention of a
divided sovereignty in § 29 'principibus et regibus', § 33 ' reges statum regni sui etc.',
§ 37 ' adversus reges et principes '; but these are obviously general expressions and
have no reference whatever to the actual sovereignty of Rome at the time (see above,
p. 514). Yet this frail argument is repeated by Aube\ Gbrres, and Schultze, without
misgiving. The last-mentioned writer even sees a reference in ' reges et principes '
to the two Augusti and two Csesars of the time of Diocletian, to which age he assigns
the work; but in doing so, he is obliged to condemn as spurious Cyprian's work De
Idolorum Vanitate, which is largely indebted to the Octavius. On this point see
Mbller (yahrb. f Protest. Theol. 1881, p. 757). Schultze has not succeeded, so far
as I have observed, in carrying any one with him in his view as to the late date. On
the other hand Schwenke (p. 289) points to another passage, which shows clearly that
there cannot have been a divided sovereignty when Minucius wrote. In § 18 speaking
of the unity of the Deity he writes, ' Quando umquam regni societas aut cum fide
coepit aut sine cruore desiit ? ' After giving some illustrations, and among these the
wars of Caesar and Pompeius, ' generi et soceri bella toto orbe diffusa sunt, et tarn
magni imperii duos fortuna non cepit,' he continues, 'Vide cetera: rex unus apibus,
dux unus in gregibus, in armentis rector unus : tu in caelo summam majestatem dividi
credas et scindi veri illius ac divini imperii totam potestatem?' How could he pos
sibly have asked the question ' Quando umquam ', if he were actually living under the
joint sovereignty of M. Aurelius and Commodus (a.d. 177 — r8o), and had witnessed
only a few years before (a.d. 161 — 169) the joint sovereignty of M. Aurelius and
L. Verus ? In neither case did the partnership of the empire commence in distrust or
end in bloodshed. For this reason Schwenke is disposed to place the Octavius
at the close of the reign of Antoninus Pius (about a.d. 160); and I see no better
solution. It can hardly be placed much earlier, owing to the mention of Fronto (cc. 9, 31;
see above, p. 513), 'Cirtensis noster ', ' tuus Fronto '. The last we hear of Fronto is
in a.d. 166, and it is not probable that he survived much later. The references to
him in the Octavius do not require us to suppose him dead at the time, but rather
suggest that he was still living. It was an ' Oration ' written or delivered by Fronto,
in which he had attacked the Christians. The reference therefore is much more
natural soon after the attack, than it would be if this Apology were written much
later, say in the reign of Diocletian, or even in that of Alexander Severus. In favour
of this last-mentioned date it has been urged that a Caecilius Natalis (the name of the
interlocutor in this dialogue) is mentioned in several inscriptions at Cirta (C. I. L.
6996, 7094—7098), one of them dated A. D. 210 (Dessau in Hermes 1880, p. 471 sq. ;
comp. Salmon I.e. p. 924). But the M. Caecilius Q. F. Natalis of these inscriptions,
though doubtless a member of the same family, may just, as well have been the son
or grandson of the interlocutor, as the interlocutor himsejf,

520 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
An objection has also been raised on the ground that we should not elcpect to find
a cultivated Latin writer in the ranks of the Christians at this early date. This objec
tion does not seem serious. The Church of Rome unquestionably was mainly Greek
and Oriental in its origin. But it was already fast emerging from this original condi
tion. Sixty or seventy years earlier than this date, under Domitian (a.d. 95), it had
adherents in the imperial family itself. Thirty years later it Was governed by a Latin
bishop Victor (a.d. 189 — 198 or 199). The Latin element at this time therefore must
have been very considerable, and it would comprise the more educated or at least the
more influential members of the Christian community. Moreover it is not certain
that the work was not written quite as much for Africa as for Rome. Fronto, whom
it refutes, and Caecilius, who is the heathen interlocutor, are both Africans. Perhaps
the writer also was an African. I find the name L. Minucius Felix among the
inscriptions of Theveste, which is also in Numidia (C. I. L. vm. 1964), and Q. Minu
cius Felici [Felicianus ?] at Rusicade, likewise in Numidia (C. I. L. vm. 81 12). Nor
is it altogether beside the question to remark that the Numidian inscriptions exhibit
the combination of names Minucius Natalis (C. I. L. vm. 2478, 4643, 4676; comp.
11. 4509 — 451 1, Henzen 5450, 6498) in a father and son, both proconsuls of Africa,
the latter in A.D. 139. See Borghesi CEuvres VIII. p. 46 sq., who gives reasons for
connecting them with Minucius Fundanus (see above, p. 460 sq.), the Asiatic pro
consul to whom Hadrian wrote concerning tbe Christians.
It may be objected also that the severity of the persecutions, as gathered from the
passage which I have given above, points to the last years of M. Aurelius rather than
to the comparatively peaceable reign of Antoninus Pius. But we have seen that the
rule of Antoninus Pius was by no means unstained by Christian blood. At all events
Justin Martyr, Writing during the saTne reign, uses equally strong language (see above,
p. 518). Nay, the statement 'pueri et mulierculae nostrae etc.', though doubtless it
would appropriately describe sufferings such as those of Ponticus and Blandina in the
Gallican persecution under M. Aurelius, has a parallel as early as Clement of Rome
u. 6. On the whole however the freedom of intercourse which the Octavius supposes,
and the general tenour of the dialogue, suggest a period of respite from persecution, as
those critics have seen who place it under Alexander Severus. So far therefore the
phenomena are more favourable to the year 160, than to a date some twenty years
later.

(v) Melito [c. a.d. 170].
Apologia (Euseb. H. E. iv. 26).
'AAAd ttjv eKeivwv [Nepcovos Kal AojueTiavou] dyvoiav ol crol evo-epeis
TraTepes imjvwpBwo-avTO, iroXXaKis iroAAots imirXrj^avTes iyypadtois, ocroi
irept toutcov vewrepio-ai iroXprjcrav. iv ots 0 pev irdiriros aov Aoniavos
ttoAAoTs pev Kat aAAots Kat 4>ouv8avc3 Be tco avSvirdrw rjyovpevui oe rij'S
'Acrias ypdcpwv cpaiverai- 6 Be irarrjp crov, Kal crov rd irdvra crvvBioiKOvvro<;
[mss to crvpiravTa Sioikowtos] aura!, Tats rroAeo-t irepl tov prjBlv veoxreptLeiv
irepl rjpwv eypayj/ev iv ots Kat irpos Aaptcro-atous, 'cat rrpos ©ecrcraAoviMM
Kai 'A6Watous, Kat ttoos TraVTas EAAryvas. (re B% Kal pdXXov irepi tovtW

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 521
rrjv airrjv eKetvois exoVTa yvwprjv, Kal iroAv ye cpiXavBpwiroTepav ko.1 cpiAocro-
d,uyrepav, ireireirrpeBa TravTa rrparrtreiv ocra crou BeopeBa.
The various points in this important passage have been already under considera
tion (pp. 2 sq., 8, 16, 440, 442, 443, 462, 467 sq., 469).
(vi) Athenagoras [a.d. 177].
Supplicatio 1, 2.
"Ypiv Be...TO ovopa ti aTrextJaveTai ; ou yap rd dvdpara picrovs afta,
aAAa to dBiiajpa BiKrjs ko.1 Tipwpias. Bidrrep to rrpdov vpdiv Kal rfpepov Kal
to irpos a7ravTa elprjviKOV Kal epiXdvBpwirov Bavpatfuvres, ot pev KaB' eva
'wovopovvrai, at Be iroAets irpos d$iav ttjs Icrrjs perexovcri Tiprjs, ko.1 rj
ovpiraa-a diKOvpevrj rg vperepa. crvvicrei ftaBeias elprjvrjs diroXavovcriv ijpeis
Be ot Xeyopevoi XptcrTtavot, oti prj irpovevdrjcrBe Kai rjpwv, cruy^copeire Be
prjBev aBiKovvras-.-iXavvecrBai Kai epepecrBai koX BiwKecrBai, iirl pdvw
ovopari irpocriToXepovvTwv rjplv tcov itoAAcov, prjvvcrai ra KaB' eavrovs
eToXprjcrapev . . ko.1 BeopeBa vpijov ko.1 irepl rjpwv ti o-Ketj/acrBai, oircus irawto-
pedd rrore viro tcov o~UKO<pavTcov crepaTrdpevoi. ovBe ydp els vp»7p,aTa rj
irapa twv Biwkovtwv £r]pia...dXA els rd crwpara Kal rds uVuyas, orav
aireiirwpev tois XP7ilxa0~'-v, iiri-ftovXevovo-iv rjpiv... ov irpos Trjs vperepas
oiKaiocruvijs tous p.ev aAAous, atTtav Xaftovras dBiKrjpdrwv, prj irporepov rj
iXeyxBrjvai KoXd^ecrBai, e<p' rjp.wv Be peitpv tcr^uetv ro ovopa tcov eirt tt)
Bik-tj iXiyxwv, ovk el rjBiKrjcre ti 6 Kpivdpevos tojv 8tKa£ovTtov eirtfirrovvTcov,
aAA eis to ovop.a cos ets dSiKrjpa iwftpitflvrwv... to toivuv irpos diravras
urov Kai Tjpeis a£wvpev, prj oti XptcrTtavot XeyopeBa piaelcrBai Kal
KoXa^ecr&ai (ri yap rjpiv to ovopa irpos KaKiav TeAet;), aAAd KpivecrBai
e<j> otcov av Kat evBvvrj Tts, ko.1 rj dcpiecrBai diroXvopevovs rds Kanryoptas ij
KoXafcecrBai tous aAicrKO/ievous irovrjpovs, prj iirl tw dvdpari (ouSets ydp
XptoTtavos rrovrjpds, el prj viroKpiverai tov Aoyov), iirl Be tw dBiKijpaTi.
The emperors addressed are M. Antoninus and L. Commodus. I have quoted the
passage at some length because it shows clearly the principle on which the Roman
government acted. The ' nomen ipsum ', independently of any ' flagitia cohaerentia
nomini', was a sufficient ground of condemnation (seep. 50); and at no period
during the second century was this principle more rigidly enforced than under M. Au
relius. It appears in sharp outline alike in the martyrdoms of Justin and his com
panions at the commencement of this reign and in the persecutions of Vienne and
Lyons at its close.
(vii) Theophilus of Antioch [c. a.d. 180].
Ad Autol. iii. 30.
T3ti prjv koi tous creftopevovs avrov iBiw£av ko.1 to Kat9' rjpepav SiwKOvcriy
,..tous 8t' o-rrevBovTas irpos dperrjv Kal dcrKOmras ftiov dcriov, ovs pev iXiBo-

522 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
ftoXrjcrav, ous Be i&avdrwcrav, Kal ecus tov Seupo wpdis alKitrpois irept-
|8oAAouotv. On this passage see Gorres in yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, p. 265 sq. This part
of the work was written after the death of M. Aurelius (see iii. 27, 28) March A.D.
180, and apparently not later than a.d. 181. It therefore represents the state of things
during the reign of M. Aurelius.
(viii) Tertullian [c. a.d. 200, 2 it],
(a) Apologeticum 5.
Ceterum de tot exinde [a Domitiano] principibus ad hodiernum divi-
num humanumque sapientibus editealiquemdebellatorem Christianorum.
At nos e contrario edimus protectorem, si litterae M. Aurelii gravissimi
imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum
forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur.
Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus poenam dimovit, ita alio modo
palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, et quidem
tetriore. Quales ergo leges istae quae adversus nos soli exercent impii,
injusti, turpes, truces, vani, dementes ? quas Trajanus ex parte frus-
tratus est vetando inquiri Christianos, quas nullus Hadrianus, quam
quam omnium curiositatum explorator, nullus Vespasianus, quamquam
Judaeorum debellator, nullus Pius, nullus Verus, impressit.
On the attitude of Tertullian towards the good emperors see above pp. 2, 8.
(b) Ad Scapulam 4.
Pudens etiam missum ad se Christianum in elogio concussione ejus
intellecta dimisit, scisso eodem elogio, sine accusatore negans se audi-
turum hominem secundum mandatum... M. quoque Aurelius in Ger-
manica expeditione Christianorum militum orationibus ad Deum factis
imbres in siti ilia impetravit. Quando non geniculationibus et jeju-
nationibus nostris etiam siccitates sunt depulsae? Tunc et populus
adclamans Deo deorum, qui solus potens, in Jovis nomine Deo nostro
testimonium reddidit.
The 'mandatum' would seem to refer to the rescript of Hadrian to Fundanus.
The story of the Thundering Legion has been considered already, p. 433 sq.
(c) Ad Scapulam 3.
Possumus aeque et exitus quorundam praesidum tibi proponere,
qui in fine vitae suae recordati sunt deliquisse, quod vexassent Chris
tianos. Vigellius Saturninus, qui primus hie gladium in nos egit,
lumina amisit. Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cappadocia, cum.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 523
indigne ferens uxorem suam ad hanc sectam transisse, Christianos cru-
deliter tractasset, solusque in praetorio suo vastatus peste convivis vermi-
bus ebullisset, Nemo sciat, aiebat, ne gaudeant Christiani aut sperent
Christianae. Postea cognito errore suo, quod tormentis quosdam a
proposito suo excidere fecisset, paene Christianus decessit. Caecilius
Capella in illo exitu Byzantino, Christiani gaudete, exclamavit. Sed qui
videntur sibi impune tulisse, venient in diem divini judicii.
The date of this treatise is a.d. 211.
The persecution under Saturninus proconsul of Africa took place a.d. 180 (see
above, p. 507). The sufferings at Byzantium under Capella have been assigned with
some probability to a.d. 196 (see above, p. 510 sq.). If we suppose the order to be
chronological, CI. L. Herminianus would come between the two, and therefore probably
the incident related of him would fall during the reign of Commodus. The name
Herminianus is written variously in the MSS. It is curious that we meet with two
proconsuls of Africa bearing the name Clodius Hermogenianus about the middle of
the fourth century (see C. I. L. vm. i860).
(d) Ad Scapulam 5.
Arrius Antoninus in Asia cum persequeretur instanter, omnes
illius civitatis Christiani ante tribunalia ejus se manu facta obtulerunt.
Turn ille, paucis duci jussis, reliquis ait, *I2 SetAot, et BeXere diroBvijo-Keiv,
Kpiy/tvovs rj ftpox°vs exere.
Some difference of opinion has existed with respect to the person here intended.
(1) Arrius Antoninus, the maternal grandfather of the emperor Antoninus Pius, was a
famous proconsul of Asia (Plin. Epist. iv. 3, Capitol. Pius 1, 3). His proconsulate
has sometimes been placed in the reign of Trajan, e.g. by Dodwell (Diss. Cypr. 11
§ 27), who supposes this person to be meant by Tertullian. More probably how
ever he was proconsul under Titus or early in Domitian's reign (Waddington Pastes
Asiatiques p. 154 sq.; comp. Tillemont Mimoires II. p. 572). He would therefore be
too early. (2) Baronius considers that Antoninus Pius himself is meant. This, I
suppose, is Mosheim's view, since he places the incident in the reign of Hadrian (De
Rebus Christianis p. 235). Uhlhorn (Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism
p. 262 sq.) certainly identifies this Arrius Antoninus with the future emperor. Gibbon
also (Decline and Fall c. xvi, II. p. 253, ed. Smith) is inclined to adopt this identifi
cation; but he strangely places the date of the proconsulship under Trajan. Against
this identification Tillemont (1. c.) argues that there is no evidence of his bearing
the name Arrius. Here however he is mistaken. The name Arrius Antoninus is
given to him more than once (Spartian. Hadr. 24, Capitol. Pius 4), owing to his
adoption, it would appear, by his maternal grandfather (Capitol. Pius 1). His full
name before his elevation was T. Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus (Klein
Fasti Consulares p. 69). His proconsulship, which was famous (Capitol. Pius 3), must
have fallen about the year 135 (Waddington I.e. p. 205 sq.). With greater justice
Tillemont urges that Tertullian would have distinguished the future emperor in some
other way. It should be added that such indiscriminate slaughter, as is ascribed to
Arrius Antoninus in this story, is altogether irreconcilable with the well-known
clemency of the man (see above, p. 443), and that Tertullian himself (Apol. 5) speaks

524 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
of him as no persecutor of the Christians. If therefore he is the person intended,
the story must have been ' improved ' in the course of transmission. Even as it
stands, it betrays an unwillingness on the part of the proconsul to push matters to
extremities. (3) One Gaius Arrius Antoninus was proconsul of Asia (Lamprid. Com
modus 7) about a.d. 184 or 185 (Waddington I.e. p. 239 sq.). This is probably the
person meant (Tillemont Mimoires n. pp. 170, 572, Keim Rom. u. Christenthum
p. 610, Renan Marc-Aurile p. 62, GSrres yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, p. 395 sq.,
Aube Les Chritiens etc. p. 29 sq.). Waddington (I.e.), though preferring this latest
Arrius Antoninus, considers the earliest of the three possible. This latest was a great
friend of Fronto, who addresses him as 'my master and very dear son' ('mi domine
fili carissime ', Fronto Epist. p. 192, Naber), and was advanced to successive honours
by the 'sanctissimi imperatores' M. Aurelius and L. Verus (Henzen no. 6485; comp,
Borghesi CEuvres v. p. 383 sq.). From the nature of some of these offices it would
seem that Marcus had especial confidence in him. He was apparently a very severe
administrator of justice, and made himself many enemies thereby. Fronto writes to
him, ' Raro umquam tot simul capita de caelo tacta sunt, quot tu condemnasti' (p. 195),
and remonstrates with him for his harsh treatment in one case more especially (p. 192
sq.). Unfortunately Fronto's letters to him are much mutilated. This was during
the joint reign of Marcus and Lucius (p. 194 ' imperatores nostri '). A sentence
pronounced by Arrius, when proconsul of Asia, was the occasion of a plot against
him which cost him his life (Lamprid. Comm. 7). Thus the character of this Arrius
Antoninus entirely suits the story of Tertullian (Aube p. 31 sq.). Our only difficulty
is in placing a persecution so severe as this is represented in the reign of Commodus,
which was a period of general tranquillity for the Church. But possibly the story is
exaggerated. Moreover, as occurring in the early years of the reign it may be looked
upon, like the Madaurian and Scillitan martyrdoms (see above p. 506 sq.), as a survival
of the policy of M. Aurelius. Nor does it seem impossible, having regard to the
data, to place the proconsulship of Arrius Antoninus two or three years earlier than it
is tentatively placed by Waddington.

(ix) Hieronymus [a.d. 392, 397].
(a) Vir. Illustr. 19.
Quadratus apostolorum discipulus, Publio Athenarum episcopo ob
Christi fidem martyrio coronato, in locum ejus substituitur et ecclesiam
grandi terrore dispersam fide et industria sua congregat. Cumque
Hadrianus Athenis exegisset hiemem, invisens Eleusinam, et omnibus
paene Graeciae sacris initiatus dedisset occasionem his, qui Christianos
oderant, absque praecepto imperatoris vexare credentes, porrexit ei
librum etc.
Jerome has derived his information from two passages of Eusebius ; H. E. iv. 3,
which mentions that Quadratus the Apologist addresses his work to Hadrian ' because
certain wicked men were endeavouring to harass our people ' (on Si) irovripol rives dvSpes
robs r)peripovs ivoxXeiv iireipwvro), and H. E. iv. 23, which relates on the authority \
of Dionysius of Corinth that Quadratus Bishop of Athens succeeded Publius and
gathered together the congregation which had been scattered by the persecution. He

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 525
identifies Quadratus the Apologist with Quadratus the Bishop, and thus he assigns to
the reign of Hadrian the persecution which was fatal to Publius. In this identification
he is most probably wrong. At least Eusebius seems to have no suspicion of it, and
Jerome's information is derived wholly from Eusebius. But Harnack ( Texte u. Unter-
suchungen I. p. 102) goes too far when he says that Dionysius of Corinth represents
Quadratus as bishop of Athens in the time of M. Aurelius. Dionysius himself wrote
during this reign, but his language does not imply that Quadratus was still living.
Indeed the opposite might be inferred with some probability from the fact that he
represents the Athenian Church as having fallen away from the faith since Quadratus
gathered the Church together after the martyrdom of Publius. We may conjecture
that the persecution, in which Publius suffered, fell in the reign of Antoninus Pius,
and that it gave occasion to the letter of this emperor to the Athenians which is men
tioned by Melito (Eus. H. E. iv. 26; see above, pp. 491, 493).
Jerome's authority reigned supreme in the Western Church; and doubtless from
these passages the idea of a persecution under Hadrian spread among Latin writers.
Eusebius knows nothing of any such persecution ; and later Greek writers are for the
most part equally ignorant of it. The legends of martyrdom under this emperor are
confined almost entirely to Italy and the West (see above, p. 486 sq.).
(b) Epist. 70 (Op. 1. p. 428).
Quadratus apostolorum discipulus et Atheniensis pontifex ecclesiae
nonne Adriano principi, Eleusinae sacra invisenti, librum pro nostra
religione tradidit ? Et tantae admirationi omnibus fuit, ut persecutionem
gravissimam illius excellens sedaret ingenium.
This epistle belongs to the year 397.
(x) Sulpicius Severus [a.d. 403].
Chron. ii. 31, 32.
Quarta sub Adriano persecutio numeratur, quam tamen postea
exerceri prohibuit, injustum esse pronuntians ut quisquam sine crimine
reus constitueretur. Post Adrianum Antonino Pio imperante pax
ecclesiis fuit. Sub Aurelio deinde, Antonini filio, persecutio quinta
agitata. See above, p. 491. (xi) Orosius [a.d. 417, 418].
Adv. Paganos vii. 13, 14, 15.
13 Hie [Hadrianus] per Quadratum discipulum apostolorum et Ari-
stidem Atheniensem, ' virum fide sapientiaque plenum, et per Serenum
Granium legatum libris de Christiana religione composltis instructus
atque eruditus, praecepit per epistulam ad Minucium proconsulem
Asiae datam, ut nemini liceret Christianos sine objectu criminis aut
probatione damnare.

526 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
14... Verum Justinus philosophus librum pro Christiana religione
compositum Antonino tradidit benignumque eum erga Christianos
homines fecit.
15... Sed in diebus Parthici belli persecutiones Christianorum
quarta jam post Neronem vice in Asia et in Gallia graves praecepto
ejus [Marci Antonini] exstiterunt, multique sanctorum martyrio coronati
sunt. He afterwards relates the story of the Thundering Legion.
(xii) XlPHILINUS [c. A.D. 1070].
(Dion Cass. lxx. 3.)
'O yap AvtcovIvos opoXoyelrai. irapa rravrwv koXos re koi dyaBds yeveaBai,
Kal ovre tcov aAAtov virrjKOWv Ticrl ftapvs oute Xpicrnavots eirayftjs aAAa
rroXXrjv Ttva toutois vepwv atSco, Kat -rrj tou 'ASptavou Tipfj, ijv eKetvos eTip,a
XptoTtavoos, rrpocrriBeis. o yap tou TLapcpiXov iUvcreftios Kat eiriOToAas
Ttvas tou 'ASptavou ev rrj eKKAi/crtaoTtKij Icrropia irapariBeTOi k.t.X.
It would seem that Xiphilinus is wholly dependent on Eusebius for his conception
of this emperor's relations towards the Christians.
(xiii) Oracula Sibyllina [c. a.d. 138, 160, 267].
(a) v. 46—52- per avrov B aAAos ava^et
dpyvpoKpavos avrjp- tw B ecraerai ovvopa itovtov
ecrrai Kat iravaptcrros av»7p, Kat iravTa vorjcrer
Kal iirl croi, iravapicrre, iravefo^e, Kuavo^aira,
50 Kat eirt crotcrt KAaSotot Ta8' ecrcreTat rjpara iravra.
Tpets apiovcriv d Be Tpiraros crcpwv dd/e Kparrjcrei.
reipopai rj TpnaXaiva KaKijv cpariv iv cppecrl BecrBai.
The ' silver- headed ' (dpyvpbKpavos), 'grey-haired' (Kvavoxalra) king, who bears
' the name of a sea ', is Hadrian. He was sixty-two when he died. The three, who
shall rule after him, are Antoninus Pius, M. Aurelius, and L. Verus. This Sibylline
oracle therefore was written not before the last year of Hadrian's reign (a.d. 138).
The adoption of Antoninus Pius took place in February of that year, and Hadrian
died in July. It is probable that we should place the poem during this interval, since
the writer would not have been likely to express himself in this way, rpels dp^oviriv, if
the reign of Antoninus Pius had actually begun. Alexandre indeed (Oracula
Sibyllina I. p. 187) maintains that it cannot be placed earlier than A.D. 139, because
Antoninus did not adopt M. Aurelius till tbe second year of his reign, and elsewhere
(n. p. 353) he places the date after the first consulate of L. Verus and before the death
of Pius, i.e. between a.d. 154— 161. But the adoption of M. Aurelius and L. Verus
into the imperial family was understood from the first to be part of the arrangement by

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 527
which Hadrian adopted Antoninus; see esp. Dion Cass. Ixix. 21 rbv Te KoppoSov
vlbv KbppoSov elaeiroliraev ['A8piavbs] atrip [i.e. 'Avrwvlvip] Kal (ri irpbs robrw MipKov
"Avviov Qvrjpov, fiovXi)Bels iirl irXeiarov Kal robs perd ravra abrapxi aovras aToSeit-ai
(comp. Spartian. Hadr. 24, Capitol. Pius 4, Marcus 5, Verus 2). The point at issue
however is not very important for our present purpose, as under any circumstances
the words were written by a contemporary. The ' third of them ', who shall ' rule
late ', is evidently L. Verus. As a matter of fact he died several years before M.
Aurelius; but as he was much younger than M. Aurelius, he seemed likely to survive
him, when the Sibyllist wrote. L. Verus was as a young man, strong and vigorous,
whereas M. Aurelius had delicate health (Dion Cass. lxxi. 1 b Si Aovkios (ppuro re
Kal vedrrepos rpi; see Schiller RSmische Kaiserzeit I. p. 637).
The whole of this 5th book of tire Sibylline Oracles does not seem to have been the
work of one and the same hand. The writer of the greater part would appear to
have been a Jew. In ver. 2 2 1 sq. irpwra piv iK rpiaawv KecpaXGv (an obscure and perhaps
corrupt passage) he seems to be denouncing a terrible judgment on the Antonines and
on the world at large, as a punishment for Hadrian's treatment of the chosen people.
On the other hand the praise of Hadrian in the passage before us cannot have
emanated from a Jew, since the erection of ^Elia Capitolina and the Jewish war of
Hadrian had preceded the adoption of Antoninus.
(b) VIII. 50 — 72.
50 aAA' ore o-ot ftacriXeis j(At8avot Tpts irevre yevcovTat,
Kocrpov SouAcoo-aires air' avToAt^s /^ey/it Bvcrpwv,
eo-o-er ava£ iroAioKpavos, e)(wv ireAas ovvopa ttovtou,
Kocrpov eiroirreucov piapw iroSt, Scopa iropit,wv,
Xpvcrdv pev irdprrXeirrTOV e^cov Kat dpyvpov ixBpwv
55 irAetova a-uAAe£as, Kat yvpvwcras dvaXvcrei,
Kat payiKwv aSuVcov pvcmjpia iravra peBe£ei-
rraiBa Beov BeiKWcriv, diravTa creftacrpaTa Xvcrei,
Ka£ dpxrjs rd irXdvrjs pvtJTrjpia iracriv avot^et.
atAtvos eKTore Katpos, or [atAivos auros] dAen-at.
60 Kat iroTe Bfjpos epet, Meya crov Kparos, arrrv, irecretTat,
eiScos euf?ii to peXXov errepxdpevov KaKOV rjpap.
Kal Tore rrevBrjcrovcriv opov, rrjv crrjv rrpoftXeirovres
otKTporanjv pdlpav, irarepes Kat vrjma reKva-
ot, at, Bprjvrjcrovcn Auypats irapa ®vpftpiBos ox&ais.
65 tov p.6Ta Tpets dp£ovcri iravuoraTov ijpap e\ovTes,
ovvopa irXrjpwcravTes iirovpaviow ®eoto,
ou to Kparos Kal vvv Kels tovs atcovas airavTas.
ets pev, irpecrftvs iwv, o-KrjirTpwv iirl irovXv Kparrjaei,
oiKTpoTaTos ftacriXevs, os XP^IrLaTa- Kocrpov airavra
7° Scop,acriv eyKAeio-et rrjpwv, 'iv, orav y irraveXBrj
iK irepaTwv yairjs 6 cpvyds pryrpoKTovos iXBwv,
ravra arrarri StSoos irXovrov peyav 'AcrcriBi Brjo-ei.

52S EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
The fifteen kings are reckoned from Julius Caesar to Hadrian inclusive. The
' hoary-headed' king is therefore himself the fifteenth. In the words ireud"a Bebv SeU-
vvoiv we have a reference to the deification of Antinous, which naturally attracted the
notice of Christian writers (Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 8, Justin Apol. i. 29,
Tatian ad Graec. 10, Athenag. Suppl. 30, Theophil. ad Autol. iii. 8, etc.). The line
AtXivos k.t.X. is a play on this emperor's name AlXios. The three who rule after him
are said to bear the name of the God of heaven from the similarity of the words
Antoninus, Adonai (=Antonai; see below, 11. p. 492 sq.). The expected return of
Nero (pijrpoKTbvos) is foreshadowed in the last lines.
The Sibyllist who wrote this eighth book is distinctly a Christian. The passage
before us is the latest chronological notice which it contains. It would therefore
seem to have been written during the reign of Antoninus Pius. It certainly cannot
have been written much later ; for this Sibyllist elsewhere (ver. 140 sq.) places the
return of Nero and the great catastrophe in A.u.c 948 [=a.d. 195], the number
corresponding to the name pomh (100 + 800 + 40+8).
(c) XII. 163 — 200. per avrov B' aAAos dvd£ei
apyvpoKpavos avrjp- rov B ecrcreTai ovvopa irdvrov
165 "PX7/" o-Toixeiov irpocpepwv reTpacrvXXaftos dprjs.
Bvtovs Kal vaovs irdXecri irdcrais dvaBrjcrei,
Kocrpov irrorrTevwv tStco iroSt, Scopa Kopt^wv,
Xpvcrdv T rjXeKTpdv \re\ iroXvv iroAAotcrt irape^et.
ovtos Kat payiKwv pvcrTrjpia iravra KaBe^ei
170 i$ dBvrwv Kal prjv rroXv cpeprepov dvBpwirouri
Brjcrei KOipaveovra  Kepauvos.
elprjvrj Be [p,aKatpa] yevrjcreTai, oirirdVav eorat
outos ava£- carat Be koX dyXaocpwvos aotSos,
Kat vopipwv peroxds [re] (Jep^io-ToirdAos re Stkatos.
175 auTos 8 au iretrerai, poiprj ISirj KaraXvcras.
tov pera rpels ap^ovcriv 6 Be rpiros dxj/e Kparrjcrei,
rpeis BeKaBas Karexwv avrdp povdBos irdXi rrpwTrjs
aAAos ava£ ap£ef p;eTO 8' auVov Koipavos aAAos
eK SeKaScov eirra- tois ovvopar ecrcreTai ecrBXd.
180 avrot 8 out oAeo"ouo"t itoAootiktous dvBpwrrovs
BpeTTavous, Maupous peydXovs, AaKas, Apaftas re.
aAA oitotov toutcov o vecoVaTos e£airoAetTat,
Brj rdre TLapBiq. irdXiv iireXevcreTai dprjs
Beivos, d rrplv Tpwcras, Kal ets TeAos e£aAaira|et.
185 Kat TOTe B auVos avaf ireo-erai BoXiov inrd Brjpos,
yvpvdt,wv iraXdpas' irpdcpacris 8' avrrj Bavdroio.
tov pera y aAAos av7;p ap£et, cTocpa iroAAa' re elBws,
rovvop' e^cov irpwTOv  Kparepov ftatriXrjos,
eK p.ovaOos irpwTrjs- ecrrai 0 ayaoos Te peyas re.

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 529
* * * *
Kat irore "Poj/Aatourw dvaoTa^ucocreTat IAkos
195 SeivdVaTov iroAejaotS" XmPrlv &* ra'v e|oAaira£et
iracrav reppxtvtSv, diroTav peya crrjpa ®eoto
ovpavdBev irpocpavfj, Kai r avSpas xa^-KOKOPva'ro-S
Tpvxopevovs crweie St' evo-eftirjv ftacriXrjos'
avrw ydp ®eos oopavtos pdXa rrdvB' vrraKOvcrec
200 eufa/xevos |8pe£et irapd Kaipov opftpiov vBwp.
In this last line we should perhaps read eb^apivw and irapaxalpiov with Alex
andre, This Sibyllist has borrowed largely from his predecessors. Hadrian however is
still further described as a warrior of four syllables (ASpiavbs), commencing with the
first letter of the alphabet. The description of his three successors is somewhat con
fused. Lucius is described as rpeis SeKdSas Karixwv, the first letter of his name A
standing for 30. The aAAos avoj is Antoninus Pius whose name, like Hadrian's,
begins with A (povdSos irdXiirpwrijs). • The Kolpavos d\\os, whose initial letter 0 stands
for 70 (iK SeKdSwv iirrd), is Verus (OiJjjpos), by which name is meant not, as commonly,
L. Verus, but M. Aurelius. The latter however is called Verus by Eusebius and
other Christian writers, and even by Julian Caesaresp. 312 a ttjs twv dSeXtpuiv %wwpl8os
Brjpov xal Aovdov, where the name is applied to Marcus in distinction to Lucius.
The expression ' good names ' refers to the similarity of the sounds Antoninus,
Adonai, as in the previous Sibyllist, who however explains his meaning more fully.
The expression applied to Lucius, b Si rpiros b\pi Kparrjo-et, is borrowed from the other
Sibyllist (Orac. SU. v. 51), though the prediction had been falsified by the result.
Our later Sibyllist must have repeated it parrot-like, or have interpreted it some other
way. In ver. 182 6 vedraros is again L. Verus, though it is difficult to reconcile the
statements in the following verses (vv. 183 — 185) with history. The aXXos dvijp of
ver. 187 must again be M. Aurelius, as is shown by what follows. The Sibyllist may
have been misled by the confusion of Eusebius in his references to the emperors at
this epoch. For the miracle of the thundering legion mentioned in vv. 195 — 200 see
above, p. 469 sq.
The four last Sibylline books, xi, XII, xiii, xiv, are by the same hand. This list
of the Roman Emperors in the 12th book ends with Alexander Severus; but the
subsequent history of the empire is continued in the following books, being given by
way of prediction. The last page of history, with which the prophetess shows any
acquaintance, comprises the successes of Odenathus in the East and his recognition as
emperor (a.d. 264—267). This closes the 13th book. The opening of the 14th con
tains apparently an allusion to the death of Odenathus (a.d. 267) and possibly (ver. 18)
refers also to Aureolus the Western pretender to the empire, whose rebellion was
nearly synchronous with this event. But the writer betrays no knowledge of Zenobia
as the successor of Odenathus. It is true he goes on to predict the later history, fore
telling a succession of emperors and giving the initial letters of their names ; but his
predictions have no resemblance to the actual facts of history, and he is evidently
drawing from his imagination. The date of this Sibyllist therefore is not later than
A.D. 267 or 268. On this subject see Alexandre Oracula Sibyllina II. p. 415 sq.

IG. I. 34

2.

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS.

THIS branch of the subject need not detain us long. It has no such
close and immediate connexion with the literary transmission, and
therefore with the question of integrity and genuineness of Polycarp's
Epistle, as in the case of the Ignatian letters. Moreover in most of
the mss the Epistle of Polycarp is appended to the Ignatian letters, and
these mss have been already described.
We have seen that, as originally written and despatched to the
Philippians, it stood before the Seven Epistles of Ignatius, which were
subjoined (viroreTaypevai) as a sort of appendix (see above, pp. 323, 428,
and 11. p. 932). This position it does not occupy in any extant
Greek ms. It does indeed occur in some mss in connexion with the
Ignatian letters ; but the circumstances are such as to deprive the fact
of any value.
In the first place it is not found in connexion with the seven genuine
epistles, but only with the thirteen interpolated and spurious letters.
In the next place, it is placed not before, but after these letters, in those
Greek mss in which the combination is found. Thirdly and lastly, it is
hot so combined in all our Greek mss, but only in one particular
group, of which the parent ms, Vaticanus 859, is extant and belongs to
the nth or 12th century (see above, p. 103 sq.). This group has no
claim to represent a very early stage in the transmission of the documents
which it contains. On the contrary it has many corruptions of text,
and it fuses together the Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas into one.
On the other hand Polycarp's Epistle is wanting in two most important
extant mss of these Ignatian letters — the only two which are independent

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 53 1
of the group already named — Monacensis 394, and ConstanUnopolitanus
(see above, pp. 102, no). It appears also to have been wanting
in a third independent ms, Nydpruccianus, which is now no longer
extant, but which furnished the text of a very early edition (see above,
p. 109). It will be evident from these facts that the connexion of the
Epistle of Polycarp with the Ignatian letters in the extant Greek mss
is late and accidental. It is in no sense due to historical transmission
from the original copy, in which Polycarp attached the letters of Ignatius
to his own. A late transcriber would naturally be anxious to include
the works of these two contemporary Apostolic fathers in the same
volume, more especially as Ignatius addresses Polycarp and Polycarp
mentions Ignatius; though he might have to transcribe them from
different manuscripts.
Whether at the time when it was written Polycarp's Epistle was
circulated independently, as well as in connexion with the Ignatian
letters, we have no certain information. But this would probably be the
case. A copy of so important a letter would be kept by the author,
and his disciples would transcribe it for more general circulation. The
earliest Christian writers however, who quote or mention it — Irenaeus
and Eusebius, Timotheus and Severus — had in their possession likewise
the letters of Ignatius (see below, p. 547 sq.); and presumably therefore
the two were still attached together in their copies, as they had been in
the original document sent to the Philippians. The first direct notice of
the Epistle of Polycarp, as separate from the letters of Ignatius, appears
in Pho'tius (c. a.d. 850), who speaks of it as contained in a little
volume (ftiftXiBdpiov) comprising likewise the Two Epistles of Clement
of Rome, but not (as we may infer from his silence) the Epistles of
Ignatius, with which he betrays no acquaintance (see below, p. 556).

(i) Greek Manuscripts.
The extant Greek Manuscripts have all descended from one faulty,
and probably not very early, archetype. This is shown by the fact
mentioned more than once already (pp. 104, 105 ; comp. 11. p. 901), that
the epistle is mutilated at the end and runs on without any break into
the Epistle of Barnabas, of which the commencement is wanting. The
sentence at the junction is diroBavdvra Kal 81 rjpds viro rdv Xaov rdv Kevov
(ratvov) k.t.A., of which airoOavdvra Kat St' rjpds vrrd belongs to Polycarp
§ 9, and tov Aaov toV Kaivdv to Barnabas § 5. They have all likewise the
34—2

532 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
same heading, too aytov iroXvKapTrov eirto-Ko'irou rrpvpvrjs Kal lepopdprvpos
irpos ajiXiirirrjcriovs iiricrToXrj. This family of mss however may be divided
into two classes, according as Polycarp's Epistle is or is not connected
with the Ignatian letters.
(i) The mss belonging to the first class have been already described
(see above, p. 103 sq.). They are as follows.
1. Vaticanus 859 [v], described above, p. 103 [gj. The Epistles
of Polycarp and Barnabas are contained on fol. 195 — 211.
2. Ottobonianus 348 [o], described above, p. 104, where reasons
are given for believing it to be a direct transcript of the preceding. The
Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas are on fol. 63 — 84.
3. Florentinus Laur. vii. 21 [f], described above, p. 105, where its
parentage is traced to the last mentioned ms [o].
4. Parisiensis Graec. 937 [p], described above, p. 106, where its
close connexion with the last mentioned ms [f] is pointed out. The
Epistle of Polycarp begins on fol. 48 a.
These four mss I have re-collated myself for the Epistle of Polycarp,
so as to exhibit their connexion. But since v may be regarded as the
common ancestor of the others [o f p], these latter have no independent
value in determining the text. For previous collations see 11. p. 904.
(ii) The mss in which the Epistle of Polycarp (with the Epistle of
Barnabas still attached) is found apart from the Ignatian Epistles are
the following.
(5) Casanatensis G. v. 14 [c], described above, p. 74 sq. The
Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas are found in the same volume with
the Ignatian Epistles (the genuine and spurious, but not the interpolated
letters) ; but they are not in the same handwriting, and the connexion
is due solely to the binder. The volume in fact is made up of several
tracts in different handwritings of different dates and on different sized
paper, loosely bound together. The handwriting of the Epistles of
Polycarp and Barnabas seems to me probably later than the 15th
century, to which Dressel ascribes it. I have recollated this ms, which
was first collated by Dressel.
(6) Barberinus 7 [b], see above, p. 75. In the handwriting of
Lucas Holsten, who on fol. 2 writes ; ' S. Polycarpi Episcopi et Martyris
Epistola ad Philippenses S. Barnabae Apostoli aKecpaAos. Ex Msto
bibliothecae S. Silvestri in Quirinali collata cum Msto vetustiore Vatic.
bibl.' This last ms is Vatic. 859, from which accordingly he gives an
occasional various reading. The ms of S. Silvester is the same which
Voss (p. 310) in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas calls Theatinorum
qui Romae agunt (see Gebhardt, Barnab. Epist. Proleg. pp. x, xiv). It

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 533
has since been lost. Barber. 7 was collated by Dressel, and I have
recollated it.
(7) Neapolitanus 11. a. 17 [n], a paper ms of the 15th century, in
the National Library (Bibliotheca Borbonica) at Naples, called Borboni-
cus by Gebhardt (ib. p. xi) and by Zahn (Ignat. et Polyc. Epist. p. xliv).
This MS is described in Cyrilli Codices Graeci MSS Bibliothecae Borbo-
¦nicae 1. p. 43 sq. (Neapoli, 1826). I collated the Epistle of Polycarp in
this ms many years ago for this edition. A collation has since been
made by E. Martini for Gebhardt, and some various readings in the
Epistle of Polycarp are given from this collation by Zahn (Proleg.
p. xliv) ; see 11. p. 904. The Epistle of Polycarp begins fol. 533 b.
(8) Salmasianus [s], concerning which see 11. p. 903.
(9) Andrius [a], belonging to the monastery ZcooSdxou Hr/yr/s in
Andros. The Epistles of Polycarp and Barnabas, combined as usual,
were transcribed from this ms and published in the Bulletin of the
Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece (AeXriov T'rys lo-TopiKrjs ko.1
i&voXoyiieijs iraipias rrjs 'EAAaSos) I. p. 209 sq. (Athens, 1883). The
transcriber Constantius Pleziotes, who contributes this article to the
Bulletin, supposes that he is giving the lost end of the Epistle of
Polycarp, being wholly unaware that he is only reproducing Polycarp's
letter with a large part of the Epistle of Barnabas attached, as it is
found in all the extant Greek mss. This ms is described as written
on paper in small close characters with many contractions, in three
different handwritings. A colophon in the beginning states that it was
purchased in 1656 by one Nathaniel an Athenian monk. The last page
is wanting (except an unimportant scrap), so that the text ends with prjo-rj-
o-ets (sic) irav o oi in Barnab. § 19. It would appear from the description
to be quite a late ms. It contains among other patristic works the
Hodegus of Anastasius of Sinai.
This text was published too late to be of use for my own text of the
epistle (11. p. 905) ; nor would it have contributed anything of value.
It is a ms of the same type as c b n s, but the transcriber has tampered
with the text before him in various places. Thus in Polyc. § 7 for
iras yap os av prj dpoXoyrj 'Irjcrovv Xpiorov ev crapKi eXrjXvBevai avTi^ptcrTOS
eo-Tt he reads iras ydp os dv dpoXoyrj Tij-crotSv Xpto-Tov ev crapKi ikrjXvBevai.
iK tou ©eou eo-Tt. The negative has been accidentally omitted in the
beginning of the sentence, and he has altered the end arbitrarily for the
sake of the sense. Again in Barnab. § 6, where the writer, explaining
the plural of Gen. i. 26 ' Let us make ', says Taura irpos rdv vlov, the
transcriber adds Kat irpos to irvevpa to dyiov.
Pleziotes represents his ms as giving the words at the end of Polyc.

534 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
§ 9 Kat Si' rjpds viro rov OeoS avaoravTa. This is probably an error,
as all the other mss omit the last three words and plunge into the
Epistle of Barnabas in the middle of the sentence. If the statement
be correct, the scribe of this or of some ancestral ms must have1
obtained the missing words from Eusebius.

(ii) Latin Version.
In the Latin mss the Epistle of Polycarp appears in proximity with
the spurious and interpolated letters of Ignatius and other Ignatian
matter such as the Acts of Martyrdom, the Laus Heronis, and the
Correspondence with the Virgin. A description of thirteen such mss is
given above, p. 118 sq. In twelve out of the thirteen the Epistle of
Polycarp comes after the Ignatian letters, and generally with some
intervening matter. The thirteenth, Vindobonensis 1068 (p. 122), in
which it precedes these letters, belongs to a comparatively late date and
has no claims to be regarded as giving the earlier order. There is no
reason to suppose that the Latin mss represent one Greek original
containing the whole of the Ignatian and Polycarpian matter. If the
translation were made from a single Greek original, it must have been a
comparatively late ms. This is evident from the fact that the Acts of
Martyrdom here presented are a conflate work, made up of the Roman
and Antiochene Acts of Ignatius combined (see 11. pp. 365, 370). It
is not even certain that the version of Polycarp's Epistle was made by
the same hand which translated the Ignatian letters ; and the two may
have been combined after each separately had assumed its Latin dress.
The vocabulary perhaps suggests different hands, though its evidence is
far from decisive. Thus Bvo-iaorTrjpwv in Polyc. Phil. 4 is rendered
sacrarium ; but the word commonly used in the Ignatian Epistles, where
it occurs, is altare (Ephes. 5, Trail. 7, Magn. 7, Rom. 2)1, though in the
first two passages sacrarium would be the more appropriate word, the
expression being Jvtos [tov\ Bvo-iao-TrjpCov. On the other hand in Tars.
9 xwtts "s Bvo-iao-Trjpiov ®eov, which is the closest parallel to the passage
in Polycarp, it is rendered sacrarium. But the expression in this con
nexion may have become common, before this translation was made.
Again in Polyc. Phil. 8 dSiaAeirn-cos is translated indeficienter, and in
Polyc. Phil. 4 incessanter, but in Ignat. Ephes. 10, Polyc. 1 (for in this
latter passage the translator evidently read dStaAetirrcos for dStaAeiVrois)
1 In Philad. 4 the clause containing Bva-iao-Tijpiov is omitted in this version,

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 535
the rendering is indesinenter. On the whole the question must be left
undetermined. The translation is very loose at times, and the Greek text from
which it was made was not free from errors. Moreover the text of the
version itself has not been transmitted to us uncorrupted. The opening
sentence exhibits all these three sources of depravation :
Wweydprp/ vpiv ptyaXws iv Kvptcp Congratulatus sum vobis magnifice
rjpwv Irjcrov Xptorcp Be£apevois Ta in Domino nostra Jesu Christo sus-
piprjpaTa Trjs dXrjBovs dydrnjs ko.1 cipiens imitabilia verba dilectionis
irpoirepd/acriv, cos breftaXev vpiv, quam ostendistis in illis qui prae-
toiis eveiXrjpcvovs tois dytoirpeireo-t missi sunt viris Sanctis, decorosis
Becrpois, dnvd eon BiaBrjpaTa tcov vinculis connexis, quae sunt coronae
dAijfJcos uiro ®eov Kat too Kvpiov electae Deo, illius veri regni per
rjpwv iKXeXeypevwv. Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum.
The corruption of the Greek text is illustrated by suscipiens (Begdpevos
for 8e£apevois), and that of the Latin version by verba (for verae = dXr/Bovs) ;
while the looseness of the translation appears in the rendering of ko.1
irpoirepjlracrtv cos irreftaXev vpiv k.t.A. by quam ostendistis in illis qui prae-
missi sunt, which the boldness of despair alone could have suggested.
This passage however is an unfavourable sample of the version, which
here shows at its worst.
So far as I have observed, no traces appear of other versions.
Unlike the Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp's letter seems not to have been
translated into Syriac. The few Syriac quotations which are found (see
below, p. 547 sq.) appear in collections of extracts, and seem to have
been translated in the first instance in situ with the Greek authors who
first quoted them.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES.

THE course followed here is substantially the same as in the case
of Ignatius above, p. 127 sq.

1.
Ignatius [c. a.d. no].
(i) Epist. ad Ephes. 21.
eis ItfjLvpvav, odev Kal ypdcfito vfjuv, eir^apuTTcov rw Kvpico,
dyaircov TloKvKapTTOv eos kcu u/xas.
(ii) Epist. ad Magnes. 15.
/cara rravra /xe dveiravcrav a/xa UoXvKdpTTCu iincrKOTTCp
%[ivpvatojv. (iii) Epist. ad Smyrn. 12.
dtnrdtp\xa.i rov d&odeov irrLa-Koirov.
(iv) Epist. ad Polyc. passim (see 11. p. 331 sq.).
2.
Letter of the Smyrnaeans [c. a.d. 156].
This document, giving an account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, is
printed below, 11. p. 947 sq.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 537
3-
Lucian [a.d. 165 — 170].
De Morte Peregrini 36 sq. : see above, p. 132 sq.
4-
IREN/EUS [c. A.D. 175 — 195].
(i) Adv. Haereses iii. 3. 4.
Kai IIoAu/ca/37ros Se ov (jlovov vtto diroo~T6X(ov padrjTevdels
Kal crwavacrTpa<peis ttoXXois tois toi> 'Kpicrrov kcopaKocriv,
dXXd Kal vtto dirocrToXiov Karacrra(9eis eis tvjv 'Acriav iv Trj iv
lifivpvri iKKKr/cria eiricr/coiros, ov Kal ij/xeis icopaKaptv iv Trj
tspixiTQ r\p5tv ¦*]\ikUl. iimroXv yap napepeuve, Kal irdvv yrjpa-
Xeos, eVSo^ws Kal i,TL<f>avio-TaTa papTvprjo-as, itjfjXde tov
j3iou, ravra SiSacfas aei, ct Kal irapd t<ov dirocrToXcov ipadev,
a Kal 1) eKKkncrCa TTapaZlhtoo-iv, a Kal pova icrriv dXfjdrj.
fiaprvpovcrL toutois at Kara Trjv 'Acriav iKKKrjcriai irdcrai,
Kal ol p^XPL v^v SiaSeSeyfievoi 701* UoAvKapTrov, rroXXco
dtfiomcrToYepov /cai /8e/8aiorepov dXr/#eias pdprvpa ovra
OvaXcvrivov koi MapKicovos Kal tcov Xoittcov KaKoyvcopovcov
os Kai eir! 'AvlkiJtov eViS^jtiTjcras Tfl 'Vcoprj 7roXXous aVo tcov
TTpoeipr)ix4v(t)v alpeTLKCuv iiT€crTpe\jjev iirl ttjv iKKXtjcr lav tov
®eou, piav kol povnv TavTnv dXij#eiai> Kqpv^aq xnro tcov
airooToXav TrapeiXinrjbivaL, ttjv vtto ttjs eKKXry crias 7rapaSeSo-
/ieVjjv. Kai eicrii' 01 ctKryKoores aurou, on 'lcodvvns 6 tov
Kvpiov /Aa0i7Ti)s iv Trj 'JZcp'ecrto, TropevOels Xovo~ao~6ai Kal
loav ecra» KrjpLvdov, i£rjXaTO tov fiaXaveiov pr) Xovcrdpevos,
dXX iirdnrcov Qvyiopev, p/r) Kal ro fiaXavelov crvp. Trior),
evBov oVros Krjpivdov tov Trys ctXr^eias i)(6pov. kol auros
oe 0 IloXuKayOTros MapKicovi 7rore eis 6\}ilv avrco iXOovri Kal
<pi)a-avTi, 'x^TTiyivcoo-Ke 77/xds, dmKpiOr), 'EmyvVfocrKOj, em-
yifcocrKoj roi' TrpcoroTOKov tov itaTavd. Too~avT7]v ou arro-
oroXoi Kai 01 padrjTal avrcov ia)(ov evXdfieiav irpos to prjSe
fiejyji Aoyou KOivojveiv tlvI tcov TTapa^apacrcrovTCOv ttjv dXrj-
deutv, ojs Kal IlaiJXos e<fyno-ev cxipetiKON ANGpoonoN mbta

538 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
mi'an kai AeyTepAN NoyeeciAN nApAiToy, eiAcibc oti elecTpAn-
TAI 0 TOIOYTOC KAI AMApTANCI OON AYTOKATAKpiTOC. COTl Se
Kai iiTLO-ToXi) TLoXvKapTrov irpos &iXnnri)criovs yeypappevrj
iKavcoTaTr), ecf 77s Kai tov ^apaKTij pa Trjs iricrTecos avrov Kal
to KTjpvypa rrjs dXi]0eias ol /3ovX6p,evoi Kal (ppovritflVTes Trjs
eavrcov crcoT-qpias SuVavrai padelv.
The original Greek of this passage is preserved in Euseb. H. E. iv. 14: see
above, pp. 434, 457.
(ii) Adv. Haereses v. 33. 4.
Taura Se Kai Tiarrias o 'Icodvvov pev dKOVo~Tr)s UoXvKap-
irov Se iralpos yeyovcos k.t.X.
See above, p. 426.
(iii) Epist. ad Florinum (Euseb. H. E. v. 20).
Taura ra Soypara, &Xcoplve, Iva irecj>eicrpevcos eiirco, ovk
ecrTiv vyiovs yvcoprjs. raura rd Soy/xara dcrvpcjxovd iari ttj
iKKXrjcria, eis tt)v peyicrrnv dcrejieiav irepifidXXovTa rovs
neidopevovs avrols. ravra ra Soypara ouSe 01 e<f&> rrjs
iKKXrjcrias alperiKol eroXprjcrav dirocjiijvacrOai iroTe. touto.
Ta Soy/xara 01 irpo rjpcov irpecrjSvTepoi, ol Kal tois d7rocrroXois
(TvprpoLT-jcravTes, ov irapeScoKav croi. eTSov ydp ere irals en
(ov iv rrj Kara) 'Actio, irapa UoXvKdpira), Xapirpcos irpdo-o-ovra
iv Trj fiacriXiKrj avXy Kal ireipcopevov evSoKipelv Trap' avrw.
pdXXov yap rd rore hiapvnpovevco tcov evay^os yivopivcov.
al yap iK iralScov padrjcreis crvvav^ovcrai rrj xjruxjj evovvrai
avrfj, (oo~T€ pe hvvatrOai elirelv Kal tov tottov iv co Kadetp-
pevos SieXeyero 6 paKapios Ti.oXvKapiros, Kal rds irpoooov;
aurou Kal rds eiiroSous Kal tov ^apaKTrjpa tov fiiov Kai Ti)V
tou cratpaTOs iSeav Kal rds SiaXecfeis as iiroielro irpos ro
7rX77#os, Kal tt)v perd 'Icodwov crvvavacrTpo(f>r)v cos dVr/yyeME
Kal ttjv perd tcov Xoittcov tcov ecopaKorcov tov Kvpiov, Kai cos
direpvnpoveve tovs Xoyous a73rcov, Kal nepi tov Kvpiov rwa
•rjv a Trap' iKeivcov aicnKoei, Kal irepl tcov hwdpecov avrov Kai
rrepl Trjs SiSaavcaXias, cos irapd tcov avToirTcov rrjs £g>tJs rov

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 539
Xoyou irapeiXyjcjicos 6 xJoXvKapiros dirijyyeXXe irdvTa crvpcjxova
rals ypa(j>als. raura Kal Tore Sid ro eXeos tou ®eov ro eV
iaol yeyovos cnrovBaicos ¦ijkovov, viropvnpaTilppevos aura ouk
h> X°'PTV c^' *v TV fyfl xapSia, ko.1 del Sid Trjv -)(dpiv tov
®eov yvtjcrivis aura dvapapvKcopai' Kal hvvapai Siapaprv-
pacrdai epirpocrdev tov @eou, on ei ti toioutov diajKoei
eKtlvos 6 paKapios Kal dTTooroXiKos irpecrfivTepos, dvaKpd£as
av koi ip<f>pd£as rd cora ai^rou, Kal to crvvrjdes avrco elircov,
*0 KaXe ©ee', eis oious pe Kaipovs TeTijpijKas, iva tovtcov dve-
X&j/xai, irecf>€vyei dv Kal tov ro7roi' iv co Kadetppevos rj ecrrcos
tcov toiovtcov diajKoei Xoycov. Kal ck tcov iiricTToXcov Se
aurou, eov iirecrTeiXev, riroi rais yeirvicocrais eVcKXrJcriais,
imo~Trjpi£,(ov auras, 77 tcov dSeXtp'cov tictI, vovdercov aurous Kal
irpoTpeiropevos, SuVarai cpavepcodrjvai.
The passage is translated above, p. 429; see also p. 432.
(iv) Epist. ad Victorem (Euseb. H. E. v. 24).
Kai tov paKapiov ILoXvKdpirov iiriBijpijcravTOS T17 'Vcoprj
eiri 'Avikijtov, Kal irepl dXXcov tivcov piKpd o~)(6vTes irpos
a\\r/Aous €u#us eipijveverav, irepl tovtov tov Kecf>aXaiov pi)
fyikepiCTTrjcravTes els eaurous. ovre ydp 6 'Aviktitos rov
noAuKapirov irelcrai eSuvaro pi) Tijpelv, are perd 'Icodwov
tov padtjTov tov Kvpiov rjpcov koi tcov Xoittcov dirocrToXcov
ens crvvoieTpixpev del TeTijpijKOTa, ovre prjv 6 TLoXvKapiros rov
Kviktjtov eneicre rnpelv, Xeyovra tt)v crwijOeiav tcov irpb
aurou irpecrfivTepcov ocpeiXeiv Kareyeiv. koi tovtcov ovtcos
i)(0VTcov iKoivcovrjcrav eavTols, Kal iv ttj iKKXrjcria nape^co-
pijcrev 0 'AviKijTos ttjv ev^apicrriav tco YloXvKdpirco Kar
wrpownv BijXovoti, Kal per elprjvns air' dXXijXcov dirnX-
Xayrjcrav, irdcrrjs rr/s iKKXijcrias eiprjvrjv i)(6vTcov koX tcov
TIJpOVVTCOV Kal TcW pi) TIJpOVVTCOV.
See above, p. 433.

54O EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
5.
Polycrates of Ephesus [c. a.d. 195].
Epist. ad Victorem (Euseb. H. E. v. 24).
vEn Se Kal 'icodvvijs d iirl to tnrjOos tou Kvpiov dvam-
aw... outos iv 'EcjSecroo KeKoipijTai. en Se Kal noXuKap7rosJ||ij
o iv A%pLvpvrj Kal iiricrKoiTos koi pdprvs, Kal ©pacre'as hti-
crK07ros Kal pdprvs airo Eu/xeveias os iv A$pvpvi] KeKoipij
Tai. ti Se Sei Xeyeiv Itdyapiv iirlcrKoiTOv Kal pdprvpa os eV
AaoSiKeia. KeKoipijTai, eri Se Kal Uairipiov tov paKapiov Kal
MeXircova. . .os Keirai iv SdpSecri...ouTOi iravres eTrjpijcrav
ti)v ijpepav ttjs recrcrapeorKaiSeKaTr/s tov irdcr)ca Kara ro
evayyeXiov k.t.X.
See above, p. 494. 6.
Tertullianus [c. a.d. 200].
De Praescr. Haeret. 32.
Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, sicut
Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab loanne collocatum refert, sicut
Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem.

Acts of Pionius [c. a.d. 250].
Ruinart Acta Martyrum Sincera pp. 188, 198 (Ratisbon, 1859).
2. Secundo itaque die sexti mensis, qui dies est quarto Idus
Martias, die sabbati maj ore, natale Polycarpi martyris celebrantes
genuinum, Pionium, Sabinam, Asclepiadem, Macedoniam quoque et
Lemnum presbyterum Catholicae Ecclesiae vis persecutionis invenit.
Sed quia bonae fidei totum Dominus ostendit, Pionius quae immine-
bant supplicia, quia non timebat advenientia, futura praevidit. Ergo
ante diem quam natalis Polycarpi martyris adveniret, cum Sabina et
Asclepiade dum jejuniis devotus insisteret, vidit in somnis sequenti die
se esse capiendum...
23. Acta sunt haec sub proconsule Julio Proclo Quintiliano, con
sule Imperatore Gaio Messio Quinto Trajano Decio et Vitio Grato,

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 541
[et] ut Romani dicunt, iv Idus Martii, et ut Asiani dicunt, mense sexto,
die sabbati, hora decima, etc.
The bearing of this document on the time of Polycarp's martyrdom will be dis
cussed in a subsequent chapter. The year of Pionius' own martyrdom is fixed (a.d.
250) by the names of the consuls. 8.
Apostolical Constitutions [a.d. ?].
ii. 26. ai re yrjpai Kal 6pcj>avol vpcov eis tvttov tov
Ovo-iacmjpiov XeXoyicrdcocrav vplv.
iii. 6. yvcopi£,eTco ovv rj XVPa °Tt OvcriacrTrjpiov ecrn ®eov.
iii. 14. 1) xr'pa <rpocrevxicrd(o... ayiov QvcriacrTijpiov %eov
wrdpxyvcra. Taken from Polyc. Phil. 4. 9-
Eusebius of Gssarea [c. a.d. 310 — 325].
(i) Chronicon 11. pp. 162, 170 (ed. Schone).
Ann. Abr. Trajan.
2114 1
The passage is given above, p. 137.
Ann. Abr. M. Aurel.
2181 5 Pisis ignem ascendit Peregrinus, etc.
2182 6 Lucius Caesar Parthos subegit, triumpha-
vitque cum fratre.
2183 7
Persecutione ecclesiam occupante Policarpus martirium subiit,
cuiusque martyrium scriptis (traditum) memoratur. Multi
etiam in Gallia fortiter martyrium passi sunt, quorum cer-
tamina hucusque sane ex ordine scripta extant.
Thus the notice of Polycarp's martyrdom is not placed opposite the 7th year of
M. Aurelius, but after it, and is associated with the persecution at Vienne and Lyons.
The bearing of this arrangement will be discussed below. On the other hand Jerome
in his edition of the Chronicon places both persecutions opposite the 7th year of
M. Aurelius, though the latter took place a.d. 177. See below, p. 545.
The corresponding words in Syncellus are, noAwcap7ros o tepcoVaTos
A%pvpvrjs imo-Koiros tw virep Xpicrrov paprvpiw heXeiwBrj Biwypov Kara rrjv

542 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
'Acriav yeyovoros. iroWot Se Kat Kara Tas TaWtas vopipws virep Xpurrov
rjBXrjcrav, wv rd paprvpia dvayeypairrai els pvrjprjv tois pereweiTa (pp. 664,
665). (ii) Hist. Eccles. iii. 36, 37, 38.
The passages are quoted above, p. 138 sq.
(iii) Hist. Eccles. iv. 14, 15.
'Em Se tcov SijXovpevcov, 'Avikijtov Tijs 'Pcopaicov iKKXrj
crias ij'yovpevov, TloXvKapirov eri irepiovra tco /3icp yevecrdai ].
Te iirl 'Vcopijs koX eis opiXiav tco 'Avikijtco iXOelv hid ti
lijTrjpa irepl rrjs Kara to nacr^a ijpepas, JLlpijvalos loropeL
Kal dXXijv Se d auros 7repl rou lJoXvKdpirov irapaSiSmcri
Siijyijcriv, rjv dvayKalov rois irepl avrov SijXovpevois im-
crvvdxjjai, ovtcos e)(ovcraV
'Airb tov Tpirov tcov irpbs ras alpecreis Wipijvaiov.
Ka'i TToAYKAprroc k.t.A. [See above, p. 537.]
raura 6 Elpijvalos. o ye roi IIoXuKap?ros iv Tij StiXoj-
deicrij irpbs QiXnnrijcriovs ccvtov ypacf>ij, cpepopevy eis c,evpo,
Ker^pijTai ncri p,aprvpiais dirb rrjs Uerpov irporepas iiricrToXrjs.
15. 'Ev tovtco Se d noXuKapiTos peyicrrcov ti)v 'Acriav
dvadopvfiijcrdvTcov Sicoypcov paprvpico reXeiourai. dvay-
Kaiorarov Se aurou rd TeXos, iyypd(j>cos 77877 cpepopevov,
r]yovpai helv pvijpij rrjs icrropias KaradecrQai. ecrri Se i\
ypacprj iK npocrcoiTov r)s auros iKKXrjcrias r/yeiTO, rals Kara
II6Vtoi> irapoiKiais rd Kar avrbv dirocrijpaivovcra Sid tovtcov'
'H ckkAhcia toy Qgoy k.t.A. [Here follows the greater part of
the Smyrnsean Letter ; see 11. p. 941 sq.]
rd pev St) Kara rdi> davpdcriov Kal dirocrToXiKov Uohv-
Kapirov toiovtov KaTij^icoTo Te'Xous, tcov Kara tijv Upvpvaicov
iKKXijcriav dSeXcfrcov tijv icrropiav iv 77 SeStjXcoKapev avrcuv
iiricrToXfj KaraTedeipevcov. iv ttj avrfj Se TTepl aurou yp&<j>fi
Kal aXXa paprvpia crvvijiTTO Kara tijv avrrjv Itpvpvav tt£-
irpaypeva vtto ti)v avTijv irepioBov tou ~)(p6vov rrjs rou IIoAv-
Kapirov paprvpias, ped' eov Kal MijTpoBcopos Trjs Kara

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 543
MapKicova irXdvijs irpecrfivTepos S77 eivai Sokcov nvpl irapa-
So#els dvjjpijTai. tcov ye prjv Tore irepi/36ijTos pdprvs eis
ris eyvcopi^ero Ilidvios. ov rds KaTa pepos opoXoyias, tijv Te
tov Xoyov irappijcriav, koI ras urrep T77S moTecos eVl tou
crrjpov koi tcov dpxpvTcov diroXoyias, SiSao-KaXiKas re Sijprj-
yopias. Kal eri rds TTpos rous UTTOTTeTTTajKOTas tco Kara tov
huoypov neipacrpco he^icocreis, irapapvOias re as iirl ttjs eip-
kttjs rois rrap' avrbv elcracf>iKvovpevois dBeXcpols napeTideTO,
as re iirl toutois virepeive fiacrdvovs re Kal rds eVl raurais
dXyijhovas KadijXcocreis re, Kal tijv iirl rrjs irvpas Kaprepiav,
tijv re icf>' diracri rois irapa&6£ois aurou TeXevTijv nXijpecrTa-
ra ttjs irepl aurou ypacj>ijs irepie)(ovarjs, tovs ois cf)iXov iirl
TavTijv dvairepxjjopev, tois tcov dp^aicov crvva^delcriv rjplv
paprvpiois ivTeraypevr/v. e£ijs Se Kal aXXcov iv Uepydpcp
TToXei rrjs 'Acrias vnopvijpaTa pepapTvpijKOTcov cpeperai,
Kdpirov Kal ITaTTuXou Kal yuvaiKos ' AyadoviKijs, perd irXei-
oras Kal SiaTrpeTTeis dp,oXoyias eTTiSdcfcos TereXeicopevcov.
With the quotation from Irenaeus in c. 14 compare H. E. iii. 28 0 Si 'Eilp-qvalos...
iv Tt3 Tplrw Kal larofilav obK d^tav r\rjBijs ttj yparprj irapiSwKev, ws iK irapabbaews IIoXv-
Kipicov <j>d<rKuv, 'Iwdvvrjv rbv dirbo-ro\ov elffeXBelv irore iv fiaXavelw k.t.X.
(iv) Hist. Eccles. v. 5.
not9eivou St) i<j> oXois rijs &077S erecriv ivevijKovTa crvv
rois iirl TaXXias papTvprjcracri reXeicoOevTOS, Hipyjvalos ttjs
Kara AouySouvov 77s d IIo#eivds 77yeiro TrapoiKias tijv eVi-
crKOinjv SiaSe^erai. IIoXuKdp7rou Se tovtov aKovcrTrjv yevecrdai
Kara ttjv veav ipavddvopev ijXiKiav. ovros [Ei/^vaiosj tcov
eVi 'Pcopijs k.t.X.
(v) Hist. Eccles. v. 20.
ev $ ye pijv npoeipijKapev irpbs rdv QXcoplvov o JLipijvaios
imo-ToXfj avOis ttjs d/xa TLoXvKdpirco crvvovcrias avrov pvrj-
povevei Xeycov' Tayta ta Aotmata, 4>Aoop?Ne, k.t.A.
See above, p. 538.

544 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
IO.
Syriac Martyrology [c. a.d. 350?].
' Shebat [Febr.] 23. In Asia, of the number of the ancient con
fessors, Polycarp the bishop, Aratus, Cosconius, Melanippus and Zeno.'
The name here given as Aratus is written in the Syriac MS JBCULCkil^
'Arutus', which may perhaps, as Wright suggests, be a mistake for JJoOJLfloitV
Aristus or Erastus.
On this document see II. p. 417. It is worthy of notice that under 'The latter
Kanun [January] 19 ' we have a similar entry, ' In the city of Nicaea, of the number
of the ancient confessors, Cosconius, Zeno, and Melanippus '.
II.
Life of Polycarp [c. a.d. 350?].
This fictitious biography, which apparently professes to have been
written by Pionius, is printed in full in my second volume, where also
its date is discussed. 12.
Pseudo-Ignatius [c. a.d. 370?].
(i) Epist. ad Antioch. 13.
'Acnrd^eTai u/xds noXuKaprros d d^ioirpeTrrjs itricrKcmos,
co Kal peXei irepl vpcov, co Kai irapedeprjv vpas ev Kvpico.
(ii) Epist. ad Heron. 7.
IIoXuKapTTco napeOepijv vpas iv Kvpico 'Itjcrov Xpicrrai.
(iii) Epist. ad Philipp. 14.
' Acrudtppai tov dyiov iiricrKoirov TxoXvKapirov.
In addition to these are the passages taken by this forger from the genuine Ignatius
(see above, p. 536). 13-
Hieronymus [c. a.d. 390 — 400].
(i) De Viris Lllustribus 17 (Op. 11. p. 843).
Polycarpus, Ioannis apostoli discipulus et ab eo Smyrnae episcopus
ordinatus, totius Asiae princeps fuit, quippe qui nonnullos apostolorum
et eorum qui viderant Dominum magistros habuerit et viderit. Hie
propter quasdam super die paschae quaestiones sub imperatore Anto-

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 545
nino Pio, ecclesiam in urbe regente Aniceto, Romam venit, ubi plurimos
credentium, Marcionis et Valentini persuasione deceptos, reduxit ad
fidem. Cumque ei fortuito obviam fuisset Marcion et diceret 'Cog
nosce nos', respondit, 'Cognosco primogenitum diaboli'. Postea
vero, regnante M. Antonino et L. Aurelio Commodo, quarta post
Neronem persecutione, Smyrnae sedente proconsule et universo populo
in amphitheatro adversus eum personante igni traditus est. Scripsit
ad Philippenses valde utilem epistolam quae usque hodie in Asiae
conventu legitur.
(ii) Adv. Helvidium 17 (Op. 11. p. 225).
See above, p. 147.
(iii) Epistula 71 (Op. 1. p. 434).
Porro Josephi libros et sanctorum Papiae et Polycarpi volumina
falsus ad te rumor pertulit a me esse translata ; quia nee otii mei nee
virium est tantas res eadem in alteram linguam exprimere venustate.
(iv) Chronicon M. Aurel. 7 (n. p. 171, ed. Schone).
Persecutione orta in Asia Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium,
quorum scribtae quoque passiones feruntur.
After this follows 'Plurimi in Gallia etc' ; see above, p. 541.
Of the four works of Jerome here quoted the first belongs to A.D. 392, the
second to A.D. 382, the third to A.D. 398, and the fourth to a.d. 378.
14.
Rufinus [c. a.d. 402 — 406].
Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 36, 37, 38, iv. 14, 15.
These passages, translated from Eusebius, have supplied a large portion of the
notices of Polycarp in later Latin writers ; but they are too long to be given in full.
IS-
Macarius Magnes [c. a.d. 400].
Apocritica iii. 24 (p. 109, ed. Blondel).
Aun S' ouv ttjv Itpvpvaicov iiricrKOTTrjv oieircov IIoXu-
Kapnos, tov Kaipov tcov Xijicov peydXcos vocrrjcravTos, omjviKa
pijhe piKpco vecpei KpviTTopevos ovpavbs dcrfiecrTOV ig aepos
tijv (f>X6ycocriv eirepTrev, els aperpov tt)v iniKeipivijv SiaKaicov
ijireipov pe\pi toctovtov Kal tcov Xi/3dc,cov rds voriSas i$q-
IG. 1. 35

546 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
pavev, iirl ttoXv Se tovs dvOpcoirovs tov XvTrtjpov irietpvTos,
irapeXOcov 6 Oecrirecrios ckcivos dvT^p Kal deacrdpevos tovs
oiKijTopas ovtco Terpu^w/xe'vous, rds \elpas Si' eu^fs inifia-
Xcov rpoirov rivd KeKavpevco Kaipco, itjaicjjvijs tov koXcos %X*iv
iiroiijcre rd ndvTa- dperpcos S' auf5is ueraJ irviyopevrjs rijs
vepcrov Kal tcov ivo'iKcov, oiKTpcos 68vpopevcov, irdXiv 6 avrbs
eis depa rds X6^)0015 ireTdcras eXvcre to Seivdv, to crrvyvov
lacrdpevos. Kal St) irpb rrjs iiriaKOirrjs XVPa<s |8iov oikovo-
pcov, oirov S' av iricrTevcov rds ^eipas iiref3aXe, KaXcos ecr^v
diravra. The editio princeps of this father was published by Blondel (Paris, 1876). He
seems to have been the same Macarius Magnes whose name appears in connexion
with the Oak Synod, a.d. 403. Duchesne, in a monograph which appeared almost
simultaneously with the editio princeps (De Macario Magnete etc., Paris 1877),
maintained a different opinion ; but he has since ( Vita Polycarpi Auctore Pionio
p. 7 sq.) accepted this identification, which is now generally received.
In the last line but two XVP"-* is Zahn's correction for the reading of the MS xeipas
(see II. p. 1017 sq.). Blondel reads [c5id] x«P<*^ For these miracles see 11. p. 1012.
16.
Socrates [c. a.d. 440].
Historia Ecclesiastica v. 22.
Kal on noXuKaprros d Trjs "Zpvpvtjs iiricTKOiros, 0 vcrrepov
iirl TopSiavou papTvpijcras, ' Avikijtco tco eVicrKOTTty Trjs
'Pcopijs eKoivcovei p/rySev SiaKpivd/xevos irepl eoprrjs irpos
aurdv, Kairoi Kal auros ef iy^copiov Trjs iv %pvpvrj crvvijOeias
rrj TecrcrapecrKaiSeKaTrj to Trdo~xa iiriTeXcov, cos iv rrj irepirTij
Tijs iKKXijaiacrTiKrjs icrTopias EucrejSios Xeyei.
This strange statement that Polycarp was martyred under Gordian will be con
sidered in the subsequent chapter on the Date of the Martyrdom.
Theodoret [a.d. 446].
Epist. 145, Op. iv. p. 1026.
The passage is quoted above, p. 161 sq.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 547
18.
SOZOMEN [c. A.D. 445].
Historia Ecclesiastica vii 19.
AiSe pev irepl Tavrrjs tt/s eoprijs [rov 7rdo-^a] ai 8iacf>opai.
trottjojrara Se ttojs ot/xai KaraXucrai rrjv avpf3do~av trdXai
trepi Tavrrjs cpiXoveiKiav tovs apcpl BiKTcopa tov Tore rrjs
Pcopijs iiricTKOiTov Kal IToXvKapiTov rbv Xpvpvalov. iirel
yap ol irpbs Sutriv lepeis ovk coovto Selv IlauXou Kal Uerpov
rrjv napaSocriv dripd^eiv, 01 Se ck T77S 'Acrias 'Icodwij tco
evayyeXicrrrj aKoXovdelv io"Xupi£ovro, touto koivtj Sd^dv,
eKacrroi cos eicodecrav eoprd^ovres rrjs irpbs crcf>ds KOivcovias
ovk i)(copicrdrjcrav.
Sozomen has here confused together the earlier communications between Polycarp
and Anicetus on the Paschal question with the later communications between Poly
crates and Victor on the same subject. The similarity of the names (Polycarpus,
Polycrates), and the fact that Polycrates refers to Polycarp, would assist this con
fusion. 19.
Timotheus of Alexandria [a.d. 457].
Testimonia Patrum. ¦ r^ifr7°>i\i°i. diaX.f r^t^i^K'
.T<£\a^*a£a cnLxao rViia_aa K'&eusi-.caa
Of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna and martyr, from the Epistle to the
Philippians. But God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Chief-
priest of eternity Himself, God Jesus Christ, (shall) build you up in faith
and in truth and in all meekness.
For the writer Timotheus, and for the work from which this extract is taken, see
above, p. 168. It follows immediately after the extracts given above (p. 167) from
Ignatius. It was first published by Cureton C. I. p. 212, from whom I have taken it.
35— 2

548 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
20.
Dionysius the Areopagite [c a.d. 500].
Epistula 7 ad Polycarpum.
§ 2. \%v Se c\>i)s XoiBopelcrdai poi tov crocpicrTijv AiroXXo-
tpdvrj Kal iraTpaXoiav dtroKaXelv, cos rois EXXt/vcov ctti tous
"HXXrjvas ovx bcricos "xpcopevco k.t.X.
The letter is a reply to this imaginary attack of ApoUophanes; but it contains
nothing which throws light on the history or traditions affecting Polycarp,
21.
Philoxenus of Hierapolis [a.d. 485 — 518].
Epistula ad Patricium.
The passage is quoted above, p. 169.
22.
Severus of Antioch [c. a.d. 513 — 518].
Adv. Joannem Grammaticum.
£n K'.icosoa r^jiajsi_a?3 rdAcin,nr>i°>rV jtoa&voal&.i
. rr*i,tT7»£n\i°> b\c\x K'Avi^K'
cnchc\ir<L& Jixa .A.v»- Kl\s refyr **ur-S>3 rVcViasa:i-s ens
olft rdi-zjsazjsa .^aetuAure' rdm tsjo rVcnWs cnJ-».l
.pdxJTSS
.re'An^r^.i mun ,t& oaiss cnL».i ,i& cnL.i
: i<" wiT*a &.az> »^_j-5».i ^mazsr^a rVenArV ^.1 ocn
.• r^ m 1 TJ*w ^-c\jr_ K'cnAr^' ,.i«i \«Ai r£jm_a. js_»i GCOCt
•. r^cW.Mk.11 cn_\^j3C\ •.pe'iix-3a r<'c^c\_i-5a.cn_=j ^_A^xl3l
reluai A\cviu.^c\ re?ehcuia.iaL±aa rVchcwa^i reil ox\aso
.rc'cV\axa..-uao rCchAIHYr «m»»30

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 549
Of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna and martyr from the Epistle to the
Philippians ;
In the same manner deacons blameless before His righteousness are dea
cons of God and Christ and not of man.
Of the same from the same Epistle;
But God Himself and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the
eternal Chief-priest Himself, God Jesus Christ, (shall) build you in faith
and in truth and in all gentleness and in all unwrathfulness and patience
and endurance of spirit and in perseverance and in chastity.
On this writer, and on this particular work, see above, pp. 169, 174. These pas
sages follow immediately after the extracts from Ignatius given above, pp. 1 70 — 1 74.
I have taken them from Cureton C. I. p. 2 14 sq.

23'
Anonymous Syriac Writer.
Testimonia Sanctorum Patrum. . J30a&inAc\& reix»:tD.i
fVuiT-a &.cui «^_ i tn -> iv^ re*.icx£a rcA.i A-&
re*.io_sa retire*© ,r/\ \a oco w'wiT'a :j \^-> rVeVitV.i
ndl»re*a .ocn rV-in-Lire* -JS3 ••**-*• V - 1 K'cVxoicn m -1
is9rc*o '.coAi^^i \ir.rt\ .tVcnlrV.i ^caa\sal .s l\»."wa
-cootk.K' rVv^cv-rj rdicb :r^-U3 rdl^re' tVeVuaoin cVu-l.i
irc'rdl^noi rc'cV\cU3L»%J» jacuxz.1 rOco \\*w .rVl \ w.i
>»M pa.i ne*eVA=a ehcvl ndi&cVua •• relL\ji rdic\°Acua
retsao-a ^iii^wt^Q1 re*A\c\l-=j {X»io>- s^ :^ Av=icn*c^rV
^Uj reds :Aa.i re*ijS3 ne'colne' ^3 ^iArdx.0 K^o^nrjo
. t-dJCUflOji 2
1 The ms reads incorrectly ^m ¦¦'"i^" 2 The MS reads (or at least Zingerle
prints) i^ft.iv. »

550 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

^ ^ls.j»S ^AirV ^.Laja rdiz*! .°A »»Q rdi\li.o rdaijsb
.r^ aiT'as cniA^a >»cnoii=ii\s-i AJmO .A ^.tio
Of the holy Polycarp;
For every one that confesseth not our Lord Jesus Christ that He came
in the flesh, is a false Christ; and if he confesseth not the testimony of the
Cross, he is from the devil; and he that dealeth treacherously with the
words of God in regard to his lusts and saith that there is no resurrection
neither judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan. Therefore let us
abandon the vanity of the many and the false doctrine, and let us turn to
the word which from the beginning was delivered unto us, watching in
prayer and continuing in fasting and in supplication and asking of God
the Lord of all that He bring us not into temptation.
And again;
Be ye praying for all the saints and for kings and rulers and for
princes, and for those that hate us and persecute us, and for the enemies of
the Cross of Christ.
These extracts were first published by Zingerle (Monumenta Syriaca I. p. i) from
the MS Vatic. Syr. 135. It contains testimonies of the fathers, and this portion refers
to the Second Advent. The scribe of the MS was one Barsumas whom we learn from
another MS (Vatic. Syr. 94) to have been alive in a.d. ioio. Of the date of the work
itself no information is given ; but among the authors quoted is Jacob of Sarug who
died A.D. 521 (see Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. p. 289 sq.).
24.
Antiochene Acts of Ignatius [5th or 6th cent.].
§ 3. Kal Ttpocryoiv perd iroXvv Kaparov T77 Itpvpvaicov
ttoXci truv iroXXij XaP^" KaTa/8ds rrjs vijbs ecnreuSe rov ayiov
lioXvKapTTOV rdv Itpvpvaicov iiricrKOTTOv tov crvvaKpoarijv vta-
cracrQav iyeyoveicrav yap rrdXai padijral 'Icodwov. irap co
Kara)(9eis k.t.X. (The context will be found below, 11. p. 480 sq.)
For the limits of date of this document see 11. p. 382 sq.

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 551
25-
Roman Acts of Ignatius [5th or 6th cent.].
The writer copies out (§ 1 2) the extract from Polycarp relating to
Ignatius, as given in Eusebius; see 11. p. 535 sq.
For the limits of date of this document see II. p. 381 sq.
26.
Gregory of Tours [a.d. 576, 588].
(i) Historia Francorum i. 26 (p. 174 sq., Migne).
Nam sub Antonini imperio Marcionitana et Valentiniana haeresis
insana surrexit; et Justinus philosophus post scriptos catholicae eccle
siae libros martyrio pro Christi nomine coronatur. In Asia autem orta
persecutione beatissimus Polycarpus Ioannis apostoli et evangelistae
discipulus octogesimo aetatis suae anno, velut holocaustum purissimum,
per ignem Domino consecratur. Sed et in Galliis multi pro Christi
nomine sunt per martyrium gemmis caelestibus coronati; quorum pas-
sionum historiae apud nos fideliter usque hodie retinentur. [27] Ex
quibus et ille primus Lugdunensis ecclesiae Photinus episcopus fuit, qui
plenus dierum, diversis afnictus suppliciis, pro Christi nomine passus est.
Beatissimus vero Irenaeus hujus successor martyris, qui a beato Poly-
carpo ad hanc urbem directus est, admirabili virtute enituit; qui in
modici temporis spatio praedicatione sua maxime in integro civitatem
reddidit Christianam. Sed veniente persecutione... Beatum Irenaeum
diversis in sua carnifex praesentia poenis affectum Christo Domino per
martyrium dedicavit. Post hunc et quadraginta octo martyres passi
sunt, ex quibus primum fuisse legimus Vettium Epagatum.
In the sentence 'qui a beato etc.', the tenour of the sentence requires ' Irenaeus ', not
'Pothinus' (here written Photinus), as the antecedent to the relative ; see above, p. 430.
At the same time there is much confusion in the narrative. Vettius Epagathus was
one of the sufferers in the same persecution at Vienne and Lyons (a.d. 177), which
was fatal to Pothinus (Euseb. H. E. v. 1), whereas Irenseus survived this persecution
many years.
In his other work however (De Glor. Mart. 49, 50), in which he gives a fuller
account of the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons, and which shows a knowledge of the
original documents, the sequence of events is correctly given.
The composition of the Historia was begun A.D. 576, and occupied him till a.d.
592. The Gloria Martyrum was written a.d. 587, 588. See Ebers Christ. Latein.
Liter. 1. pp. 54I) g46. it would seem that he had studied the documents more care-

552 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
fully meanwhile. Any revision which he made of the first book of the Historia must
have been very carelessly done.
(ii) De Gloria Martyrum 86 (p. 781, Migne).
Nam recolo quod in adolescentia mea gestum audivi. Dies passionis
erat Polycarpi martyris magni, et in Ricomagensi vico civitatis Arvernae
ejus solemnia celebrabantur. Lecta igitur passione cum reliquis lecti-
onibus quas canon sacerdotalis invexit, tempus ad sacrificium offeren-
dum advenit, acceptaque turre diaconus, in qua mysterium dominici
corporis habebatur, ferre coepit ad ostium, ingressusque templum ut
earn altari superponeret, elapsa de manu ejus ferebatur in aera, et sic ad
ipsam aram accedens nunquam earn manus diaconi potuit assequi : quod
non alia credimus actum de causa, nisi quia pollutus erat in conscientia.
Saepius enim ab eodem adulteria ferebantur admissa. Uni tantum
presbytero et tribus mulieribus, ex quibus una mater mea erat, haec
videre licitum fuit; caeteri non viderunt. Aderam fateor et ego tunc
temporis festivitati, sed haec videre non merui.
See above, p. 455 sq. 27.
Chronicon Paschale [c. a.d. 630].
(i) p. 479 sq. (ed. Bonn.).
'IvS. 1 . Ka'. vtt. TepruXXou Kal %aKephoTov.
lToXvKapTros S/xupvr/s eVio"K07TOS, dvrjp davpdcrios koi tcov
aTTOCTToXcov ov povov aKovcmjs dXXd koi vtt avrcov iiricrKO-
itos Karacrrds, en nepicov iv tco /3ico, yevopevos iv 'Ycopij im
'Avikijtov iiTicrKoiTOv Sid Qrjrrjpa irepl rrjs tov Trda\a eoprr/s
iroXXous tojv aiTo OuaXevnvou Kal MapKicovos alperiKcov tco
tou HLpicrTov vyiel Xoyco eVeo~rpei/»ev. ds Kal MapKiwvi ttot£
eis oi/jiv avrov eXdovri kcu rprjcravTi 'EmyivaicxKeis 77/xasJ
direKpiQij 'WniyivcocrKco ere tov irpcoroTOKov tov Saravd, cos
laTopel EipT/vaios.
(ii) p. 480 sq.
'IvS. a'. S'. utt. AiXiavou Kal UdcrTcopos.
Etous pXy' tt^s eis ovpavovs dvaXijxjjecos tov Kvpiov,
peyicrrcov tijv 'Acriav dvacTojSrjcrdvTcov Sicoypcov, ttoXXoi epap-

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 553
TVftijcraV iv 01s noXuKaprros, S/xupvr/s iiricrKoiros Kal tov
airocTToXov 'Icodwov paOrjTijs Kal vtt aurou KaTaorra^els
iwicTKOTTOs, crvXXrjcpdels iirl dvOvirdrov Tariou KoSpdrou urrd
'HpojSou elpijvapxov, vlov ovros Nikt/tou, Kal TroXXd viropei-
vas Sid rr)v eis Xpicrrov iricmv, T77 rrpd £ KaXavScov 'Arrpi-
Xia>v, tco peydXco crafifiaTcp, copa rj ', tov Kevrvpicovos tijv tcov
iiricrvvaxOevTcov 'IouSaicov Kal idviKcov cpiXoveiKiav deacrape-
vov, reOels vtt avrcov iv pecrco iKaij tfov, eov ircov tts-'- ovtco
ydp Kal direKaXvcpdij avrco reXeiovcrdai avrbv tjovra Kaiope-
vov. nepi Se tcov eVwv auTou etne tco avdvirdrco eiirovTi avrco
BXacrcpijpijcrov tov Xpicrrov, d Se eiTrev, Ilr' errj SovXevco tco
XpuTTco, ouSev /xe rjSiKijcre' Kal ttcos Svvapai /SXacrcfnj prjcr ai
tov crcocravrd pe /3acriXea ; tovtco koi epeovrj Ik tov ovpavov
ehodtj ev tco crraSico Itpvpvaicov eicriovri, "layye, IIoXu-
Kapire, Kal dvtpitpv. Kal tov pev elirovTa ouSels tcov dXXcov
elSev, ttjv Se cfrcovrjv ttoXXoI Kal tcov ijpeTepcov rjKovcrav. crvv
tco dyicp Se IIoXuKdpTToj Kal dXXoi d' drrb <S>iXa8eX(peias pap-
Tvpovcriv iv Upvpvij' Kal iv Uepydpcp Se erepoi, ev 01s rjv
Kal HaTTias Kal dXXoi ttoXXoi, cov koI eyypacpa cpepovrai rd
paprvpia. irXelcrToi Kal avrcov dvdypanToi eis en vvv 01
aycWves Siapevovcriv, cov vdvrcov rais irpecrfSeiais yevoiro rjpds
crvyKoivcovovs re Kal padijTas yevecrdai.
The chronological notices in this passage will be fully discussed in the chapter on
the Date of the Martyrdom. For the substitution of Tlairlas for Ilo7rvAos (as given by
Euseb. H. E. iv. 15) see the Contemporary Review, August 1875, p. 381 sq.
28.
Earlier Roman Martyrologies [c. a. d. ?].
(i) Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Hieron. Op. xi. pp. 549, 550,
55i, 555, 598, 604).
xvi Kal. Febr. [Jan. 17] Lingonis, passio sanctorum germanorum
martyrum, Speusippi, Helasippi, Melasippi, Leonellae, Meonis,
Junellae.
xiv Kal. Febr. [Jan. io]..,Germanae,

554 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
vii Kal. Febr. [Jan. 26] In Nicaea Smyrnae, Passio sancti Poly
carpi episcopi.
Kal. Febr. [Feb. 1] In Graecia sanctorum Polycarpi episcopi,
Poenis, Dionysii ; item Dionysii ; item Poenis, et aliorum quin-
decim martyrum.
vii Kal. Mart. [Feb. 23] In Asia Polycarpi episcopi cum aliis
duodecim martyribus. Smyrnae, SS. Erotis, Carpori, etc.
iv Id. Mart. [March 12] Smyrnae, Pionis, Metrodi.
Kal. Nov. [Nov. 1] Castro Divione, passio sancti Benigni presbyteri
et martyris.
xiv Kal. Jan. [Dec. 19] In Nicaea civitate Bithyniae, Zosimi,
Pauli, etc.
(ii) Martyrologium Vetus Romanum (Patrol. Lat. cxxm. pp. 147,
i49» i77» ed- Migne).
xiv Kal. Febr. [Jan. 19] In Smyrna Sancti Germanici martyris ad
bestias damnati.
vii Kal. Febr. [Jan. 26] S. Polycarpi, discipuli S. Joannis Apostoli,
apud Smyrnam passi.
Kal. Febr. [Feb. 1] Smyrnae Pionii martyris et aliorum quin-
decim.
vii Kal. Mart. [Feb. 23] Romae, Polycarpi presbyteri.
xv Kal. Jan. [Dec. 18] Run et Zosimi de primis discipulis Christi,
per quos ecclesia de Judaeis et Graecis primitiva fundata est
The Hieronymian Martyrology is a cento of divers martyrologies and calendars,
some as early as the 4th century. It seems to have been compiled at the beginning
of the 7th century, but has been interpolated in the eighth (see De Rossi Rom. Sotterr.
11. p. x sq.). The Old Roman Martyrology seems to have been drawn up in the 8th
century, and was the source of the later martyrologies, Ado and the rest. It is a
much less important document than the Hieronymian (see De Rossi II. p. xxvii sq.).
29.
Warnaharius [c. a.d. 615].
Acta Tergeminorum § 3 ; Bolland. Act. Sand. Jan. 11. p. 77.
3. Denique S. Polycarpus Ephesi urbis episcopus, doctrina bea-
tissimi Joannis apostoli et evangelistae perfecte instructus, Spintu
Sancto repletus, fidei ducatu cupiens Christi militiam ampliare, per
diversas mundi partes suos dirigebat discipulos verbum Domini nostn
Jesu Christi gentibus fiducialiter praedicare. Audiens itaque Aurelianum
imperatorem, post discessum Seven impii persecutoris, crudelissimam

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 555
denuo resuscitasse persecutionem, et quod malo peior princeps principi
successisset in regno, et Galliarum provincias coram se suisque praesi-
dibus, ac generaliter in cuncto populo sibi subdito promulgasse edictum,
et decrevisse ut diversis omnes omnino punirentur suppliciis Christiani,
B. Polycarpus sanctos Dei sacerdotes, id est, Andochium et Benignum
presbyteros, et Thyrsum diaconum, illuc praedicationis causa destinavit,
viros scilicet virtutibus praestantissimos, in Dei amore diffusos, ad cer-
taminis agonem festinos, pro Christi nomine itinerum labores assumere
omnino devotos, pericula maris sustinere non tardos, peregrinationes
ambientes expetere hilares, ac parentes pro religione Christi gratanter
relinquere, poenarum supplicia vel beatae mortis passionem desiderare
potius, non timere.
4. Qui viri tres obedientes Sanctis monitis, naviculam ascendentes,
Sanctis sanctus valedicens Polycarpus ita tradidit in mandatis ; Ite viri
fortes, in fortitudine Christi fortiter dimicantes, per sanctam Christi
confessionem plures commilitones acquirite ; cum quibus de victoria
triumphantes, nomen et dignitatis gloriam possitis adipisci sempiternam.
Fructus laboris vestri multiplici opulentia cumulentur ; justorum para-
disi sedes per vos plurimum de sanctarum animarum adquisitione
laetentur. His et aliis multis eos S. Polycarpus prosequebatur ora
tionibus. Mi vero navigantes feliciter gubernatione divina ad Massiliensium
littora celerius pervenerunt etc.
These Acts were sent by Wamaharius to Ceraunius Archbishop of Paris, who held
the see about a.d. 615 (Gallia Christiana vn. p. 25). It is not clear whether
Warnaharius was himself the author of the work; but it cannot have been much older.

3°-
Maximus the Confessor [f a.d. 662].
(a) Prolog, in Op. S. Dionysii p. 17 (ed. Migne).
Mvijpovevei Se tov ' ' Apeioirayirov Kal Aiovucrios dp^aios
Kopivdicov iiricrKOTros Kal ILoXvKapTros iv rfj irpbs 'Adrjvaiovs
emoToXfj aurou.
This statement would be true, if the words Kal Uohitcapiros were struck out, for the
mention of the Areopagite by his namesake was contained in a Letter to the Athenians
(Euseb. H. E. iv. 23). How Maximus (or his transcriber) stumbled thus, it is not
easy to say.

556 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(b) Schol. in Epist. S. Dionysii p. 536.
eO dyios outos IIoXuKapTTOs S/xupvr/s tt/s ev 'Atria yeyo-
vev iiricrKoiTos, aKpoaTi)s yevopevos tov dyiov 'Icodwov tov
euayyeXiarou, cos cpijcriv Eipr/vaios ev tco rpirco ySi/SXiw tcov
Kara tt/s xfievBcovvpov yvcocrecos' koi paprvpico Se iTeXeicodtj
Sid irvpos. e\ei Se Kal eVio-roXds d auros Oelos IIoXuKapTTOs
TTpOS ^iXlTTTTT/CTlOUS. 3i-
Michael Syncellus [c. a.d. 820].
Vita Dionysii Areopagitae p. 653 (ed. Migne).
Td 7rpds rous 'H(peo-icov Kal %p.vpvaicov Kal KprjTcov nav-
lepcordrovs Kal 7rpos aurcov tcov tt/s dyicoTdrrjs iKKXijcrias
OepeXicov, rcov dnocrToXcov Xeyco, npoKex^porovijpAvovs Trpoe'-
Spous, TipoOeov Kal IToXuKapTTOv Kal Tirov.
32.
Nicephorus of Constantinople [t a.d. 828].
For the reference to Polycarp see above, p. 213.
33-
PHOTIUS [c. A.D. 850].
Bibliotheca c. 126 (p. 95).
' ' AveyvcocrOij y8i/8XiSdpiov ev co KXtz/xcvtos eVioroXal irpos
Kopivdiovs f3' ivecpepovro...
'Ev tco avrco Se /3i/3Xi8apico dveyvcocrBij Kal UoXvKdp'jrov
imo-ToXij irpbs QiXmrnjcriovs, yepovcra noXXrjs vou#ecrxas
/xera cracpijveias Kal dnXorrjTos Kara rdv iKKXijcriacTTiKov rr/s
eppijveias tvttov. Xeyei Se Kal rds eTTicrroXas aurois 'lyvariov
tou Oeocpopov direcrTctXKevai, koX aireirai dvaSiSa^f^T/vai irap
avrcov el Ti nepi iKeivov SidKoucraiev,

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 557
Bibliotheca 120 (p. 94).
Tourdv [iLlprjvalov] cpacri. yevearOai UoXvKapnov pev tou
lepopdpTvpos %pvpvrjs inicrKonov padrjrrjv, npecrfivTepov Se
IIo#eivou, ou Kai rrjs imo~Koni~js tcov AouySouvcov SidSovos
KaTecmj. 34-
Georgius Hamartolus [c. a.d. 850],
Chronicon iii. 137 (Patrol. Graec. ex. p. 528 sq., ed. Migne).
BacnXeia 'Avrcovivov.
Merd 'ASpiavov i/3acriXevcrev ' AvtcovIvos d Euctc/St/s errj
k($', vlonoiijdels tco 'Ahpiavco, kcli npcoros tcov auVoKpardpcov
Evcre/87/s ineKXijdij.
OvrjcTKei Se npofiaXcov eis fiacriXea MdpKov 'Avtcovivov
rbv iBiov yapfipov.
i(j> ov UoXvKapnos 6 padijrfjs 'Icodwov rov OeoXoyov Kal
loucrrivos d cpiXocrocpos Kal Aiovucrios [d] inicrKonos KopivOov
ipapTvpijcrav... im avrov OvaXevrlvos Kal KepBcov Kal MapKicov eVl tt^s
Poj/xt/s alpecridpxai eyvcopitpvTO.
UoXvKapnos Se [o] inicrKonos "Zpvpvrjs eis oijjiv iXOcov
MapKicovi, npbs avrov cpijcriv 6 MapKicov, 'EmyivcocrKeis 77/xds,
cb KaXe UoXvKapne ; 6 Se', 'EniyivcocrKco ere, ecprj, rbv npcoroTO-
kov vibv tov Saravd.
This account is adopted according to his custom by Cedrenus, who therefore like
wise places the martyrdom in the reign of Antoninus Pius. To one of these
plagiarists of this Georgius we should probably refer the anonymous extract in Pearson
Minor Works 11. p. 526 ' Certe apud chronographum veterem MS, quem mihi commo-
aavit vir eruditissimus, Isaacus Vossius, haec legi ; MeTo Si 'ASpiavov ijHaalXevo-ev
AvtuvIvos irr/ kjS', irjl ov HoXiiKapiros o paBrjrr)s 'Iwdvvov rov evayyeXio-rov Kal 'lovarivos
0 c4iWo0os inapripiio-av.' Renan (V6glise Chritienne p. 4S3) notices this anonymous
chronicler cited by Pearson, but does not trace the extract to its source.
It may be well to state that the arrangement of Georgius Hamartolus requires us
to refer i<j> ov to Antoninus Pius, not to M. Aurelius.

558 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
35-
Florus-Beda [c. a. d. 870].
Martyrologium ed. Borland, (see Patrol. Lat. xciv. p. 813, etc., ed.
Migne). xvi Kal. Febr. [Jan. 17] Et apud Lingones natale geminorum
Pseusippi, Elasippi, et Melasippi, etc.
[The connexion with Benignus and through him with Polycarp is added in
some mss, but appears to have been no part of this Martyrology, as it left the
hands of Florus.]
xiv Kal. Febr. [Jan. 19] Vacat.
[The martyrdom of Germanicus is added in some mss.]
vii Kal. Febr. [Jan. 26] Natale S. Polycarpi, episcopi Smyrnae,
qui sub Marco Antonino et Lucio Aurelio Commodo, sedente
Smyrnae proconsule, conjurante in eum omni populo, igni tra-
ditus est.
[Some mss add particulars from the Letter of the Smyrnaeans, including
the incident of the dove.]
Kal. Febr. [Feb. 1].
[No mention of Pionius in the original Florus-Bede, though added in
some mss.]
vii Kal. Mart. [Feb. 23] Vacat.
[Some mss add ' in Asia Polycarpi episcopi cum aliis duodecim '; others
' S. Polycarpi presbyteri et confessoris ', i.e. the Roman Polycarp.]
Kal. Nov. [Nov. 1] Et in castro Diveon natale S. Benigni presby
teri, qui cum Andochio compresbytero et Tyrso diacono missus
est a S. episcopo Polycarpo ab Oriente Galliam tempore Aure-
liani... Collum ejus vecte ferreo tundi ac lancea forari jubetur.
Quo facto columba nivea de carcere Christianis aspicientibus
ad caelos ascendit, et odor suavissimus quasi paradisi secutus
est etc.
xiv Kal. Jan. [Dec. 19] Vacat.
[But some mss have ' In Nicaea civitate Bithyniae SS. Zosimi, Pauli, etc.']
The form of the Martyrology from which these extracts are taken is probably as
it left the hands of Florus. In the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum it is given as Bede's
original work, prior to the additions of Florus ; but S oilier has shown that this cannot
be the case,

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 559
36.
Ado of Vienne [j- a.d. 874].
(i) Libell. de Festiv. (Patrol. Lat. cxxiii. p. 192 sq., ed. Migne).
(1) vii Kal. Febr. Natalis sancti Polycarpi, qui beati Joannis dis-
cipulus et ab eo Smyrnae episcopus ordinatus totius Asiae princeps fuit.
Postea vero, regnante Marco Antonio et Lucio Aurelio Commodo,
quarta post Neronem persecutione, Smyrnae sedente proconsule et
universo populo in amphitheatro adversum eum personante igni tra-
ditus est. Cum quo etiam alii duodecim ex Philadelphia venientes
apud praefatam urbem martyrio consummati sunt.
Tunc etiam Germanicus, athleta Christi insignis, glorioso martyrii
agone translatus est. Nam cum a judice damnatus fuisset ad bestias
ultro sibi praeparatam bestiam provocavit, despiciens videlicet tempo-
, ralem mortem et coronam vitae aeternae veloci fine adipisci desiderans.
Scripsit idem beatus Polycarpus ad Philippenses valde utilem epistolam
quae usque hodie in Asiae conventu legitur.
The parts relating to Polycarp himself are taken from Jerome (see above, p. 544 sq.) ;
the accounts of the Philadelphian martyrs and of Germanicus are derived from Rufinus.
(2) xv Kal. Jan. Natalis beatorum Run et Zosimi, de quorum
agone sanctus Polycarpus in epistola ad Philippenses scribit ; Deprecor
autem... mortuus est et resurrexit.
The passage is taken from Rufinus' translation of Euseb. H. E. iii. 36.
(ii) Martyrologium (ib. pp. 216, 217, 221, 223, 387, 416).
xvi Kal. Febr. Apud Linguonas natale sanctorum geminorum
Speusippi, Eleusippi, et Meleusippi. Qui cum essent... Docuit autem
et baptizavit hos Benignus presbyter quern misit ab oriente beatus
Polycarpus, Joannis apostoli auditor, in Galliam cum Andochio pres-
bytero et Thyrso diacono. Sepulti sunt autem iidem gemini in secundo
milliario ab urbe Linguonum.
xiv Kal. Febr. In Smyrna natalis sancti Germanici martyris, qui
cum primaevae aetatjs venustate floreret per gratiam virtutis Dei,
metum corporeae fragilitatis excludens, sponte praeparatam sibi bestiam
damnatus a judice jam provocavit; cujus dentibus comminutus vero
pani, id est Domino Jesu Christo, pro ipso moriens meruit incorporari.

560 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
vii Kal. Febr. Apud Smyrnam natalis sancti Polycarpi episcopi...
martyrio consummati sunt.
[A long account of Polycarp's martyrdom, of which the opening and closing
sentences are taken from Jerome (see above, p. 545), and the narrative of the martyr
dom itself is derived from Rufinus somewhat abridged.]
Kal. Febr. Apud Smyrnam sancti Pionii martyris qui persecutione
Antonini Veri post insuperabilem responsionum constantiam etc.
[Abridged from Rufinus.]
Kal. Nov. Et in castro Divione, natale S. Benigni presbyteri, qui
cum Andochio compresbytero et Thyrso diacono missus est in Galliam
ab Oriente a sancto episcopo Polycarpo, cujus praedicatione etc.
xv Kal. Jan. Natalis beatorum martyrum Run et Zosimi, qui de
illis primis discipulis fuerunt per quos primitiva ecclesia in Judaeis
et Graecis fundata est. Hi requiescunt apud civitatem Macedonum
Philippis. 37-
Anthologia Palatina [c. A.D. ?].
(1) i. 87.
OiKTippcov UoXvKapnos, 6 koI 6 povov dp^iepfos
ecrxe Kal drpeKecos papTvpurjs crrecpdvous.
(2) i. 89.
NiKoXecov HoXuKapTros exa o^ehov, ouvckcv apjxo
els eXeov naXdpas eo~)(ov eToipordras.
These epigrams seem to have been inscribed under two neighbouring pictures of
Polycarp and Nicolas of Myra. 38.
PSEUDOPROCHORUS [c. A.D. ?].
Acta Joannis p. 188 (ed. Zahn).
eld' ourcos ev tt/ \tpvpvaicov TrdXei* dneXOovrcov ijpcov
ndvra rd eiScoXa crvveTpifSijcrav rrj Suvd/xei rou Xpicrrov,
Kal Kadiepcocras vaous d dTrdoroXos tov Xpiorou [ Icoavvrjs]

QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES. 561
Kal KarT/XT/cras aurous iftdnTicrev anavras Kal nacrav tijv
napdXiov eKeivr/v, KaraXeiVcov eVeicre npoeSpov BovkoXov
Kal IIoXuKapTTOv tovs avrov paOijTas Kal 'AvSpdviKov.
This occurs in the later addition to Prochorus in Paris. 1468 fol. 80 sq. See Zahn
/. c. p. cxxxv.

39-
MENJEA [c. A.D. ?].
Feb. xxiii.
Itol UoXvKapnos coXoKavTcodij, Adye,
Kapnbv noXvv Sous eK nvpbs tjevorponcos.
EiKaSi ev rpiTaTij Kara cf)Xb£ UoXvKapnov eKaucrev.
Outos ipadrjTevOrj tco deoXoyco 'Icoavvrj koX evayyeX-
icrrrj crvv 'lyvarico tco 0eocf)6pcp' Kal perd BovkoXov tov
dyicorarov inicrKonov Itpvpvijs ^eiporoveirai TTapd tcov
imcrKoncov, npoOecrnicravTos avrco tijv lepcocrvvrjv tov
jiaKapiov BovkoXov. iv Se tco Kara AeKiov Sicoypco crvX-
Xij(j)dels npoaijxPv T<? dvdvndrco, koX Sid nvpbs tov dycova
SiT/vucre, Kal Oavpdrcov i^aicricov Sijpiovpybs yeyove. npb
yap tt/s lepcocrvvrjs Trjs dpexpapevrjs aurov yuvaiKos rous
trircovas enXrjpcocre Si eu^T/s, ous nporepov els tijv Seopevcov
Xpeiav eKe'vcocre. Kal nvpbs Karac/>Xeyovros eVecxxev oppr/v
perd tijv tt/s lepcocrvvijs dvdppijcriv. Kal Si' iKecrias uerov
avxpcocrrj ry yfj Karijyaye, Kal naXiv tovtov tijv dperpiav
dveWeiXe. reXeirai Se rj avrov cxuvacfis ev rrj dyicoTaTij
peyakij iKKXijcria..
The martyrdom of Polycarp was connected with those of Pionius and his com
panions as having occurred at the same season of the year and in the same city, and
was bound up in the same volume (Euseb. H. E. iv. 15). Pionius however suffered
under Decius. Hence the Menaea assign the martyrdom of Polycarp to this same
reign. This is the converse error to that of Eusebius, who apparently makes Pionius
suffer under M. Aurelius because Polycarp was martyred under this emperor.

IG. I. 3 G

4-

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

THE genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle — whether the whole or any
part of it — was never questioned till the era of the Reformation.
The Magdeburg Centuriators (ii. p. 173 sq.) were the first to throw any
doubt on it. At a later date (a.d. 1666) Daille included it in his attack
on the Ignatian Epistles (de Script. Dionys. et Lgnat. etc. p. 427 sq.).
He found himself in an awkward dilemma. The main ground of his
opposition to the Ignatian letters was the support which they give to
episcopacy. But the Epistle of Polycarp had a double edge. On the
one hand it was, or it seemed to be, one of his principal evidences in
favour of the presbyteral form of government in the early ages. He
could therefore ill afford to dispense with it. On the other hand it was
the chief witness to the genuineness of the Ignatian letters : and indeed,
if its testimony were once allowed, the point was established beyond
the reach of controversy. For this reason its evidence must be set
aside. This perplexing problem he solved by accepting the document
in the main as genuine, while he rejected as spurious the 13th chapter
which contains the reference to the Ignatian letters. It was necessary
however to allege some argument for the rejection ; and this he found
in the words 'qui cum eo sunt', which he assumed to imply that Ignatius
was still living, and therefore to be irreconcilable with an earlier notice
(§ 9) which spoke of him as already martyred. The answer to this ob
jection is obvious. The present sunt is a blunder of the Latin trans
lator who had before tois <jvv a-uVcp or tois per avrov, where the tense is
indeterminate. To this point however it will be necessary to return
hereafter.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 563
this arbitrary procedure of Daille" had nothing to recommend it;
but it was forced upon him by the exigencies of his position. As re
gards external testimony, the 13th chapter stands in a more favourable
position than the main part of the epistle, for ib is quoted by Eusebius.
Nevertheless this view has found some few advocates in later times.
Thus Bunsen more especially (Ign. v. Ant. p. 107 sq.) adopted it,
assigning the interpolations to the middle of the second century.
A more subtle and elaborate theory of interpolation was propounded
by Ritscbl (Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kircher>. 584 sq., ed. 2, 1857).
He acknowledged the futility of the objection based on the expression
'qui cum eo sunt', and pronounced the opinion of DaiHe* and Bunsen to
be 'unfortunate' (p. 587). His own method was different. The rejection
of the testimony to the Ignatian letters was ostensibly not the starting
point but the goal of his speculations; though this rejection was plainly
the underlying influence which prompted his criticisms. He set himself
to investigate the sequence of topics in the letter; and, as a result of
this investigation, he rejected § 3 and § 9 as interpolations, because they
interfered with this sequence. For the same reason he struck out part
of § 1 1 'qui ignorant. . .nondum noveramus'. In these passages however,
thus rejected on independent grounds, the connexion of the Philippians
with S. Paul and with Ignatius is mentioned. Thus he imagined that
he had arrived at the motive of the interpolator, whose object it was to
establish this connexion. Consequently § 13, which contains the refer
ence to the Ignatian letters, must likewise be rejected with the other
passages which mention the martyr or the Apostle. He supposed the
interpolator to have been the same person who expanded the three
genuine Ignatian Letters of the Short Form into the seven of the
Vossian Recension, and to have done his work between a.d. 140 — 168.
Eitschl's theory will be more fully discussed hereafter. At present it is
sufficient to remark that this principle, which demands a strictly logical
order and refuses to admit any digression however germane and natural
in itself, would be fatal to not a few confessedly genuine documents of
early Christianity and that (to give an example) S. Paul's Epistles to the
Corinthians would be cut into shreds by the critical sheers so applied.
Ritschl's view found some favour, when it was first put forward.
Being intimately bound up with the theory which accepted the Cure
tonian letters as the original form of the Ignatian Epistles, it was
welcomed by the advocates of this theory. Hence its adoption by
Lipsius (Ueber das Verhdltniss etc. p. 14), Bohringer (Kirchengeschichte
in Biographien 1. p. 49 sq., ed. 2, 1873), and others. As the priority
of the Curetonian Ignatius has now been generally abandoned, we
36—2

564 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
may confidently expect that Ritschl's theory of the Polycarpian inter
polations will share its fate. The two however do not necessarily stand
or fall together. It is possible to maintain the integrity of Polycarp's
letter, while at the same time upholding the priority of the Curetonian
Ignatius. This is the position of Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel
vii. p- 277 sq.).
By a few other recent critics the Epistle of Polycarp has been
rejected altogether. Among the foremost names on this side are
Schwegler (Nachaposiolisches AZeitalter 11. p. 154), Zeller (Apostelgeschichte
p. 52), and Hilgenfeld (Apostolische Vdter p. 272). This view again has
been generally held in conjunction with the entire rejection of the
Ignatian letters. It has been instinctively felt, that the testimony borne
to these by the Epistle of Polycarp must be decisive, if this latter docu
ment is accepted as genuine.
In seeking an answer to these questions, the usual course will be
adopted. We shall ask first, whether the external testimony is sufficient
to warrant a presumption, strong or weak, that Polycarp is the author of
the epistle which bears his name; and, supposing this first question to
have been answered satisfactorily, we shall enquire secondly, whether
the epistle itself bears out the conclusion provisionally arrived at, or
whether on the other hand its character and contents are such as to
oblige a reversal of this provisional decision.
(i) External Evidence.
Irenaeus in an extract from his Letter to Florinus, which is preserved
by Eusebius (see above, p. 539), speaks of 'the epistles which' Polycarp
'wrote either to the neighbouring churches, confirming them, or to
certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them'. His language
implies that they were then in circulation when he penned these words.
In another passage (see above, p. 537), in his extant work On Heresies
(iii. 3. 4), he mentions this particular letter; 'There is', he writes, 'a
very adequate (iKcwcoTaTTj) epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians,
from which those who desire it, and who care for their own salvation,
can learn both the character of his faith and the message (to tcrjavyita) of
the truth'. It is probable that in the first passage Irenaeus is thinking
of the extant Epistle to the Philippians1 ; and it may be a question
whether he himself was acquainted with any other extant letter of
1 Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. he wrote to Florinus, and he uses this
xvn (1874). p. 318 (comp. p. 342) main- supposed ignorance as an argument against
tains that Polycarp's Letter to the Philip- the genuineness of the letter. Lipsius
pianswasasyet unknown to Irenseus, when however has pointed out (see above, p-

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 565
Polycarp (see 1. p. 457, 11. p. 1003). But at all events the second
passage is quite explicit as regards the authorship of the epistle. As
Irenseus had been at one time a pupil of Polycarp, and as the com
munication between Gaul and Asia Minor was close, such testimony
would in other cases be regarded as decisive. Unless therefore early
Christian writings are to be subjected to standards of criticism which
would not be applied to other provinces of literature, we have here
evidence so strong, that it can only be set aside by the clear and in
disputable tokens of a later date in the document itself, such as proved
anachronisms and the like.
After this very early testimony, later references cease to have any
importance, except as assisting to identify the document mentioned by
Irenseus. This is the case with Eusebius (see above, p. 140), whose
quotations are especially valuable, inasmuch as he cites the very passage
(§ 13) relating to the Ignatian Epistles, which is the great stumbling-
block with modern critics and which all theories of interpolation alike
have cast out from the text.
Soon after the age of Eusebius, this epistle was incorporated in the
spurious Life of Polycarp (§ 12), bearing the name of Pionius. Again
a little later, but a few years before the close of the fourth century,
Jerome tells us (see above, p. 544) that it was read 'even to his own
day' (usque hodie) 'in conventu Asiae', whatever may be the exact
meaning of this phrase. This public reading was no new thing, as
appears from Jerome's language. When it commenced, we cannot say ;
but the conjecture may be hazarded that its inauguration was con
nected with the interest taken in the commemoration of Polycarp by
Pionius, a martyr in the Decian persecution a.d. 250 (see above,
p. 540). At all events the public reading of the epistle, as well as its
incorporation in the Life, would tend to insure the preservation of the
document in its integrity.
At a later date it is only necessary to advert to the Syriac fragments
(PP- 455. 54o)- These however do not imply the existence of a
Syriac translation. The fathers there quoted, Timotheus (a.d. 457) and
Severus (a.d. 513 — 518), wrote in Greek; and the individual passages
which they cited would be translated into Syriac with their works (see
above, pp. 168, 180, etc.). The same explanation also should probably
be given of the extract in the anonymous Syriac writer (p. 549), which
would be derived ultimately from some Greek father. These quota-
429) that the Letter to Florinus was writ- lustration of the fallacy of the argument
ten at a later date than the passage in the from silence.
Treatise on Heresies. This is a good il-

566 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
tions are important as preserving passages of which the Greek is lost
and which are extant only in the Latin translation, thus testifying to
the fact that the original Greek in the missing portion corresponded
to the extant Latin version.
To the concurrent testimony of antiquity there is no dissentient
voice. Nicephorus indeed places Polycarp, as well as Ignatius and
Clement, among his ' apocrypha ' ; but it has been shown already
(p. 336 sq.) that he did not intend to throw any doubt on the genuine
ness or authenticity of the writings so described. By so designating
them, he wished merely to distinguish them from such books as had
claims to be regarded as canonical Scripture.
(ii) Internal Evidence.
The external testimony in favour of the genuineness has been shown
to be exceptionally good. We thus approach the study of the epistle
with a strong guarantee of its authenticity, which can only be in
validated by solid and convincing proofs and against which mere
hypothetical combinations and ingenious surmises are powerless. It
remains now to enquire whether the internal' evidence is such as to
demand a reversal of the judgment to which in all ordinary cases the
external testimony would irresistibly impel us.
Those objections must be first considered which have been raised
on the ground of the character and contents of the letter. Here how
ever we may pass over all arguments based on the incredibility of the
Ignatian story in itself, as these have been considered already and set
aside (p. 341 sq.). The objections which remain are as follows1.
(1) It is urged that in this letter Polycarp assumes a position of
influence, which can hardly be reconciled with the facts and which
would only be intelligible at a later period of his life *. This objection
could not have been regarded as formidable, even when Polycarp's
martyrdom was dated according to the received chronology as late as
a.d. 167. But recent investigation has placed it twelve years earlier,
and accordingly the date of his birth must be moved backward through "
the same number of years. If the eighty-six years, of which he speaks
1 The authenticity of this document required. It has recently been the subject
was investigated by me at length some of an investigation by Funk (Die Echtheit
years ago in the Contemporary Review der Ignatianischen Briefe p. 14 sq., 1883),
May 1875, p. 838 sq..; and I have ven- who employs many of the same argu-
lured to transfer to the present work so ments.
much of my former paper as my purpose - Supernatural Religion 1. p. 277 sq.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 567
at the time of his martyrdom, designate the whole duration of his
life — and this is the explanation least favorable to our present purpose —
he was born about a.d. 69 (see above, p. 421 sq.). Of the martyrdom
of Ignatius, with which the writing of Polycarp's letter professes to be
nearly coincident, we can only say that it was probably during Trajan's
reign, and therefore not later than a.d. 118 (see 11. p. 433 sq.). Polycarp
might thus have been close upon fifty years old when he wrote. If
we suppose the persecution at Antioch, in which Ignatius suffered, to
be coincident with the persecution in Bithynia, which Pliny records
(a.d. 112) — a hypothesis which in the absence of all direct evidence is
not unfair — he would even in this case be close upon forty-five. He
had been a disciple, apparently a favourite disciple, of the aged
Apostle S. John. Thus he was the chief depositary of the primitive
tradition. He was especially commended by Ignatius, who would
naturally speak of him to the Philippians. History does not point to
any person after the death of Ignatius, whose reputation stood nearly
so high among his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be
drawn from silence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church.
We are expressly told that, even before his hairs were gray (kou rrpo Trjs
7roXids), he was treated with every honour by those about him (Mart.
Polyc. 13). Is it any surprise that the Philippians should have asked
him to write to them ? The arrangements for the conveyance of their
letter to Antioch in obedience to the directions of Ignatius (§ 13) had
obliged them to communicate with Polycarp. What wonder then that
they should, while writing, have invited such a man to address to them
words of exhortation, telling him at the same time of the scandal which
the avarice of Valens and his wife had created? On his own part
Polycarp writes with singular modesty. He associates the presbyters
with himself in the opening address. He says that he should not have
ventured to write as he does, if he had not received a request from the
Philippians (§ 3). He even deprecates any assumption of superiority.
(2) The manner in which the writer refers to S. Paul is thought to
betray the hand of a forger. In more than one passage he alludes to
the connexion of the Apostle with the Philippian Church. At an early
stage (§ 3) he excuses himself for addressing them, saying that he
cannot venture to compare himself with 'the blessed and glorious Paul',
who taught them the truths of the Gospel in person, and 'when absent
wrote letters' to them (craw vjCw eypavjev eirio-roXd's), from which, 'if they
studied them, they would find edification' (eh as eav eyKvirrrrre, Svvrj-
o-eo-8e olKoBojielo-dai. k.t.A.). In a second passage (§ 9) he refers them
to S. Paul among others, as an example of patience which they them-

568 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
selves had witnessed. In a third passage (§ u), towards the close of
the letter, he again compliments them as those 'among whom the blessed
Paul laboured', adding (if the passage be rightly read and interpreted)
that in the primitive days of the Gospel they were ' his epistles', and
that he 'boasts of them in all the churches' which had already received
the knowledge of God.
Is there anything suspicious in all this ? Was it not natural that,
finding himself thus engaged in writing to the Philippian Church, he
should remember that he was doing what a far greater man had done
before, and should institute a comparison humiliating to himself? We
have a sufficiently close parallel in Clement of Rome (§ 47), who in
like manner found himself treading in the footsteps of S. Paul and
rebuking in the Corinthian Church the feuds of his own time, as the
Apostle had rebuked those of a previous generation. But, if there is
nothing suspicious in the thing itself, no exception can be taken on the
ground of the language in which it is expressed. The expressions indeed
are not those which seem to us accurately to express the facts with
regard to S. Paul's Epistles. It is a hyperbole — though a very natural
hyperbole — to say that he boasts of the Philippians in all the churches.
There is an ambiguity likewise in the plural en-toroXas, if the writer
intends only a single letter by it; whereas, if he means more than
one, the statement is not explained by the extant canonical epistle.
But, as I have had occasion to remark before in a similar case (see
above, p. 389), such modes of expression are much more likely to have
been used by the genuine Polycarp, in whose time the Epistles of
S. Paul were not gathered into one volume and stamped with direct
canonical authority, than by a later writer, with whom the Canon of
the New Testament comprised a well-defined body of writings.
(3) Again the attack upon heretical opinions in § 7 has been assailed
as an anachronism; 'Every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ
hath come in the flesh, is Antichrist; and whosoever confesseth not the
testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever-perverteth the
oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts and saith that there is
neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan',
Now Irenssus (Haer. iii. 3. 4) tells us that Polycarp on one occasion
accosted Marcion as 'the first-born of Satan' (see above, p. 434) — the
same expression which is here used. The passage in the epistle there
fore, it is argued, must be an attack on the Docetism of Marcion. But
if so, it is a gross anachronism. The epistle professes to have been
written immediately after Ignatius' martyrdom, say a.d. no, or a.d. 118
at the latest. But Marcion had not yet appeared above the horizon;

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 569
and the interview to which Irenaeus alludes took place during the
visit of Polycarp to Rome, during the pontificate of Anicetus, who
succeeded in a.d. 154. Evidently the forger of the letter borrows his
language from the story of Irenasus, not remembering that Irenasus refers
to an event which occurred some forty years or more later.
This objection involves two considerations; (i) The character of the
heresy attacked; (ii) The recurrence of the same phrase after a long
interval. (i) On the first point it is sufficient to reply that there is nothing
specially Marcionite in the doctrines attacked. Marcion indeed was a
Docetic and, as such, denied 'that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh'.
But so was Simon Magus, so was Saturninus, so were many other
heretical teachers before and after Marcion (see above, p. 365 sq.). Of
the distinctive doctrines of Marcion there is not a word here, as there
was not a word in the Ignatian Epistles, where likewise Docetic opinions
are attacked (see p. 370). If Marcion was the object of attack, why is
his dualism spared? The antagonisms of Marcion's creed were far
greater scandals to the orthodox Christian than even his Docetism. Yet
what hint is there here that the heretic in question postulated two Gods,
the one just, the other good; that he maintained a direct opposition
between the Old Testament and the New; that he assumed an interne
cine feud between the Apostles of the Circumcision and the Apostle of
the Gentiles, whereas the writer of this letter himself quotes S. Peter
and S. Paul with equal deference and equal frequency?
But we may go further than this. Not only is there nothing specially
characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies denounced by
Polycarp, but some of the charges are quite inapplicable to him. The
passage in question denounces three heads of heretical doctrine, which
may or may not have been combined in the same teacher or sect. Of
these the first, 'Whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh', is capable of several applications. It may refer, for instance,
to the separationism of Cerinthus, who maintained that the spiritual
being Christ descended on the man Jesus after the baptism and left him
before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ remained
impassible; or it may describe the pure Docetism which maintained that
our Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His birth and life
and death alike were only apparent, not real; or it may have some
reference different from either. The various forms of Docetism have
been fully discussed at an earlier stage (p. 364 sq.), and I need not
revert to them again. Whether the epistle be genuine or not, the con
nexion with the Ignatian letters is obvious; and the type of Docetism

570 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
attacked in the two will be the same. Polycarp here is evidently
quoting the words of i John iv. 2, 3 ; but, as I have said already (p. 368),
the application is not necessarily the same as in the Apostle's context.
Under any circumstances, though applicable to Marcion, it would apply
equally well to almost every sect of Gnostics besides. The same may
be said of the second position attacked, ' Whosoever confesseth not the
testimony of the Cross', which might include not only divers Gnostic
sects but many others besides. We have come across similar ex
pressions in the Ignatian Epistles, and we can hardly doubt that the
reference is the same in both writers (see above pp. 360, 363, and below
11. pp. 74, 173 sq., 272, etc.). But, while the first two expressions are
wide enough to include Marcion along with many others, the case is
wholly different with the third, 'Whosoever perverteth the oracles of the
Lord to (serve) his own lusts and saith that there is neither resurrection
nor judgment'. To this type of error, and this only, the description
'first-born of Satan' is applied in Polycarp's letter; and it is altogether
inapplicable to Marcion. No doubt Marcion, like every other heretical
teacher of the second century, or indeed of any century, did 'pervert
the oracles of the Lord' by his tortuous interpretations, but he did not
pervert them 'to his own lusts'. The high moral character of Marcion
is unimpeachable, and is recognized by the orthodox writers of the
second century, who have no worse charge to bring against him than
disappointed ambition. Tertullian finds no terms too strong to con
demn Marcion; but even Tertullian bears decisive testimony to the ex
ceptional purity of his life1. He was an ascetic of the most rigorous
type. It is a significant fact that, when Scholten* wishes to fasten this
denunciation on Marcion as an argument against the authenticity of
Polycarp's Epistle, he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the Lord'
and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts', though
these contain the very sting of the accusation. Obviously the allusion
is to the antinomian license which many early Gnostic teachers extracted
from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel. Germs of this immoral
doctrine appear at least half a century before the professed date of
Polycarp's Epistle in the incipient Gnosticism which S. Paul rebukes at
Corinth (1 Cor. vii. 12 — 18, viii. 1 sq.). Still clearer indications meet us
in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. i. 6 sq., ii. 1 sq., vi. 3 sq., 2 Tim. ii. 16 sq.,
iii. 2 sq., iv. 3 sq., Tit. i. 10 sq.); and when we reach the epoch of the
1 In Ps. Tertull. Haer. 17, Epiphan. 30, who speaks of the 'continentia Mar-
Haer. xlii. 1 , there is a story discreditable cionensis ', evidently knows nothing of it.
to Marcion, but it is doubtless a libel. See also adv. Marc. i. 1, 29, iv. rr.
The genuine Tertullian de Praescr. Haer. 2 Die Aeltesten Zeugnisse p. 41.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE 571
Apocalypse (Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24), the evil is nearly full blown.
This interpretation becomes the more evident, when read in the light of
the accompanying clause, where the same persons are described as saying
that 'there is no resurrection or judgment'. This can only mean that
they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and so broke loose from
the moral restraints imposed by the fear of consequences. Here again
they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators at Corinth
who maintained that 'there is no resurrection of the dead' (1 Cor. xv.
12), and whose Epicurean lives were the logical consequence of their
Epicurean doctrine. Here again the Pastoral Epistles supply a per
tinent illustration. If we are perplexed to conceive how they could
extract this doctrine out of 'the oracles of the Lord', our perplexity is
unravelled by the case of Hymenasus and Philetus who taught 'that the
resurrection is past already' (2 Tim. ii. 18), or in other words that all
terms applying thereto must be understood metaphorically as describing
the spiritual change, the new birth and resuscitation of the believers, in
this present world \ Thus everything hangs together. But such teaching
is altogether foreign to Marcion. He did indeed deny the resurrection
of the flesh and the future body of the redeemed2. This was a neces
sary tenet of all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter.
In this sense only he denied tbe resurrection ; and he did not deny the
judgment at all. Holding as firmly as the Catholic Christian, that men
would be rewarded or punished hereafter according to their deeds in
this life, he was obliged to recognize a judgment in some form or other.
His Supreme God indeed, whom he represented as pure beneficence,
could not be a judge or an avenger; but he got over the difficulty by
assigning this task to the Demiurge3.
(ii) The second point in the indictment is the recurrence of the
same phrase ' first-born of Satan ' after a long interval. The passage in
the epistle, if genuine, must have been written, as we have seen, before
a.d. 118. The expression, as applied to Marcion, cannot, it is urged,
have been uttered before a.d. 154; for this will be the date of Poly
carp's visit to Rome, supposing Waddington to have correctly assigned
the martyrdom to the year 155. It is not indeed clear that the in
terview between Polycarp and Marcion took place during this visit.
1 Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. de Resurr. Iren. iii. 25. 2, 3, 'Alteram quidem ju-
Carn. 19. dicare et alteram quidem salvare dixerunt
Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. adv. Marc. v. ...Marcion igitur ipse dividens Deum in
10, de Praescr. Haer. 33. duo, alteram quidem bonum et alteram
3 See Neander Church History 11. p. judicialem dicens', with the context.
147, and to the references there given add

572 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Irenaeus speaks of it as happening ' on a certain occasion' (xal outos Se
o IIoX-LiKarj7ros Map/aWi 7totc ets o\j/tv avrco eXdovri k.t.X.). It Stands
immediately after the account of the corresponding interview between
S. John and Cerinthus, as related by Polycarp himself, and has no
necessary connexion with Polycarp's visit to Rome. It might there
fore have happened in Asia Minor as early as (say) a.d. 130, when
Marcion first began to promulgate his doctrines. But even if we
assign it to the Roman visit and therefore to the year 1 54, the repetition
of the same phrase at this long interval creates no real difficulty.
Would not the coincidence, so far as it goes, appear to any ordinary
judicial mind rather to point to Polycarp as the author of the epistle;
for the two facts come to us on independent authority — the one from
oral tradition through Irenasus, the other in a written document older than
Irenaeus ? Or, if the one statement arose out of the other, the converse
relation is much more probable. Irenasus, as he tells us in the context,
was acquainted with the epistle, and it is quite possible that in re
peating the story of Polycarp's interview with Marcion he inadvertently
imported into it the expression which he had read in the epistle. But
the independence of the two is far more probable. As a fact, men do
repeat the same expressions again and again, and this throughout long
periods of their lives. Such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyn
crasies, and so become part of them. This is a matter of common
observation, and in the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed
incidentally that he had a habit of repeating favourite expressions.
Irenaeus in his Epistle to Florinus (see above, p. 429) mentions the
exclamation 'O good God', as one of these phrases (to' crvvrjdei ama
eliroiv), which were habitually on his lips.
(4) Exception has likewise been taken to the references which ap
pear in §§ 9, 13, of this epistle to the doings of Ignatius. The objection
is twofold; (i) The statements are irreconcilable one with another; and
(ii) The manner of referring to Ignatius is suspicious in itself.
(i) On the first point I have already touched (p. 562). It is alleged
that in § 9 Ignatius is represented as already martyred, whereas in § 13
the expression ' de his qui cum eo sunt ' implies that he was still living.
But we have only to retranslate the Latin into its original language
irepl tcuv crvv airw, and the discrepancy vanishes, for all reference to
present time disappears. The following considerations justify this
solution of the difficulty. (1) Unless Polycarp departed in this instance
from his ordinary usage, he would employ the shortened expression 0!
crvv avrtS or 01 jx.er avrov, omitting the participle of the verb substantive.
Thus in the opening paragraph of the letter he has 01 o-vv airS, and in

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 573
§9 ws «£ v/xcor/, besides other instances more or less germane. (2)
The translator, if he had the words tois crvv aoTcu before him, would
naturally supply the substantive verb, as he has done in the opening
'qui cum eo sunt presbyteri' (01 o-vv avrio irpeo-^vTepoi) ; in § 3 'illis qui
tunc erant hominibus' (tcov totc avOpttnroiv), and again 'quae est in Deo'
(rr]% th ©eoV) ; in § 9 ' qui ex vobis sunt ' (tois e£ v/moV) ; and probably
also in § 12 'qui sunt sub caelo', presumably representing tois viro rov
oipavov, though in this passage the Greek is wanting. (3) The transla
tor, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give the wrong tense.
In fact in the only other passage in the epistle where it was possible to
make a mistake, he has gone wrong on this very point, translating (§ 9)
ijv noi f"8eT£...eV aXXocs tois ef vp.wv mechanically by the present, ' quam
et vidistis. . .in aliis qui ex vobis sunt', though the persons are mentioned
in connexion with S. Ignatius and S. Paul, and though it is distinctly
stated immediately afterwards that they all were dead, having, as we
may infer from the context, consummated their life by martyrdom. In
fact he has there made the very blunder which we must ascribe to him
in the passage before us.
This objection therefore falls to the ground. But the notices which
I have been considering suggest another reflexion. Is the historical
position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like the invention
of a forger ? Would it have occurred to such a person to place himself
at the moment of time when Ignatius is supposed to have been martyred,
but when the report of the circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna ?
If he had chosen this moment, would he not have made it quite clear
to his readers, instead of leaving them to infer it by piecing together
notices which are scattered through the epistle — notices moreover,
which, though entirely consistent with each other, are so far from ob
vious that his translator has been led astray by them, and that modern
critics have woven out of them these entanglements which it has taken
so much time to unravel ? I will leave this question to answer itself.
(ii) But again ; it seems to be thought that the mere occurrence of
the references to the Ignatian letters is suspicious in itself, as betraying
the motive of a supposititious writer. Why this should be so, we shall
find it difficult to say. It cannot be pleaded that there is any improba
bility in the circumstances themselves. Ignatius, after leaving Polycarp,
had stayed at Philippi on his way to martyrdom ; the Philippians had
been deeply impressed by their intercourse with him ; writing to Poly
carp afterwards, they had requested him to send them a copy of the
martyr's letter or letters addressed to him; he complies with their
request, and appends copies of other letters written by Ignatius, which

574 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
he happened to have in his possession. Is this at all unnatural ? Sup
pose on the other hand that the letter of Polycarp had contained no
such reference to Ignatius and his epistles, would it not have been
regarded as a highly suspicious circumstance that, writing to the Philip.
pians so soon after Ignatius had visited both churches, Polycarp should
have said nothing about so remarkable a man? When we See how the
argument from silence is worked in other cases, we cannot doubt that
it would have been plied here as a formidable objection either to the
truth of the Ignatian story or to the genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle
or to both. The rational conclusion is that this notice proves nothing
either way, when it stands alone. If the other contents of the Poly-
carpian letters are questionable, then it confirms our misgivings. If
not, then this interpretation of the notice is only another illustration of
the over-suspicious temperament of modern criticism, which must be as
fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in matters of early Christian
history, as it manifestly is in matters of common life.
But I venture to go further than this. A comparison of the references
to the Ignatian letters in Polycarp's Epistle with the contents of these
letters themselves brings out subtle relations between the two which
forbid the supposition of a forgery. ' You wrote to me ', says Polycarp,
'both you yourselves and Ignatius, that if any one goes to Syria, he
should convey your letter likewise'. 'This I will do', he adds,- 'if I
find a convenient season — either myself or the person whom I shall
send to act as delegate on your behalf likewise'. Nothing could be more
natural than this language. If it be artifice at all, it is the most con
summate artifice — far transcending the sagacity of any forger in Christian
circles at this early age. What is the meaning of this journey to Syria?
What is this- delegate expected to do ? What is the reference in the
' likewise ' ? A study of the Ignatian Epistles answers these questions.
But no forger would have been contented with, even if he were capable
of devising, the allusiveness of the references here. He would have
made the meaning quite clear. The incidental 'likewise' more especially
would have been quite beyond the range of his invention. Moreover
such a forger, bent on fitting in the notices of Polycarp's Epistle with
the notices in the Ignatian letters, would have made them fit exactly.
But they do not so fit. We have, as it were, a mosaic pavement,
with some of the pieces omitted. Polycarp here speaks of certain
directions given to him in letters from the Philippians and from Ignatius.
In the Ignatian letters there is no mention at all of Philippi. The
nearest approach is the incidental reference to his setting sail for
Neapolis {Polyc. 8), which we know to have lain on the road to Philippi'

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 575
The extant Ignatian letter to Polycarp again contains no such in
junctions as Polycarp here states that Ignatius gave him. There are
indeed general directions to him to commit to the messengers whom he
sends to Syria the letters of other churches ; but there is no mention
of any particular church. The two accounts may be reconciled in
more than one way (see 11. p. 931); but no mode of reconciling them
is intelligible on the supposition of a forgery. Again the notices re
lating to the delegate reveal still more subtle relations. Ignatius directs
the Smymaean Church generally (Smyrn. n) and Polycarp in particular
{Polyc. 7) to appoint an exceptionally trustworthy delegate to Antioch.
He does not hint at Polycarp's going himself. On the contrary the
language of his salutation is such as indirectly to exclude this contingency
and to show that it was not present to his mind (Polyc. 8 toC rrep.irovro<i
avrov UoXvKapiTov). From Polycarp's own letter however it appears
that he contemplated undertaking this mission in person. But this
purpose is not directly stated. It is not put into any immediate
relation with the notices in the Ignatian letters. He does not for
instance say, 'Ignatius enjoined me to send a trustworthy delegate to
Antioch, but I think it better to go myself. The fact is communicated
quite indirectly and incidentally ; ' This I will do — either I myself or
the person whom I shall send to act as delegate'. What more natural
than all this ? But what more impossible in the crude forgeries of the
early Christian ages ?
Moreover the mention of the companions of Ignatius here (§ 13)
suggests further matter for consideration, as affecting the point at issue.
These companions appear from a comparison with §§ 1, 9, to have been
fellow-prisoners and fellow-martyrs. We can hardly be mistaken in
identifying them with Zosimus and Rufus mentioned in the latter of these
two passages. A hypothetical, but not improbable, account of the
presence of these two persons is mentioned in the note on the passage
(n. p. 921). They may have been prisoners condemned in the
Bithynian persecution under Pliny and forwarded to Philippi, whence
they would be conducted to Rome by the same military escort as Ignatius
himself. But however this may be, is it not strange, if this letter were
written or interpolated by the forger of the Ignatian Epistles with a
view to gaining credit for them, that he should have avoided every
name in the entourage of Ignatius, as it appears in the Ignatian letters,
and have introduced entirely new persons ? In the Ignatian letters we
read of Burrhus and others accompanying him from Smyrna, of Agathopus
and Philo joining him at Troas. But of Zosimus and Rufus not a word ;
of any fellow- prisoners at all not a word.

576 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(5) Again adverse critics have found an anachronism in a passage
towards the close of the epistle extant only in the Latin translation, § 12
'Orate etiam pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus'. The plural
'reges', it is said, stands in contrast with 1 Pet. ii. 17, 'Honour the king'
(tov fiao-iXea rifiare), and indicates a time when more than one person
was associated in the imperial dignity. Therefore it cannot have been
written before a.d. 161, when M. Aurelius and L. Verus became joint
emperors (Hilgenfeld Apost. Vdter p. 273), or at all events before ad.
147, when Antoninus Pius conferred on M. Aurelius the tribunician
power and the dignity of Caesar. This last mentioned event, it is
thought, would justify the use of the plural, for Antoninus Pius and M.
Aurelius are called fSao-ikels by Justin Apol. i. 14, 17. Here however
we have only to ask why 'Orate pro regibus' should be translated 'Pray
for the kings' rather than 'Pray for kings', and this ghost of an as
sociated sovereignty vanishes at the spell. There is no reason what
ever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a general
reference. Even if the words had stood in the original virep tcov y8ao-t-
XcW and not virep (iao-iXewv, the presence of the article would not, ac
cording to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit the reference to any
particular sovereigns1. But we have very good ground for believing
that the definite article had no place in the original. The writer of this
letter elsewhere shows an acquaintance with the First Epistle to
Timothy. In the beginning of § 4 he combines two passages which
occur close together in that epistle (see 11. p. 912). Hence it becomes
highly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same
source, 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions,
thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in
authority7 (1 Tim. ii. 2), where it is virep /Zao-iXioiv, and where any
allusion to a joint sovereignty is altogether out of the question. The
expression in Polycarp is part of a general injunction as to the direc
tion which their prayers are to take and, as such, is combined with
other passages of Scripture, Ephes. vi. 18, Matt. v. 44. We may there
fore bid farewell to M. Aurelius and L. Verus2.
1 See Apost. Const, viii. 15 rois /3a<ri- Apol. 30 'Precantes sumus semper pro
Xe?s Siari)pr\<rov iv eipr]vr), tovs dpxovras iv omnibus imperatoribus ', ii. 31 'Sed etiam
SiKaioo-ivr/, where it is shown to be gen- nominatim atque manifeste orate, inquit,
eral from the fact that shortly before (viii. pro regibus et pro principibus et potes-
12. § 18) the singular has been used, tri tatibus', ib. 32 'Est et alia major necessi-
irapaKaXoviiiv ae, Kiipie, inrip rov (SaaiXiuis tas orandi pro imperatoribus ', ib. 39 ' Ora-
Kal tQv iv iirepoxv k.t.X. mus pro imperatoribus, pro ministns eo-
2 The expression in Polycarp is best rum et potestatibus ', Orig. c. Cels. viii. 73
illustrated by such passages as Tertull. irporpiirerai r]p.as 0 KiXaos aprryeiv t<j>

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 577
It has thus appeared, if I mistake not, that the objections brought
against this epistle are not strong enough even to raise a presumption
against its genuineness, still less to counteract the direct testimony of
Polycarp's own pupil Irenaeus. But having disposed of the objections,
we may go a step further. We are asked to believe that this letter was
forged on the confines of the age of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.
But how wholly unlike it is to the ecclesiastical literature of this later
generation, whether we regard the use of the New Testament or the
notices of ecclesiastical order or the statements of theological doctrine,
a little consideration will show. The Evangelical quotations are still
introduced, as in Clement of Rome, with the formula 'The Lord said'
(§ 2); the passages from the Apostolic Epistles are still for the most
part indirect and anonymous; not a single book of the New Testament
is cited by name. Though two or three chapters are devoted to injunc
tions respecting the ministry of the Church, there is not an allusion to
episcopacy from beginning to end. Though the writer's ideas of the
Person of Christ may be practically orthodox according to the Catholic
standard of orthodoxy, yet these ideas are still held in solution and
have not yet crystallized into the dogmatic forms which characterize the
later generation. Moreover in this epistle again, as we saw to be the
case in the Ignatian letters (p. 368 sq.), there is silence from first to last
upon all the questions which agitated the Church in the second half of
the second century. Of Montanism, of the Paschal controversy, of the
developed Gnostic heresies of this period, it says nothing. The
supposed reference to Marcion has been discussed and dismissed
already. But this argument from internal evidence gains strength when con
sidered from another point of view. The only intelligible theory — in
deed, so far as I know, the only theory of any kind — offered to account
for this epistle by those who deny its genuineness or its integrity
connects it closely with the Ignatian letters. If forged, it was forged
Pa<riXei...\eKTiov 8i Kal vpas ravra, 8Vi that there was only one reigning emperor
aprryop.ev (cord Kaipbv rois flao-iXevo-i at the time and where nevertheless the
Selav, tv' oSras efiru, aprfeiv ..Kal ravra plural occurs in those statements which
mmvfiev iceiBbnevoi d.iroo-roXiKJj (pavjj Xe- are general. See also above, p. 514. Such
701/0-5 IIapo«taX(3 ovv v/ias irpwrov iroiei- injunctions relating to the duty of prayer,
o-Sat Seijo-eis. ..virip fjao-iXiwv Kalirdvroiv founded on 1 Tim. ii. 1 , 2, and similar pas-
ruiv iv iirepoxv Svroiv xal 8ao> yi tis sages, are not uncommon in early Chris-
einpio-repbs iariv, Toaovrw ivvriKwrepos tian writers (e.g. Justin Apol. i. 14, 17,
iv t$ arrrjyetv rots pao-iXevovo-i...r)iJieis Dial. 133, with Otto's note I. p. 177,
koX ^taWox iirepnaxovfiev rov paaiXiois, ed. 3). Thepassagein Polycarp's Epistle
where the occurrence of the singular shows obviously belongs to this class.
ig. 1. Z7

578 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP,
by the same hand which wrote the seven Vossian Epistles; if interpo
lated, it was interpolated by the same person who expanded the three
Curetonian Epistles into the seven Vossian. In any case the object
was to recommend the Ignatian forgery by the authority of a great
name. This theory is at all events intelligible; and, so far as I can see,
it is the only rational theory which the case admits.
I have already considered the passages, in which reference is made
to Ignatius and his letters, and on which therefore this theory is based,
and the result of the investigation was highly unfavourable to any
such hypothesis. But the main question still remains to be answered;
Does the Epistle of Polycarp bear evidence in its style and diction, or
in its modes of thought, or in any other way, that it was written by the
same hand which penned the Ignatian letters?
And here we may say boldly that, in whatever way we test the two
documents, the contrast is very striking — more striking indeed than we
should have expected to find between two Christian writers who lived at
the same time and were personally acquainted with each other. Let us
apply some of the tests.
i. The stress which Ignatius lays on episcopacy as the keystone of
ecclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological orthodoxy is well
known (see above, p. 375 sq.). Indeed it is often asserted that the
Ignatian letters were written for this express purpose. In Polycarp's
Epistle on the other hand there is from first to last no mention of the
episcopate. There is every reason for believing that Polycarp was
bishop of Smyrna at this time; yet in the heading of the letter, which
would be the great opportunity for a forger, he does not assert his title
but contents himself with writing, 'Polycarp and the presbyters with
him'.. Again, in the body of the letter hq speaks at length about the
duties of the presbyters, of the deacons, of the widows, and. others
(§§ 4: — 6); but the bishop is entirely ignored. More especially he directs
the younger men to be obedient to 'the presbyters and deacons, as to
God and Christ' (§ 5); but nothing is said about obedience to the
bishop. At a later point he has occasion to speak of an offence com
mitted by one Valens a presbyter (§§ 11, 12); but here again there is
the same silence. All this is quite intelligible, if the letter is genuine,
on the supposition either that there was a vacancy in the Philippian
bishopric at this time or, as seems more probable, that the ecclesi
astical organization there was not yet fully developed; but it is, so far as
I can see, altogether inconceivable that a forger whose object it was to
recommend episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so
damaging to his main purpose.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 579
2. If from ecclesiastical organization we turn to doctrinal statement,
the contrast still holds. In Polycarp we meet with no emphatic declara
tions of the incarnation, of the true humanity, of the twofold nature of
Christ, such as confront us again and again in Ignatius (Ephes. 7, 18, 19,
Magn. 7, 8, n, Trail. 9, Rom. 7, Smyrn. 1,4, 5, Polyc. 3). He never
speaks of 'the blood of God' (Ephes. 1) or 'the passion of my God'
(Rom. 6), nor do we find in him any approach to those other strong
modes of speaking, which in Ignatius seem to favour Monophysitism
such as 'Our God was conceived by Mary' (Ephes. 18). This last
designation, 'our God', 'my God', applied to Jesus Christ, occurs
several times in Ignatius (see 11. p. 26). It is not found once in Poly-
carpj though in one passage (§ 12), as quoted by Timotheus and Severus,
he speaks of 'the Eternal High-priest, God Jesus Christ', where the
Greek text is wanting and the Latin reads 'Dei films', not 'Deus'.
Even in the commonest ways of designating our Lord a difference is
perceptible. Thus the favourite mode of expression in Ignatius is
'Jesus Christ' or 'Christ Jesus' simply, which occurs nearly a hundred
times; whereas in Polycarp it is found twice only (§§ 1, 7), one passage
being a quotation. On the other hand a frequent designation in Poly
carp is ' The Lord Jesus Christ ' or ' Our Lord Jesus Christ ' occurring
in six places, while in the Ignatian letters it is only found about the
same number of times, and in nearly every instance (Philad. inscr.,
1, 9, n) with a various reading which has some claims to acceptance ;
though these Ignatian letters are between four and five times the length
of Polycarp's Epistle. Again ' The Lord ' or ' Our Lord ' without the
addition of Jesus Christ appears some sixteen times in Polycarp,
whereas it does not occur as often in the whole body of the Ignatian
letters. Again the combination 'God and Christ', occurring three
times in Polycarp (§§ 3, 5 bis), is not found at all in Ignatius.
This contrast between the two writers extends to other domains of
theology. Thus Ignatius dwells frequently and with great emphasis on
'the blood' of Christ, 'the passion' of Christ, 'the cross' of Christ, as
an object of belief, a centre of unity, and a source of life (see 11. pp. 25
sq., 29 sq., 75, 152, 177, 249, 250, 258, 291 sq., 297, 308), whereas in
Polycarp the blood of Christ is only once mentioned (§ 2), where it is
regarded as a crime demanding vengeance, and the cross of Christ only
twice (§§ 7, 12), where it is a protest against doctrinal or practical
opponents. Again there is in Polycarp an entire absence of that sacra
mental language which confronts us again and again in the most startling
forms in Ignatius (11. pp. 45, 66, 87, 123, 171, 225 sq., 257 sq., 260,
3°6, 309). Moreover he has not a single word to say about the unity
37—2

580 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
of the Church, which occupies so large a space on the canvas of
Ignatius. Indeed ' the Church ' is not once named by him, and the
only occurrence of the word iKKXrjcria itself is in the opening of the
letter, where it is applied to the particular community.
3. The divergence of the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations
is equally remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are many
times longer than Polycarp's Epistle, the quotations in the latter are
incomparably more numerous as well as more precise than in the
former. The obligations to the New Testament are wholly different in
character in the two cases. The Ignatian letters do indeed show a
considerable knowledge of the writings included in our Canon of the
New Testament ; but this knowledge betrays itself in casual words and
phrases, stray metaphors, epigrammatic adaptations, and isolated coinci- ¦
dences of thought. Where there is an obligation, the borrowed figure
or expression has passed through the mind of the writer, has been
assimilated, and has undergone some modification in the process.
Quotations from the New Testament strictly speaking there are none.
The nearest approaches are such sentences as 'Be thou wise as the
serpent in all things and innocent at all times as the dove' (Polyc. 2
from Matt. x. 16), or 'Through their wrong-doings I am advanced
further in discipleship (/jiaXXov /j.a6rjTevojj.ai) ; but by reason of this ani
I not justified ' (Rom. 5, from 1 Cor. iv. 4) ; and even such examples
can be counted on the fingers. On the other hand in Polycarp's
Epistle sentence after sentence is frequently made up of passages from
the Evangelical or Apostolic writings1. There is nothing at all, for
example, in Ignatius which can compare with the large and repeated
use made by Polycarp of the First Epistle of S. Peter, which was
sufficiently prominent to attract the notice of Eusebius (H. E. iv. 15
K'XWra' T'°~' lxaPTVP^ali "lr° r^1* xTerpov rrpoT&pas eiricrToXijs).
4. But this divergence forms only part of a broader and still more
decisive contrast, affecting the whole style and character of the two
writings. The profuseness of quotations in Polycarp's Epistle arises
1 Funk (Die Echtheit der Ignatiani- calculate it at between four and five times),
schen Briefe, p. 34, 1883) calculates that he concludes that 'we obtain as well for
in Polycarp's letter there are 35 quota- the whole Scripture as for the Apostolic
tions from the Scriptures, of which 22 Epistles the proportion 21:1'- " ls
are from the Apostolic Epistles, while in difficult to say what amount of coinci-
the Ignatian letters there are only 15 or dence is required to constitute aquota-
16 in all, of which three are from the tion, and I am unable to follow his
Apostolic Epistles. Taking the length arithmetic in his calculations from his
of the Ignatian letters to be roughly six data ; but the general contrast is not less
times as long as Polycarp's Epistle (I striking than he represents it.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 581
from a want of originality. The thoughts and words of others are
reproduced with little or no modification, because the writer's mind is
receptive and not creative. The Epistle of Polycarp is essentially
common place, and therefore essentially intelligible. It has intrinsically
no literary or theological interest. Its only value arises from the fact
that it is a monument of a highly important epoch in the progress of
the Church, of which very little is known, and about which every scrap
of information is welcome. On the other hand the letters of Ignatius
have, a marked individuality. Of all early Christian writings they are
preeminent in this respect. They are full of idiomatic expressions,
quaint images, unexpected turns of thought and language. They ex~
hibit their own characteristic ideas, which evidently have a high value
for the writer, for he recurs to them again and again, but which the
reader often finds extremely difficult to grasp owing to their singularity.
.5. Turning from the broader characteristics of style to individual
expressions, we find the two separated by the same wide gulf. The
vocabulary is wholly different. Not a single one of the characteristic
words or types of words or phrases or turns of expression, which strike
us in the Ignatian letters, presents itself in the Epistle of Polycarp.
Such for instance are the compounds of d|ios, as a^io/xaKapioros, d£id-
0eos, etc. (see II. pp. 27, 41, 191, 341), or of cpepeiv (-cpdpos), as 6eo<popos,
vaarjmpos, etc. (ll. pp. 21 sq., 5 5 sq. ), or of ®eds, as BeoirpeTrrjs, 0eo/*axap cords,
etc. (ir. p. 108), None of these compounds occur in Polycarp. Such
again is the frequent use of the preposition KaTa in several characteristic
combinations (11. pp. 107, 256), as Kara ©eo'v (11. p. 107), Kara 'lrjo-ovv
Xpicrrov (ll. pp. 125, 256), KaTa dvdpoiirovs, etc. (ll. pp. 57, 155, 228),
kot cii'Spa (in ol Kar aVSpa II. p. 41), KaO' eva (ll. p. 179), KaTa iravra
(especially in the phrase Kara iravra dvairaveiv, 11. p. 35), with other similar
expressions such as Kara lovSa'icrjwv, Kara KvpiaKrjv, etc. (ll. pp. 125,
129). The only approaches to such expressions, indeed the only in
stances of the occurrence of this preposition with the accusative, in
Polycarp's Epistle are the very obvious phrases § 3 koto, irpoo-onrov
tcoV totc- dvBpdiriDv, and § 5 Kara rrjv dXrjOeiav rov Kvpiov. Again there
is the characteristic Ignatian use of rvxetv (emrvxeiv), especially with
©eoC (11. pp. 30, 65, 109); there is the recurrence of such phrases as
tis tijltjv ®eov, eis 8d£av ®eou (ll. pp. 88, 139), or jur) rrXavacrOe, /irjSels
irXavdcrOio (11. pp. 43, 70, 256), or iv Trj irpoo-evyrj (airrjtrei) vjxwv (ll. pp.
8S> 355). or yvwjxrj ®eov (11. pp. 39, 228, 250); there is the favourite
contrast and combination of 'flesh' and 'spirit' (n. pp. 48, 60); there
is the often repeated, idea of discipleship (jmOrjrrjs, ji.a6rrreveo-6ai, etc.)
as the goal of life's journey (11. pp. 31, 37, 58, 210, 215); there are the

582 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
favorite words dSioKpiros, dSiaKpircos (11. pp. 39, 153, 193), oWffip
(ll. p. 87), d£iovv (ll. p. no), aWiexeo-f?ai (ll. p. 332), evovv, evorrp,
ei/cocris (especially in the phrase eVdnjs, IVcocris ®eov, 11. pp. 42, 109, 269,
322), evpio-Keo-Oai (very frequently), Zfiv (as a substantive, 11. pp. 61, 73),
Kara^iovv (ll. pp. 85, no), KXrjpos (ll. pp. 180, 196), ovaiprjv (ll. p. 35),
rrepivj-rjixa (ll. p. 50), rrpeitei, irpirrov ecrri (ll. p. 36), irpeo-j3vTepiov (ll.
p. 36), crwSooXos (ll. p. 33), <f>vcriOvo-@ai (ll. p. 136), xpicmavds, XPl0~~
Tiavio-fto's, etc. (11. p. 134); there is the absolute use of ovopa and
BeXrjpa, for the Divine Name, the Divine Will {a. pp. 37, 47, 85,
195); there is the peculiar construction of BiXeiv, BeXeo-Bai (n. pp. 115,
228); there is the recurrence of d£ios used absolutely or with ©tov
(11. pp. 33, 34, 36) ; there is the genitive ®eov instead of a descriptive
epithet in such phrases as xpco/j.a ®£<™ (Ephes. 4), opovoia ®toS (11. p.
119), evoTTjs ®eov (ll. pp. 269, 322), IVcoo-is ©eov (Trail. 11), opoijBeia
®eov (ll. p. 120), emeiKeia ®eov (Philad. 1), dpepipvia ®eov (Polyc. 7), or
in the expression ttvai ®tov (11. pp. 45, 133, 219, 356). Not a single
example of any of these appears in Polycarp's Epistle, Again
there is no instance of such phrases of reciprocation with God as
are common in Ignatius, e.g. Philad. 10 Do£do-ai to ovopa. ..ko.1 vpeh
§o£ao-6ijo-ecr8e, Rom. 8 BeXrjcraTe iva Kai vjnels OeXrjOrjre (see II. pp. 35, 36,
281, 301, 351). Again there is an entire absence of the metaphors
and illustrations drawn from heathen religious processions, choruses,
altars, and sacrifices (see 11. pp. 17, 41, 54 sq., 123, 201), for § 4
flwiacmfpiov ®eov cannot be considered an exception ; and indeed
generally of the different images and figures in which Ignatius delights.
Again the opening of Polycarp's Epistle exhibits a marked difference
from the openings of the Ignatian letters. These latter are all framed
on one type rrj eKKXrjo-ia, rrj ovcrrj iv 'Ecpecroi (TpaXXeo-ii', etC.^.-TrXticrTa
Xaipeiv, whereas Polycarp's salutation takes quite another form t$
eKKXrjo-iq....Trj rrapoiKOVcrrj cl>iXiir7roos ?Xeos vp.iv Kal elpfjvrj...irXrnBw8eii]
being modelled somewhat closely after the pattern of Clement's Epistle.
I venture to think that any one who will carefully consider these
contrasts must be struck with the impossibility of a theory which as
sumes that the two writings proceeded from the same hand. This hy
pothesis requires us to believe that a highly uncritical circle in a highly
uncritical age (for great stress is laid on the uncritical character of the
early Christian centuries and the early Christian society) produced a
literary fiction which for subtlety of execution leaves the most skilful
forgeries of the nineteenth century far behind. But suppose for a
moment that such a consummate artist could have been found. What

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 583
fs the part assigned to him by this theory? What is supposed to be his
motive in the production of this letter bearing Polycarp's name? He is
eager to establish the authority of the episcopate. Therefore he writes
a letter which has proved a stronghold of presbyterianism. He desires
to put down a particular type of heresy. So he disposes of the subject
of heresy in two or three lines (§ 7) of which the purport is far from
obvious. He wishes to accredit certain previous forgeries of his own
bearing the name of Ignatius. One of these was a letter from Ignatius
to Polycarp. So in order to identify this letter he makes Polycarp
mention in the letter of Ignatius, to which he alludest an injunction
which is not found in the document which he wishes to recommend.
But another hypothesis still remains. May not this Epistle of
Polycarp have been written by a different hand from the Ignatian letters,
and still be a forgery? This hypothesis has never, so far as I am aware,
been seriously maintained, and it stands self-condemned. No instance
has been produced in early Christian literature of a later forgery com
posed to support an earlier by another hand. The thing is hardly
credible. Moreover both the earlier and the later forgery must have
been composed between the ages of Ignatius and Irenaeus. But what
can have been the motive of the Polycarpian forger? What did he find
in the previous Ignatian forgery which made him take so much pains
to establish its credit? Was it the support of episcopacy? Why, he
writes in such a way that he himself has been mistaken for a pres-
byterian. But this Epistle of Polycarp, it will be said, exhibits resemblances
to the Ignatian letters which are too close to be accidental. This is
certainly true. Here and there we find passages which strike our ear
as echoes of the Ignatian language and thought (see 11. pp. 911, 913,
915, 916, 918, 920, 922, 924, 926, 927). But is not this what we should
have expected under the circumstances? I have already remarked on
the unoriginal and receptive character of Polycarp's mind. It is probable
that, if all the Jewish and Christian literature accessible to him were
open to ourselves, we should be able to trace other obligations in his
epistle besides those passages which we know to be borrowed. One in
stance I have pointed out in the notes (11. p. 907 sq.). He was fresh
from the study of the Ignatian letters. Two of them were addressed to
himself or to his church. Four others were written in his companion
ship. Th'ey had all recently been copied out under his eye. Could
such a man under such conditions have refrained from embodying
thoughts and expressions from these in his own epistle?

584 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
' Though this epistle contains very few and slight references to external
incidents which furnish materials for testing its authenticity, it satisfies
the test wherever we are able to apply it. The allusions to the com
panions of Ignatius (§ 9) and to the letters of the martyr (§ 13) have
been considered already (p. 572 sq.); and the verdict was favourable to its
genuineness. The reference to the comparative antiquity of the Philip-
pian and Smyrnaean Churches (§ 1 1) is at all events in strict accordance
with historical truth (see 1. p. 446, 11. p. 927), and its incidental character
precludes the suspicion of artifice. Only two persons are mentioned by
name in direct connexion with this letter. They both bear Latin names,
and . in a Roman colony like Philippi this is not surprising. The one,
Crescens, is the bearer of the letter, and seems to have been connected
with Philippi as well as with Smyrna (§ 14). The name is found in a
Philippian inscription (see 11. p. 933). The other, Valens, was a pres
byter of the Philippian Church, who had been guilty of avarice, and
apparently of dishonesty (§ 11). The inscriptions show that Valens was
a not uncommon name at Philippi (see 11. p. 924). But the crime of
Valens points to another subtle coincidence which we may fairly con-
sider undesigned and which therefore may be taken as an indication of
genuineness. In the earlier part of the letter (§§ 2, 4, 6) there are
repeated warnings against covetousness, occurring abruptly and, as we
might suppose, inopportunely (see 11. p. 912). It is only towards the
close of the letter, when the sin of Valens is denounced, that we learn
at length what significance these warnings, which to us appear unseason
able, would have for the writer and for his readers.
It remains for me to examine Ritschl's theory of interpolation ; and
my task will be done. Like the view of the entire spuriousness
which has just been considered, this theory, as I have already explained
(p. 563), supposes a connexion with the forgery or interpolation of the
Ignatian Epistles, and is open to all or nearly all the same objections.
As these have been already considered, I need not revert to this part of
the subject again. It will be sufficient to examine the difficulties in
herent in the theory itself.
The passages which Ritschl condemns as interpolated are these ; § 1
8cfa/iEVois...eKXeXey//,evcoy Kai; §3 TaoTa, dSeXcpoi... irdcrrjs dpapriai (the
whole chapter); § 9 XEapaKaXco ovv... § 10 'Ergo state et'; § 10 'Sobrie-
tatem ergo...conversamini'; § 11 'qui ignorant... nondum nov'eramus';
§ 12 'confido enim... esse in vobis'; § 13 'Eypaij/aTe poi... 'agnoveritis
significate ' (the whole).
. Ritschl endeavours to show that the passages in question interrupt

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 585
the connexion of the thoughts ; and he supposes the main purport of
the letter to be the condemnation of the crime of Valens, From his
own point of view he has been refuted by Zahn (I. v. A. p. 499 sq.),
who has taken the passages in detail ; and this refutation leaves nothing
to be desired. I would only urge one additional consideration. One
of the chief passages which he omits is § 9. As it mentions the con
nexion of the Philippians with both S. Paul and S. Ignatius, its omission
is vital to his theory. Yet no one can say that it is unconnected with
its context. The writer has been speaking in § 8 of Christ as the
pattern of patience. He then proceeds in § 9 to remind the Philippians
of examples of patience in certain saints and martyrs of whom they had
personal knowledge. Then in § 10 he continues, 'In his ergo state et
Domini exemplar sequimini '. Ritschl himself is obliged to allow the
connexion of subject, though he discerns some incongruity in the mode
of introduction. But if we accept his omission, what is the result ?
The words will then run ; pipryral ovv yeviapeOa Trjs viropovrjs avrov • Kal
idv itdo-)(<apev hid to ovopa aoTou &o£d£wpev avrov' tovtov ydp rjpiv tov
viroypappov eBrjKe 81 laoroB, Kai rjpeis touto imcrTevcrapev' Domini
exemplar sequimini'. Here we have an intolerable tautology. The
last clause is a mere repetition of the first — a repetition quite unin
telligible when it stands in this close proximity, though natural enough
as the resumption of the main subject after the digression of a whole
chapter. But, whatever may be thought of the loss or gain to the connexion
by the omission of the passages supposed to be interpolated, the identity
of style and character is a stubborn fact which testifies to the identity
of authorship. To this point, which has been overlooked, I desire to
call attention. Thus in § 3 there is a string of relative sentences os
yevopevos... os *ai diriov...eh as idv...rjns icrrl k.t.X., quite after Poly
carp's manner (e.g. § 1 os v7re/*eivev...6V rjyeipev...eh ov ovk ISovres...
eis ijv iroXXol k.t.X.: comp. §§ 2, 5, 8, 12); there is the word oiko-
So/wicrftu, which occurs more than once elsewhere in this letter (§§ ir,
12, 13) ; there is again a favourite Polycarpian expression els tijv SoBeZcrav
vpiv iritrriv (comp. § 4 iv tq BoBeicrr) avrais iricrrei, § 7 tov it, dpyrjs vpiv
Ttapr&oBevTa Xdyov, § 11 'locum qui datus est ei') ; there is a quotation
from the Epistle to the Galatians (iv. 26), which epistle is elsewhere
quoted by Polycarp (vi. 7 in § 5) ; there is the Polycarpian formula
©eov ko.1 Xpicrrov, which occurs twice, elsewhere in this epistle (§ 5) but
not once in the Ignatian letters ; there is the expression ivToXrjv SiKaiocrv-
vys, made up of two words common in themselves but occurring with
more than common frequency in Polycarp's Epistle (eVroXi; §§ 2, 4,

586 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
5, comp. ivrelXao-Bat §§6, 13: SiKaiocrvvrj, §§ 2, 4, 5, 8, 9); there is
lastly another favourite Polycarpian phrase paKpdv «m irdcrrjs apaprias
(comp. § 4 paKpdv ovcras irdcrrjs dpaprlas, § 6 paxpav ovres iracrrjs cpiXapyv-
pias). Thus the passage is thoroughly Polycarpian in character from
beginning to end.
The same is true also of the other passages, though the tests appli
cable are not as full. Thus in § 9 we have ireireio-pevos on, introducing
a quotation, just as eiSdres oti introduces quotations elsewhere in
Polycarp (§§ 1, 4, 5 ; see 11. p. 908) ; we have a reminiscence of Clement
of Rome, eis tov ocpeiXopevov avrois roirov (Clem. Rom. 5 eis tov o'lpeiXd-
pevov roirov rrjs cidfijs), as we have elsewhere ; we have an awkward rat
oti, which is characteristic of Polycarp. and of which I shall have to
speak presently ; we have at least one quotation from the Epistle to
the Tnilippians (ii. 16) which is quoted elsewhere by Polycarp (Phil. iii.
18 in § 12), and another from the Epistles to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 10)
which are likewise quoted elsewhere (1 Tim. vi. 10, 7, in § 4; 1 Tim. ii.
2 in § 12). Again in § 13 the phrase KaBws ivereiXao-Be is one which
appears in another passage of this epistle (§ 6 KaBols auTos eveTei'XaTo) ;
the stress laid on viropovrj is in accordance with its language elsewhere
(§§ 8, 12) ; and the position of irdo-av before the last of a string of sub
stantives (tticttiv Kai viropovrjv Kal iracrav oiKoBoprjv) has parallels in § 4
yj/evhopaprvpias, epiXapyvpias, Kal iravros KaKOv, § 6 <pd/3ot> Kal irarrr]S
evXafieias, § 1 2 'in fide et veritate et in omni mansuetudine '. Again in
§ 1 the omission of the supposed interpolation would obliterate a Kal
on, which is especially characteristic of Polycarp and which occurs
elsewhere in equally awkward connexions (§ 2 ko.1 on paKapiot k.t.X, § 4
Kai oti irdvra piopocrKoireirai, § 5 Kai on idv iroXiTevcroypeBa, § 9 ko.1 oti eis
tov dcpeiXd/aevov k.t.X.). Again in § 12 the expression 'nihil vos latet'
has a parallel in § 4 XeXi;f9ev avrov ooSev (which is rendered ' nihil eum
latet' in the Latin Version) ; and in like manner ' quod ego credo esse
in vobis' is matched by § 14 'credo quia et vobiscum similiter'.
Thus then the supposed interpolations of Polycarp resemble the
rest of this epistle as closely as the supposed interpolations of and
additions to the Ignatian letters were shown to resemble the other parts
of those letters (see above, p. 282 sq.). On the other hand these
assumed later additions to Ignatius and Polycarp respectively have no
affinity of style and character the one with the other, which would
suggest the pen of the same author.
The perplexities in which so able a writer as M. Renan is involved by his rejection
of the Ignatian letters are an instructive lesson. He allows — he could not help
allowing — the 'absolute connexion' between the Ignatian Epistles and the Polycarpian

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 587
Epistle (L'Eglise Chritienne p. v ; comp. ib. pp. 442 sq. , 463, Les Avangiles pp. xxviii
sq., 486 sq., 494 sq., Marc-Aurile p. 417 sq.). But, having done this, he casts about
helplessly for any theory which will explain the facts. These ' gemini angues ' fasten
upon him, and 'tela ferentem
Corripiunt spirisque ligant ingentibus '
till he is hopelessly enfolded in their coils. He is driven to make two statements,
which are strangely at variance with the facts; (1) He speaks of the Epistles of
Ignatius and the Epistle of Polycarp as 'perfectly homogeneous in style and
colouring' (' parfaitement homogene de style et de couleur', Les Ev. p. xxx), though
hardly any two early Christian writings differ more (see above p. 578 sq.); (2) He
considers that one of the main motives of the Epistle of Polycarp was to plead for
"episcopacy {Les Ev. p. xxx, L'Agl. Chrlt. pp. 443, 444). If this were so, I can
only repeat what I have said before, that he could not have done his work worse.
From Daille downward, presbyterian writers of successive- ages have put him forward
as their champion. As regards his own views, Renan does not, -so tar, as I Have
observed, commit himself to any definite theory, but he limits the possibilities thus ;
1 It appears then, either that the Epistle of Polycarp and those of Ignatius are the
work of the same forger (' sont du meme faussaire' ) or that the author of the letters
Of Ignatius had the design of finding a point a"appui in the Epistle of Polycarp and,
while adding a postscript [i.e. c. 13], of creating a recommendation for his work' (I.e. p.
xxx). And he seems to hover between these two solutions elsewhere without coming
to any definite conclusion (comp. Les P.v. pp. xxvii, 486, 487, 488, L'Egl. Chrlt. pp.
316, 463, 498, Marc-Aur. p. 418). Both these theories I have already considered
in the preceding pages. As regards the former the wholly diverse character of the
two writings is a sufficient refutation. As regards the latter it has been shown, if I
mistake not, (1) that the 13th chapter is better authenticated than the other parts of the
epistle, and (2) that it is not at all what a forger would have invented to recommend
the Ignatian letters, inasmuch as it fails for this purpose both in excess and in defect.
All this perplexity Renan would have avoided by the frank acceptance of the Ignatian
Epistles as genuine. This step he is not prepared to take. On the contrary he
declares again and again that they (or at least six out of the seven) are certainly
spurious. Yet at the same time he is ready to allow : (1) that they were known to
Lucian (see above, p. 334); (2) that the journey to Rome and the martyrdom there are
historical facts (see esp. Les £v. pp. xxxiv, 487); (3) that the Epistle to the Romans
was known to Irenseus; (4) that the Epistle to the Romans is genuine in the main (see
above, p. 301). After travelling so far on the road, it is difficult to see why he
should refuse to take the final step.
Other critics, less scrupulous than Renan, adopt a more drastic treatment. Their
starting-point is the assumption that the Epistle of Polycarp cannot be genuine, be
cause it bears testimony to the Ignatian letters which are certainly spurious. Their
other arguments are all secondary, to support this foregone conclusion. This is the
position of Schwegler, Scholten, and others. The time has gone by, when such
treatment could be received with deference.

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS.

THE document which gives an account of Polycarp's martyrdom
is not one and continuous. It consists of two parts, the main
body of the letter ending with the twentieth chapter, and a number of
supplementary paragraphs comprising the twenty-first and twenty-second
chapters. In point of form these supplementary paragraphs are
separable from the rest of the letter. As a question of external evidence
again, they do not stand on the same ground. Eusebius, our chief
witness to the genuineness of the document, ends his quotations and
paraphrases before he reaches the close of the main body of the letter;
and we are therefore unable to say confidently whether he had or had
not the supplementary paragraphs. In discussing the genuineness
therefore, the two parts must be considered separately.
i. THE MAIN DOCUMENT.
The genuineness of this letter has been universally acknowledged
till the most recent times. The illustrious Scaliger expressed himself
so moved by the simplicity and pathos of the narrative that ' he seemed
to be no longer master of himself (' ut non amplius meus esse videar').
Its transparent sincerity has also commended it to successive genera
tions of critics and historians down to our own time. It has been
reserved for the feverish and restless criticism of our day to impugn its
genuineness. It has been attacked by Schiirer (Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol.
1870, p. 203 sq.), by Lipsius (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 200 sq.,
1874), and by Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum 1878, p. 90 sq. ;

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 589
comp. Celsus' Wahres Wort 1873, p. 145, Rom u. d. Christenthum
p. 586 sq.) as either very largely interpolated or written at a much
later date and therefore unauthentic'. Lipsius (p. 201) would assign it
to the time of the Decian persecution (c. a.d. 250), and in this he is
followed by Gebhardt (Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol. 1875, P- 366) ancl Holtz-
mann (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xx. p. 214, 1877). Keim (p. 130) would
place it still later, under Gallienus (a.d. 260 — 268), or even under
Claudius, Aurelian, or Probus (a.d. 268 — 282). These views however
have not found much favour, even among critics of the extreme school.
Renan accepts it without hesitation as genuine (L'Eglise Chritienne, pp.
vi, 452 sq.). 'This beautiful piece', he writes (ib. p. 462 sq.), 'consti
tutes the most ancient example known of Acts of Martyrdom. It was
the model which was imitated and which furnished the procedure and
the essential parts of this species of composition.' He is apparently
so satisfied with its manifestly genuine character, that he does not think
it necessary to allude to the attacks of objectors. The arguments of
assailants have been met among others by Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. Wiss,
Theol. xxii. p. 145 sq., 1879 > comp. also xvn. p. 303 sq., 1874),
who however himself condemns c. 5 ijv yap ko.1 d$vvaTov...c. 7 cos iirl
Xrjo-njv Tpexovres, as spurious (comp. Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xx. p. 143,
1877), from motives and on grounds which will be considered hereafter.
When criticism has recovered its balance, and a healthier tone has
been restored, we may confidently anticipate that such objections will
vanish. But meanwhile it is necessary that they should not remain
unanswered. The external evidence, if not abundant, cannot be regarded as defi
cient. It is as full as we have a right to expect, and as we get in most
similar cases. Irenasus (Haer. iii. 3. 4), writing about a quarter of a
century after the occurrence, speaks of Polycarp as ' departing this life
at a very advanced age, by a glorious and signal martyrdom ' (evSdfcos Kai
eiriAJiaveo-TaTa papTvprjcras). A few years later also (a.D. 189 — 199)
Polycrates (Euseb. H. E. iii. 24) refers to him as 'both bishop and
martyr in Smyrna ' (d iv A%pvpvrj Kal iirio-Koiros Kal pdprvs). Hitherto we
have testimony only to the fact of the martyrdom. The next witness
carries us a step further. The Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb.
H. E. v. 1), giving an account of the sufferings at Vienne and Lyons,
1 Joel (Blkke in die Religionsgtschichte them an injustice ; but at no time were
etc. 11. p. 151 Sq., 1883), writing from a the relations between the Jews and Chris-
Jewish point of view, objects that it is tians more embittered than in the middle
unjust to the Jews. Possibly it may do of the second century.

590 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
presents coincidences with this Letter of Hie Smyrnceans which are too
strong to be accidental. Compare Ep. Sm. 2 coo-re prjre ypvijat. prjre
crrevdiai Tivd...on mxpeorcos d KiJpios co/uXei avrois with Ep. Gall. 51
too 'AXe£av8pov pyre OTevafavTos pr/re ypv£avros ti oXcos aXXa Kara
KapSiav opiXovvros tco ®eco (comp. also Ep. Gall. 56 d/xiXtav 7rpos
XpicrTov) : Ep. Sm. 2 8id pias copas rrjv aicoviov KoXacriv e£ayopa£dju.evot. , .
irpd dcpBaXpwv ydp ei^ov cpvyeiv to aicoviov... irvp with Ep. Gall. 26 vVo-
pvrjcrBeio-a Sid rrjs rrpocrKaipov Tipiopias rrjv aicoviov ev yeevvy KoXacriv: Ep.
Sm. 3 7roXXd yap eprjxa.va.TO Kar auTcov o SiajSoXos, aXXa XaPts T(? ®°?'
Kam iravTtov -yap ovv icr^ucrev with Ep. Gall. 5> 6, o avTiKtipevos .. . Sid
Travrcov 8i^Xf)ev...avTecrTpaTr/yei 8e 57 \apts toB ®eou. So again in both
documents we twice meet with tov T7S dcpBapo-ias o-Tecpavov (Ep. Sm.
17, 19, iy>. Gall. 36, 42); see also below, p. 609.
But an earlier witness than any of these appears from an unexpected
quarter, if only we could satisfy ourselves as to the applicability of his
evidence. I have already considered the allusions in Lucian, which
seem to show a knowledge, direct or indirect, of the letters and the
career of Ignatius (see above, p. 331 sq.). A verdict has there been
given in the affirmative. The question is less clear in the case of Poly
carp '- The lighting of the fire with torches and faggots (dvijijiav to irvp
peyixrrov are diro SaScov Kai cppvydvtav, comp. Mart. Polyc. § 13 £wXa /<ai
cppvyava, ib. 15 effyi/'av to irvp, peydXrjs 8e iKXapij/dcrrjs cpXoyos), the di
vesting of the garments (drroBepevos rrjv mjpav koX to rpipoiviov,- comp.
ib. 13 drroBepevos eavTcp ira'vTa tci Ipdria), the prayer on the funeral pyre
(8e$acrBe pe evpevels, comp. ib. 14 irpocrhexBeirjv evcoVio'v 0-00 crtjpepov), the
flame blazing up (cpXoyds ttoXXtJs ijppevrjs ; comp. ib. 15 t^s cpXoyos
woXX^s ijppevrjs), the comparison to a baking (olirTrjpe.vov yepdvriov, comp.
ib. 15 cos apros 6irT<apevos), the anxiety of the company to secure reliques
(ti Xeitj/avov KaraXapj3dveiv toS 7ropds, comp. ib. 1 7 /x.eXXdvTcov rjp<Sv ik tov
rrvpcis avrc) Xapi3dveiv), are among the points of resemblance. It might
even be thought that the incident of Peregrinus' sprinkling incense on
the fire (jJTei Xi/SavcoTov cos eiri/3aXoi eiri to irvp, Kai dvaSovTOS tivos
eire/3aXe) was suggested by the statement of Polycarp's companions that
a fragrance, as of incense, issued from the fire when the martyr's body
was burnt (ib. 15 eucoSias Too-avrrjs dvreXajSopeBa cos XifSavuiTOv irveovTOS
k.t.X.). Lastly; as a dove is seen issuing from the body of Polycarp
(§ 16), so in like manner Lucian deludes the gobemouches (tovs- /?Xd«as
Kai 7rpr)s T7;v aKpoaoiv Ke^voVas) of the company with the fiction that at
1 It is the subject of a recent article by He does not speak confidently as to any
E. Egli Lncian u. Polyliarp, in Zeitschr. obligation on Lucian's part.
f. Wiss, Theol. xxvi. p. 166 sq. (1883).

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 591
Peregrinus' self-immolation a vulture rose from the flames and flew up
to heaven. This last point in the parallelism is the most striking. Yet it must
probably be abandoned. There is very good reason for believing that
the dove is a later interpolation in the Smyrnaean Letter, as I shall
endeavour to show presently. The possibility however still remains
that the story may have appeared at least in germ in the decade or more
which elapsed between the Smyrnsean Letter and Lucian's narrative,
and that it may have reached this satirist's ears. But on the whole it
seems more probable that in this particular Lucian aims his shaft else
where. The practice of letting an eagle fly from the funeral pyres of
the Roman emperors (see 11. p. 975) might have furnished him with his
motive here. But, if this point be abandoned, the other resemblances
are not so strong as to produce conviction, though they may suggest a
presumption. Where two men — both religious leaders — are burnt alive
on funeral pyres, the incidents must be the same to some extent, and
the language describing those incidents will be similar. In the case
before us the very strong probability that Lucian was acquainted with
the career of Ignatius is (so far as it goes) a reason for supposing that
he may not have been ignorant of the fate of Polycarp.
Our next witness is somewhat later. In the Acts of Pionius, who
suffered likewise at Smyrna nearly a century after Polycarp in the
Decian persecution (a.d. 250), we are told that Pionius ' on the eve of
the birth-day of the martyr Polycarp ' had a dream that he and his
companions would be apprehended the next day. Accordingly the
subsequent narrative states that while they were ' celebrating the
genuine birth-day of the martyr Polycarp ', ' the second day of the
sixth month', which, is further described as 'a great sabbath' (die sabbati
majore), the persecution overtook them. The day of the month will be
considered hereafter. It is sufficient to observe now, that the notice so
far agrees with the postscript to the Smyrnaean Letter, as to place the
martyrdom on the 2nd of Xanthicus (§ 21). The Acts of Pionius
therefore bear testimony to the celebration of the day of Polycarp's
martyrdom according to the intentions declared in the Smyrnaean
Letter (§ 18). Thus we have evidence that the circumstances of Poly
carp's death were a matter of interest to his fellow-citizens within two
or three generations after its occurrence.
But this, early testimony is all indirect and inferential. The first
reference to the document, as a document, is in Eusebius. In his
Chronicon after the 7th year of M. Aurelius he mentions the martyrdom
of Polycarp and adds that it 'is recorded in writing', 'martyrium scriptis

592 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
memofatur ¦ (i. p. 170, ed. Schone; see above, p. 541). In his Ecclesi
astical History (iv. 15) again he describes the document and makes
large use of it, either quoting or paraphrasing nearly the whole (see 11.
p. 941 sq.). Having concluded his account of Polycarp's death, he
adds that other martyrdoms also are attached to it and formed part of
the same work (iv Trj avrrj ypacj>fj). Having briefly described these
martyrdoms, more especially that of Pionius, he concludes by referring
those readers who desire further information to the work containing the
account of him (Trjs irepl ai?Tov ypacpijs), to which he says he has given a
place in his Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms. This collection was one
of his earlier works (see Smith and Wace Diet, of Christ. Biogr. s. v.
Eusebius p. 321), and he refers to it elsewhere (H. E. v. procem.,4, 21).
Though he mentions it here solely in reference to Pionius, and does not
directly state that the martyrdom of Polycarp was included in it, yet we
may safely infer that the latter also had a place. He found the two in
the same volume, and there was no reason for separating them. The
martyrdom of Polycarp moreover had a very special claim to be in
cluded in his collection. It was, as he intimates, the earliest written
record of a martyrdom with which he was acquainted (eyypacpcos ijlrj
c(>ep6pevov) \ If it be said that he quotes so largely from the document
in his History as to render its insertion in the Collection superfluous; the
answer is twofold. First, the Collection was made before the History
was written and probably before it was planned; and secondly, the
quotations from the similar Letter of the Gallican Churches (v. 1, 2) are
nearly twice as long, and yet he expressly tells us that this latter docu
ment was included in his volume. The exact date of this collection we
do not know, but it was probably suggested by the persecution of
Diocletian, and, if so, it would be compiled in the very earliest years of
the fourth century.
In the closing decades of the same century we have other important
evidence. At this date the spurious Pionius, who writes the Life of
Polycarp, inserts the Letter of the Smyrnceans in his work (see below,
1. p. 622, 11. p. 1007 sq.). All the mss, which we possess (both Greek
and Latin) of the entire text, have come to us through this source.
At the close, this Pionius gives an account of the transmission of the
document, in which he represents his transcript as the third in genealo
gical succession from the copy found among the papers of Irenaeus.
The ms, from which he immediately transcribed it, he describes as
1 Not understanding the force of rfirj are followed by not a few editors, and
(i.e. ' now first ') several MSS have substi- so I have myself inadvertently quoted the
tuted the very obvious In. In this they passage elsewhere (n. p. 385).

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 593
being blurred and worn by time. We cannot indeed regard this gene
alogy of the mss as authentic history; but we may infer that the fiction
was not altogether baseless, and that the document which he thus incor
porated in his biography was no recent work.
When we turn from the external to the internal evidence, the ques
tion which we have first to ask and to answer is; What does this
document profess to be? By what persons and under what circum
stances does it purport to have been written ?
Now it plainly and unmistakeably claims to have been written by
eyewitnesses to the events. Not only do the writers profess to be con
temporaries of Polycarp (§ 16) ; but they themselves — or at least some
of them — saw the martyr in the midst of the flames (§ 15), endeavoured
to recover the body (§ 17), and carried away and buried the calcined
bones (§ 18).
But when we proceed to enquire further how soon after the event the
letter was written, we are treading on less firm ground. It was sent in
consequence of a request from the Philomelians that the Smyrnaeans
would give them a full account of the martyrdoms (§ 20). Such a
request would more naturally come close upon the occurrences than
after the lapse of a long interval. Yet circumstances might have
occurred to prompt the desire on the part of the Philomelians even at
some distance of time. Again the manner in which the writers declare
their intention of observing the anniversary of the martyrdom suggests
that no such celebration had yet taken place when they wrote (§ 18),
and that therefore the letter was written within a year of the martyrdom.
But this inference again is far from certain. Moreover, the manner
in which the writers, as represented in the common text (§ 13), speak
of the honour paid to Polycarp 'even before his martyrdom' (koi
irpd r!js paprvpias) suggests that some long time had elapsed since
that event. But there are excellent reasons for believing that Eu
sebius has preserved the correct text Kal irpo rrjs iroXids, ' even before
his hairs were gray ' (see 11. p. 970), so that this argument falls to the
ground. The document then professes to have been written by eyewitnesses
within a reasonable length of time after the occurrences themselves.
Is its internal character consonant with this profession ? If it is not,
then we can no longer trust it as a historical narrative. It may possibly
contain a nucleus of fact, but we shall have no means of extricating this
from its false surroundings. Keim who places its date as late as a.d.
260—282 (see p. 130) is prepared nevertheless to allow that it is in the
IG. I. 38

594 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
main historical1. But inasmuch as the. professed testimony of the eye
witnesses lies at the very core of the narrative — the martyrdom itself and
the disposal of the reliques — and he rejects this profession, it is difficult
to see what ground there is for the confidence that any appreciable resi
duum of fact underlies the story. Lipsius (p. 202) is more consistent
when he says that the only incident in the main body of the document
'warranted as historical' ('historisch versichert') is the death of the
bishop Polycarp by fire. Seeing then that the credibility of the narrative
stands or falls with the claim of the writers to be regarded as eyewit
nesses, it is necessary to consider the features in the document which
affect, or have been thought to affect, this claim.
1. One characteristic has attracted special attention from this point
of view. The writers betray an eagerness to find parallels between the
sufferings of their martyred bishop and the passion of Our Lord. 'Nearly
all the incidents ', they say at the outset, ' which preceded (his death),
came to pass that the Lord might exhibit to us anew a martyrdom after
the pattern of the Gospel' (§ 1). Accordingly the idea of literal con
formity to the sufferings and death of Christ runs like a thread through
the whole document. Some of the coincidences are fairly obvious; in
other cases the parallelism is highly artificial. The name of the officer
who apprehended him was Herod, and attention is especially directed
to this fact (§ 2). His pursuers seize two slave lads, and one of them,
put to torture, reveals his master's hiding-place. The poor boy is
compared to the traitor Judas, and thus Polycarp, like Christ, was
betrayed by those of his own household (§ 6). This triple parallelism-^-'
Herod, the traitor, the martyr— is brought into juxtaposition, so as to
enforce the idea that he became Xpio-ToO koivcovos. As Christ prophe
sies His betrayal 'after two days' (Matt. xxvi. 2), so Polycarp 'three
days before he was apprehended' foretold the fate that awaited him-
(§ 5). Like the Lord also, he waited to be betrayed, when he might
have escaped (§ 1; comp. § 7). He was in the country 'not far from
the city', when he was apprehended (§§ 5, 6). The hour of his appre
hension was at night (§ 7). His pursuers came to seek him with arms
'as against a robber '(§ 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55). While his apprehen
sion was planning, he declared his resignation in the words ' God's will
be done ' (§ 7) — words which are an echo of Christ's language at a
similar crisis (Matt. xxvi. 42, Luke xxii. 42). If a common interpreta
tion of the ' great sabbath ' were correct (though this may well be
questioned), the martyrdom took place, like the Lord's passion, at the
1 PP- 95' 97> h'i '33- See especially bleibt grossentheils in seiner Glaubwiir-
p. 131 'Der Inhalt des Schriftstiickes digkeit stehen.'

LETTER OF THE SMYRN.EANS. 595
passover tide1. At all events it was during some Jewish festival; and
the days of the week which are especially named in the Gospels in con
nexion with the crucifixion, the Friday (irapao-Kevrj, Matt, xxvii. 62,
Mark xv. 42, Luke xxiii. 54, Joh. xix. 14, 31, 42) and the Saturday
(o-d/?/3aTov, Luke xxiii. 54, 56), are likewise mentioned in connexion
with Polycarp's martyrdom (irapao-Kevrj § 7, cra/?/JaTov §§ 8, 21). As
Polycarp enters the stadium a voice from heaven is heard (cpoivr) ig
ovpavov iyevero) addressing and encouraging him, but no man saw the
speaker (§ 9). The parallel to Joh. xii. 28, where likewise a voice
comes from heaven to Christ at the supreme crisis (^XfJev cpiovr) ck tou
oupavoS), is manifest Again, Polycarp did not die by wild beasts, as
might have been anticipated, but by fire (§ 12). This was ordered in
God's providence in fulfilment of a vision which he had had three days
before his apprehension, when he dreamt that his pillow was on fire
and foretold the manner of his death (§ 5). Just in the same way
Christ was handed over from the Jews to the Romans that He might be
put to death not by stoning but by crucifixion, thus fulfilling His own
prediction signifying by what manner of death He should die (Joh. xviii.
32). At the time of Polycarp's death, a ' confector ' pierces his body
with a dagger, as Christ's side was pierced by the soldier with a spear
(Joh. xix. 34); and in the one case, as in the other, we are especially
told of the blood that gushed out (§ 16). Then again; the eyewitnesses
who narrate the unusual occurrences at the martyrdom lay stress on
their providential preservation that they might relate the incidents to
others (§ 15), just as the evangelist emphasizes in similar language the
fact of his presence as a witness of the miraculous incidents which
attended the crucifixion (Joh. xix. 35). Once more; the interference of
Jews in the disposal of the body (§ 17) with a view to averting conse
quences might seem to furnish a parallel to the Gospel narrative (Matt.
xxviii. 62 sq.), though the character of the interference is different.
Lastly; as stress is laid in the Gospel on the accomplishment of all
predictions in the death of Jesus (Joh. xix. 28, 30), so likewise we are
told here of Polycarp that ' every word which he uttered out of his
mouth hath been and shall be accomplished' (§ 16). Thus this was
essentially a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel (koto to euay-
yeXiov §§ 1, 19); Polycarp was truly an 'imitator of the Lord' (piprjTrjs
tou Kupi'ou §§ 1, 17), a 'companion of Christ' (koivcovos Xpio-ToC, § 6)2.
1 The discussion of this question is 2 So when the Gallican martyr Blan-
deferred till the chapter on the Date of dina (Euseb. H. E. v. 1) is attached to a
the Martyrdom. cross, this is said to be done in order to
38—2

596 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
The cup, which he drank, was in a very literal sense ' the cup of Christ'
(§ 14; see the references in the note, 11. p. 971).
An overhasty criticism has found in this feature of the narrative an
argument against its genuineness and veracity1. It is difficult to see
the force of this argument. Throughout all ages of the Church, even
from the earliest days, there has been a tendency to find in the lives of
saints and martyrs a literal conformity to the sufferings of Christ. Bio
graphers have emphasized every detail in the career of their heroes,
which bore, or seemed to bear, a resemblance to the Lord's passion. This
parallelism appears even in the martyrdom of James the Just, as recorded
by Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. il 23). His enemies are the Scribes
and Pharisees. He is put to death at the passover. He prays for his
murderers in the very language of the Gospel, 'O Lord God, Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do.' In his death is fulfilled
the prophecy of Isaiah (iii. 10, lxx), which foretels the death of 'the
righteous one.' Vengeance falls immediately on Jerusalem in retri
bution for this unholy murder. Similarly also we are told of another
martyr Symeon the son of Clopas (Euseb. H E. iii. 32), apparently in
the words or at least according to the sentiment of the same historian
Hegesippus, that 'the end which he achieved closely resembled the
passion of the Lord ' (tco too Kvpiov rrdBei irapairXrjcrwv to TeXos amy-
ve'yKOTo). In like manner, when in the persecution at Vienne and Lyons
Blandina is suspended to a tree or stake, as a temporary punish
ment, we are told that thereby the Christian bystanders saw with their
outward eyes in the person of their sister Him who was crucified for
them (see above, p. 595, note 2). Pontius, the friend and biographer of
Cyprian, treats his hero in the same way. The sentence of condem
nation pronounces Cyprian to be ' the standard-bearer (signifer) of the
sect and the enemy of the gods'; it even contains the declaration
' sanguine tuo sancietur discipliraa.' This language, though uttered by
a heathen and intended in a different sense, is taken as unconsciously
inspired. So it resembles the prophecy which Caiaphas uttered respecting
Christ. Again, when Cyprian is martyred, the people climb up into the
trees that they may see ' the sublime spectacle.' This immediately
recalls the action of Zacchaeus in the Gospels. And S. Augustine carries
show believers oti iras 0 virip ttjs X/xotoD dowy objection that the spirit which
S6^]s iraBibv riyv Koivavlav del ?xei perk dictates the parallelism points to the
toC fwKTos Qeov. third rather than the second century (p.
1 It is due to Keim however to say that 113). The examples given in the text
he sees no difficulty in the incidents them- are sufficient to refute this latter argu-
selves, but has recourse to the very sha- ment, if indeed it needs any refutation.

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 597
the comparison still further ; ' Christus ', he writes, ' inter duos latrones
ligno suspensus ad exemplum patientiae praebebatur ; Cyprianus autem
inter duos apparitores ad passionem, curru portatus Christi vestigia
sequebatur (Serm. 309, Op. v. p. 1 248).'
Irenaeus again (iii. 18. 5) speaks of the martyrs as ' conahtes vestigia
assequi passionis Domini,' and elsewhere (iii. 13. 1) he describes
S. Stephen as ' per omnia martyrii Magistrum imitans.' In like manner
Eusebius (Mart. Palcest. 7) relates how Agapius, one of the Palestinian
martyrs, was led into the arena together with a criminal reported to be
a parricide. The criminal was thrown to the wild beasts but rescued and
pardoned at the last moment amidst the plaudits of the multitude, while
the Christian saint was mangled by a savage bear, taken back to the
prison, and drowned in the sea the next day. Eusebius sees a parallel
to this incident in the release of Barabbas (povovovxl kot avYdv eKeivov
tcjv eiri tov crarrrjpos Bapaj3f}av). Nor does this craving cease with the
age of the pagan persecutions. The lives of the medieval saints belong
ing to the mendicant orders are treated in the same way. The stigmata
of S. Francis, when he ' received the last marks of his similitude to
his Redeemer", are only a more startling manifestation of this tendency
which reappears in divers forms.
The tendency itself therefore casts no discredit on the genuineness
of the narrative. If there be any ground for suspicion, it must lie in the
character of the incidents themselves in which the parallelism is sought.
But here we are forced to pronounce an acquittal. The violent wresting
and the artificial treatment, which are necessary to discover the resem
blances, afford sufficient evidence that the narrator was dealing with
historical facts and not with arbitrary fictions which he might mould
as he pleased. A writer for instance, who had carte blanche to invent
and manipulate incidents at discretion, would never have placed himself
in such straits as to compare the poor slave-lad — more sinned against
than sinning — who under torture revealed his master's hiding-place,
with the traitor disciple Judas who voluntarily and recklessly sold the
life of lives for base gain. This is an extreme case ; but there is more
or less wresting throughout. The most striking coincidence is the
name Herodes * ; but this name was sufficiently frequent in Polycarp's
time, and there is only a faint resemblance between the position of the
1 Milman Latin Christianity iv. p. person, and that his name suggested the
180. drawing out of the parallel with the suf-
s Even Lipsius (p. 202) considers that ferings of Christ.
this Herodes was probably a historical

598 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Smyrnaean captain of police, who takes Polycarp into custody, and
the Galilean king, whose part in the passion was confined to insolent
mockery and who pronounced Jesus innocent of the charges brought
against him (Luke xxiii. 15). Here again a fabricator would have
secured a better parallel. We may say generally that the violence of the
parallelism is a guarantee of the accuracy of the facts.
2. The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters
as an objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering
all the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised
at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the
supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early Christian
martyrs or with biographies of medieval saints or with notices of religious
heroes at any great crisis, even in the more recent history of the
Church, as for instance the rise of Jesuitism or of WesleyaBJsm',
this document contains nothing which ought to excite a suspicion of its
authenticity. The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty is the
dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this might
be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances it would
be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery. But it
will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent reasons for
regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which had no place in
the original document Beyond this we have the voice from heaven
calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9). But the very
simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism. The brethren present
heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker. This was the sole ground
for the belief that it was not a human utterance. Again there is the
arching of the fire round the martyr like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15).
But this may be explained as a strictly natural occurrence, and similar
phenomena have been witnessed more than once on like occasions5,
1 See for instance Southey's Life of pyram lumen circumquaque refulgens, ita
Wesley p. 277 sq., II. pp. 153, 199. ut nemo eorum qui ignem succensuri
These are miracles attested by Wesley erant accedere auderet ; atque ita sacrum
himself. corpus intra pyram illaesum mansit';
3 See for instance Acta Theodoti comp. ib. 34 (p. 385) 'pyra incensa,
32 (Ruinart Act. Sine. Mart. p. 384) circum ignem facta sunt miracula nullis
' Turn vero, pyra ingenti constructa, ca- verbis explicanda, vidimusque lumen in
daver sancti martyris in ipsam conjecere circuitu magnum, neque flamma Theodo-
lectores, multam materiam circumpo- turn attigit.' This is apparently the
nentes ; sed quadam Dei hominibus con- account of an eyewitness.
sulentis providentia subito apparuit supra

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 599
notably at the martyrdoms of Savonarola1 and of Hooper*. Again
there is the sweet scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre
(§ 15) ; but this phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether
from the fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us con
stantly*. In another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the
persecutions at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later,
we are told (Euseb. H. E. v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they
stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet odour
of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had been
anointed with material ointment' (<oo-Te eWovs Sd£cu koi pvpw Koo-puaS
Kexpio-ftu avVovs). Yet there was no pyre and no burning wood here,
so that the imagination of the bystanders must have supplied the
incident Indeed this account of the Gallican martyrs, indisputably
written by eyewitnesses, contains many more startling occurrences than
the record of Polycarp's fate.
3. More or less closely connected with the miraculous element
is the prophetic insight attributed to Polycarp. But what does this
amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered
was accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future
tense, 'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not
the statement of a fact We may indeed accept this qualification as
dear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his fore
bodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example
of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his
burning pillow which suggested to him that he would undergo martyrdom
by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment, when persecution
was raging around him and fire was a common instrument of death ?
I need not stop here to discuss how far a prescience may be vouchsafed
to God's saints. Even ' old experience ' is found to be gifted with
1 See Villari Savonarola and his Times midst of the mass of flame to bless the
fEng. Trans.) n. p. 362 'A blast of wind people who were burning him.'
diverted the fire for some time from the " Foxe Acts and Monuments vi. p.
three bodies, upon which many fell back 658 (ed. Cattley) ' At length it burned
in terror, exdaiming A miracle, a miracle. about him, but the wind having full
But the wind soon ceased ; the bodies of strength in that place (it was a cold and
the three friars were enveloped in fire ; lowering morning) it blew the flame from
and the people again closed around them. him, so that he was in a manner no more
The flames had caught the cords by but touched by the fire '- The fire was
which the arms of Savonarola were three times lighted before it took effect.
pinioned, and the heat caused the hand to 3 See an article by A. Hamack in
move; so that, in the eyes of the faithful Zeitschr. f. ICrrchengescli. 11. p. 291 sq.
he seemed to raise his right hand in the

6oo EPISTLE. OF S. POLYCARP.
J something like prophetic strain.' It is sufficient to say here again
•that it would be difficult to point to a single authentic biography of
any Christian hero — certainly of any Christian hero of the early cen
turies — of whom some incident at least as remarkable as this prophecy,
if prophecy it can be called, is not recorded. Pontius the discjple and
biographer of Cyprian relates a similar intimation which preceded the
martyrdom of his master and adds, 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius?
quid hac dignatione felicius ? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque
postmodum subsecuta sunt' (Vit. el Pass. Cypr. 12, 13, in Ruinart
Act. Mart. Sine. p. 258).
4. Again, Keim has laid great stress on what he calls the '¦post
mark' of the letter. By this he means certain indications which unin
tentionally betray a later date, notwithstanding the ostensible pro
fession of the author that he is writing while the occurrences are still
recent. But what are these? He points to the passage in which the
occurrence of the arching fire is related (§ 15); 'We saw a wonder — we
to whom it was given to see; and we were preserved that we might
relate the occurrences to the rest (ot Kal iTijprjBrjpev eh rd dvayyelXai tois
Xonrois to yevdju,eva)'. This, he urges, implies a long period of time,
during which their life had been spared. But why so ? If this had been
¦the meaning, would they not rather have written, ' we have been pre
served' (TeTrjpTjpeBa), than ' we were preserved' (iTrjprjBrjpev)? The aorist
shows that the providence -does not lie, as Keim supposes, in a con
tinuous guardianship, but in a momentary deliverance. Persecution
was raging, and they were at the time in the very focus of it At any
moment the popular cry might have been directed against any or all of
them — the inner circle, it may be presumed, of Polycarp's disciples.
Hence they inferred their rescue to be providential. So far therefore as
this expression is concerned, the letter might have been written the fol
lowing month or the following week after the event. But Keim again sees a
similar indication of a late date in the language used of Polycarp's fame,
where he is described as being ' celebrated by all more than the others'1
1 Lipsius (p. 201) interprets the words local commemoration would not be out
Iaovos virb irdvTiuv jiaXKov p.vr)iioveverai as of place, a festival generally celebrated
meaning that he alone, of the martyrs throughout the Church would be as much
who suffered at this time, was commemo- an anachronism in the middle of the
rated by a church festival ('dass sein Ge- third century, as in the middle of the
dachtniss allein unter alien damaligen second ; (2) By puXXov, which implies dif-
Martyrern kirchlich gefeiert wurde '). ferent degrees of remembrance, and there-
This seems to me to be rendered impos- fore cannot refer to any one definite act
sible: (1) By virb iravrtav; for though a of commemoration. Though Lipsius sk

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 60 1
who suffered with him, ' so that he is spoken of even by the Gentiles in
every place ', and as having been ' not only a conspicuous teacher, but
also a famous martyr (ov povov SiSoo-koXos yevopevos iiricrrjpos a'XXa Kai
ju.opTus e£oxos).' Now such eulogies were not unfrequently added at a
later date, for purposes of public reading and edification, to the original
narrative of a martyrdom; and we might have entertained suspicions
that this eulogy was such an addition. In this case it would not have
impaired to any extent the credibility of the facts related. But this
very passage is quoted by Eusebius; and therefore, if a subsequent
addition, it must have been interpolated before his time. So early an
interpolation however is not probable. Nor is there anything in the
words quoted which is inconsistent with a date (say) a year or more
after the occurrences. But an interval as long, or even longer, might well
have elapsed before the letter was written. What particular circum
stances suggested the communications with the Philomelians, to which
this letter is the sequel, we cannot say. But obviously they must have
occupied some little time, and there is no ground for assuming that
they commenced immediately after the martyrdom. Some exceptional
crisis in the Philomelian Church itself (as for instance the outbreak of a
persecution), or some incidental reference to this momentous chapter in
the history of the Smyrnaean brotherhood in their mutual intercourse,
may have suggested the request to which this letter is the answer, a
considerable time after the event. Confessedly also the language is
hyperbolical; but hyperbole is common in such cases. On this point I
need add nothing here to what I have said already on this subject in
reference to the Ignatian Epistles (p. 381). Modern newspapers and
periodicals would supply abundant parallels in their panegyrics on the
:' world-wide' reputation of persons recently deceased.
5. But difficulties have likewise been found in certain features of
this document, affecting the estimate of martyrs and martyrdom, as
anachronisms in the age in which it professes to have been written.
The least shadowy of these is the objection based on the commemoration
festival and the respect paid to the reliques. The Jews are alarmed, or
profess to be alarmed, lest, if the martyr's body should be surrendered
to the Christians, they should worship Polycarp in place of Christ (§ 17).
The brethren gather up his remains, regarding them as more valuable
than gold or precious stones; they deposit them in some safe place; and
they express their intention of meeting there from time to time and
lently omits pSXKov, there is good reason distinguished and best remembered of
for its insertion (see 11. p. 981). The words these martyrs.
mean simply that he was by far the most

602 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
celebrating the day of his heavenly birth (§ 18). But what is there
anachronistic in all this? Haifa century later Tertullian uses language
which shows that the ceremonial commemoration of the dead was far
more developed than as here represented (de Coron. 3 ' Oblationes pro
defunctis pro natalitiis annua die facimus '). There is no mention here,
as in Tertullian, of oblations for the dead. The sole object of the
commemoration is stated to be ' the remembrance of those athletes
who have gone before and the training and preparation of those who
shall come after'. What is there unnatural in this? What is there
which might not have occurred in the very earliest ages of persecution?
But, says Keim, nothing of the kind is mentioned in the kindred
document containing the narrative of the martyrdoms in the Gallican
Churches a few years later (a.d. 177). It would be more correct to
say that nothing is mentioned in the extracts which Eusebius has pre
served (H. E. v. 1). The grief of the Christians at not being allowed to
bury the bodies is alone mentioned in these extracts. The actual
gathering up of the reliques was prevented by the action of the heathen.
What the Christians might have done otherwise, we cannot say. More
over Eusebius, when speaking of the disposal of the bodies by the
heathen, distinctly states that at this point the document before him
contained much more than he quotes (§62 tovtois efr/s peB' h-epd rpam).
It is by no means improbable therefore that it did refer to the frustration
of the pious intention of the brethren to hold an annual commemoration
over the graves of the martyrs. But even if the document, when entire,
had said not a word about this desire, no inference could have been safely
drawn from its silence. Long after the commemoration of the martyrs'
' birth-days ' had become habitual, there is more commonly than not an
absence of any reference to the subject in Acts of Martyrdom. Thus
the test is fallacious. Nor can it be a surprise that the Jews should work
upon the fears of the heathen by representing the danger of Poly
carp's becoming an object of worship, if his body were restored to the
Christians. Would this appear so very extravagant to the heathen feeling
of that age? It is a heathen writer Lucian, who only a few years later(A.D.
165) tells us that the Christians held Peregrinus in his lifetime to be a
god (see above, p. 129). We know also, that this same Peregrinus after
his death received divine honours and that oracular shrines and temples
were built in his name, not by the Christians, but by the heathen them
selves. It must seem strange therefore that Keim, while himself
referring to Lucian (p., 123), can regard this notice in the Smyrnaean
letter as a formidable objection to its genuineness. The Christians
indeed were much more likely to be misunderstood by the heathen in

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 603
such matters in the age of Polycarp, than in the middle of the next
century, when they were much better known and many popular
fallacies respecting them had been exploded.
A still more shadowy argument, which Keim advances with great
confidence, is the discouragement of martyrdom as set forth in this
document. We have seen that an undue thirst for martyrdom was the
objection raised against the genuineness of the Ignatian letters (see
above, p. 392 sq.). The very opposite spirit is now impugned in the
Letter of the Smyrnaeans. It is objected by Keim that the disparage
ment of persons offering themselves voluntarily for martyrdom is alien
to the temper and convictions of the earlier ages, and betokens a date at
least as late as the end of the second century, if not much later. Polycarp,
he urges, is praised, because he did not deliver himself voluntarily to
martyrdom, but waited till he was betrayed1. Quintus the Phrygian is
held up as a warning, because, having thrust himself forward as a volun
teer martyr, in. turned coward and denied his faith at the supreme
moment of trial (§ 4). The first passage, as Tvill appear from the note,
has been wrongly interpreted, and (so far as it goes) is an incentive to
rather than a discouragement of martyrdom. The second, relating to

1 § 1 irepiipevev yap ha irapaSoBy, ws Kal
6 K;j/xoj, tva pAfajral Kal r)/j.eis avrov yevw-
ueBa, p.i) pJovov aKoirovvres to KaB' iavroiis
aKXa Kal rb Kara rois rceXas' dydiriis yap
aXrjdovs Kal jSe^oias iarlv fir) piovov iavrbv
6i\eiv crc&fe<r0ai aXXa Kal xdvras rois
aSeXipois. Keim {Urchrist. p. 109), and
Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XXII.
p. 148 sq.), regard this passage as check
ing an excessive zeal for martyrdom.
They apparently interpret the words ire-
piiuevev ha irapaSoBy, ' he waited till he
was betrayed ' and did not court death ;
and accordingly they explain the sentence
pr) povov iavrbv ai&feo-Bai k.t.X., ' it is the
province of true love not only to seek
one's own preservation, but by living
and working to promote the temporal
and. spiritual salvation of others'. This
however seems to me to be quite impos
sible. Even if the force of tva irapa-
5o9j could be so watered down, the com
pound irepiitievev would still resist this
interpretation. It must mean not 'he
put off the fatal hour', but 'he lingered

about so as to be in the way of his cap
tors.' The incident in the subsequent
narrative to which it more especially
refers is not § 5 vire£rjX6ev els dyplSiov,
but rather § 7 KaKeWev Si rfivvaro els
erepov x&i/xfoj' aireXBelv, dXX' ovk ipovXi)8ri,
eimiv, To Bi~Xrip.a rov 0eoi) yeviaBot. The
Gospel parallel therefore which was pre
sent to the mind of the writer, when
penning the words oSs xal 6 Kvpios, was
Christ's going up to Jerusalem in spite of
the remonstrances of His disciples (Matt.
xvi. 21 sq., Luke xviii. 31), His placing
Himself in danger, and His lingering in
the garden when He knew the fate that
awaited Him (Joh. xiii. 27, xviii. 2). The
prayer of Polycarp, when he refuses to
seek a fresh hiding-place, To BiXiifi.a
k.t.X., is the echo of the prayer of Christ
in the garden (Luke xxii. 42). The eavrov
o-u^eo-Bai therefore denotes that higher
self-preservation whereby a man loses his
soul (or his life) that he may save it (Mark
viii. 35, Luke ix. 24).

604 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Quintus, is altogether inadequate as a chronological note. This attempt
to stratify temper and opinion in chronological order in matters of this
kind must appear in the highest degree visionary to any one who listens
to the lessons of experience. Enthusiasm has its ebb and flow, and
does not rise continually or fall continually. Whensoever there was an
extravagant zeal for self-immolation, accompanied, as it inevitably would
be accompanied, by . the scandals of relapses and apostasies, there
would be the counteracting warnings from the steadier and wiser
heads in the Christian community. It was certainly so in the age of
Cyprian. It was not less so in still later persecutions. It must have
been so in the age of Polycarp. The two tempers do not betoken
different epochs. They live and they speak side by side1. While some
Christians in the age of Polycarp courted death with a culpable reck
lessness, others purchased life by an unpardonable sacrifice of prin
ciple. This latter was the charge brought against Basilides and the
Basilideans, the contemporaries of Polycarp2. Between these two
extremes there must have been along the scale divers intermediate posi
tions, whenever persecutions were raging.. This is a matter, not of
archaeological investigation, but of practical experience. Even, if the
scanty remains of early Christian literature which we possess had con
tained no indications of any protest against this extravagant thirst for
martyrdom up to this time, the fact would have been valueless as a
chronological mark. The protest would only then be made, when the
occasion required it. The hasty impetuosity of Quintus, followed by
his equally rapid apostasy, necessitated such a caution, to prevent the
repetition of scandals. We read of no case resembling that of Quintus
during the persecutions of Vienne and Lyons. No protest therefore
was required on this latter occasion, and none is given8.
1 Clement of Alexandria for instance 856) ' Basilidis quoque sermones detra-
(Strom, iv. 16, 17, p. 571) condemns both hentes quidem iis qui usque ad mortem
extremes — the disparagement of martyr- certant pro veritate, etc. ' Irenaeus else-
dom and the suicidal passion for martyr- where (iii. 18, 5) speaks of persons who
dom — as prevailing in his own day. disparage martyrdom.
Against the latter he speaks in the strong- 3 It would only be waste of time to
est terms elsewhere (Strom, iv. 10, p. consider at length other arguments which
597 scl-)- are urged by Keim, for they will pro-
2 Agrippa Castor in Euseb. H. E. iv. bably fail to influence any one but their
7 i£op.wp.irovs dirapaqjvXaKTtvs rr)v irlariv author. (1) Thus he holds the idea of
Karb. robs t£>v Sioiypiuv Kaipovs, Iren. martyrdom, as a sacrifice (' Todesopfer ),
Haer. i. 24. 6 ' Quapropter et parati sunt to betoken a later date (Marl. Polyc.
ad negationem, qui sunt tales, immo magis 14). It occurs frequently in Ignatius,
ne pati quidem propter nomen possunt,' but the Ignatian letters he places as. late
Orig. in Matth. 25 Comm. (Op. in. p. as A.D. 180. Yet, as his own date for

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS.

605

6. Lastly; great stress is laid by Keim on the occurrence of the
expression 'Catholic Church', which meets us more than once in the
document, as betraying a much later date than a.d. 155. This is
indeed his main argument1. I have already discussed this question,
so far as relates to the Ignatian Epistles (p. 398 sq.); but a few words
are necessary to explain its use in this Letter of the Smyrnceans.
It has been pointed out in this previous discussion that the epithet,
used in this connexion, may have either of two senses : (1) It may signify
merely 'universal', 'world-wide', as opposed to a particular Church;
or (2) It may connote the ideas of sound doctrine and apostolic

Polycarp's martyrdom is A.D. 166, it is
difficult to see on what ground he could
maintain that the idea, which certainly
existed at the end of this short period
of 14 years, was an anachronism at the
beginning. It is found likewise in
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iv. 9, p.
597), a passage to which he himself refers
but which fails nevertheless to influ
ence his opinion. But we have the
germ, and something more than the
germ, of the idea as early as Phil. ii. 17
AV el Kal arivSopai iirl ttj Bvala Kal
XeiTovpyla tt/s irlareois vp.wv, 2 Tim. iv.
6 iyi> yap tJStj eirivSop.ai, Rom. xii. i
Tra/jaffTr/ffcu Ta aiopara vfiuv Bvalav ^Qtrav,
iylav, eidpevrov rip Qe$. If a Christian
life be a sacrifice, then a fortiori a Chris
tian death. If the shedding of one's
blood be ' a libation ', then the giving of
one's body to be burned may well be re
garded as a ' holocaust '- Was a whole
century insufficient to develope this idea
from the Apostle's image ? Is it not so
natural in itself that it might have sprung
np spontaneously at any moment, even if
there had not been this precedent to sug
gest it?
(2) He complains (p. 109 sq.) that only
a ' compendium of the martyrs ' is given,
whereas ' the custom of the time ' re
quired, that the causes, occasions, and
length of the persecution, the names, con
flicts, victories, of the several martyrs,
should be properly tabulated (see esp. p.
1 1 1). Is not this the despair of a drown

ing criticism, which grasps at any straw ?
By what induction has he learnt ' the
custom of the time ' ? Have we not
accounts of persecutions in the early ages
varying as widely in character as (1)
Pliny's letter to Trajan; (2) Justin Mar
tyr's account (Apol. ii. 2) of Ptolemseus,
Lucius, and others a.d. 155 — 160; (3) The
Martyrdoms of Justin and his companions
(c. A.D. 163) or of the Scillitan sufferers
(a.d. 180); (4) The Letter of the Churches
of Vienne and Lyons relating to the
persecution of A.D. 177; (5). The Acts of
Perpetua and Felicitas A.D. 202 ? These
represent five wholly different types of
narrative. On what grounds of reason or
experience the Letter of the Smyrnseans
should be required to conform to one
rather than another of these, or indeed to
any one of them, it is difficult to say. As
a matter of fact it more closely resembles
(4), than (4) resembles any of the rest. It
must be remembered also that this Letter
disclaims being a full account of all that
had happened and represents itself as a
first instalment (Kara rb irapdv) of the in
formation which the Philomelians had
desired to have (§ 20; see also above,
P- 439)-
1 When Keim (p. 115) refers contemp
tuously to Zahn's remarks on this subject,
which he does not attempt to answer, I
can only infer that he has not taken the
pains to understand Zahn's meaning (see
below, II. p. 310).

606 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
order, as opposed to a heretical or schismatic community. In the
latter sense only can it be any indication of date. Now in these Acts f
of Martyrdom it occurs (in the common texts) four times. In three of
these passages it has the first sense; § r 'to all the communities, in every
place of the holy and universal Church' (irdcrais Tais Kara irdvTa roirov
Trjs dyias [Kai] KaBoXiKrjs iKKXrjcrias irapoiKiais), § 8 'all the universal'
Church throughout the world' (irdcrrjs rrjs Kara rrjv oiKOvpevrjv KaBoXiKrjs
iKKXrjo-ias), § 19 'Jesus Christ the Shepherd of the universal Church
throughout the world' (iroipeva rrjs Kara ttjv o'lKOvpevrjv KaBoXiKrjs iKKXrj
crias). Here the sole idea is extension in unity. This fact is in
keeping with the general character of the document. There is no men
tion throughout of heretics or heretical communities; for it is quite
gratuitous to assume that 'the Phrygian' (&pi>£) in § 4 has anything to
do with the Montanists. In this respect it presents a contrast to
another similar document, the Passion of Pionius, which represents the
same Smyrna a century later. In these Acts of Pionius mention is
made of tbe sects more than once. The magistrate's interrogation is no '
longer confined, as at the trial of Polycarp, to the enquiry whether the
prisoner is a Christian, but assumes a more complex form. The
questions run as follows; 'Polemon...ait ad Pionium, Quis vocarisl
Pionius ait, Christianus. Polemon, Cujus ecclesiae? Pionius ait, Catho-
licae' (§ 9). So again we read; 'Rursus proconsul, Cujus sectae esl
Pionius respondit, Catholicae. Rursus proconsul, Cujus Catholicael Re
spondit, Catholicae ecclesiae presbyter' (§ 19). The other prisoners like
wise are interrogated in a similar form. If this Letter of the Smyr
naeans had been written at or after the middle of the third century,
we might expect to find it betraying its date by some of these later
forms. The fourth passage however (§ 16), in which the word occurs, is
different. As commonly read, it speaks of Polycarp as 'bishop of the
Catholic Church in Smyrna' (iirio-Koirov rrjs iv tpvpvrj KaBoXiKrjs Ik-
KXrjo-ias). If this reading be retained, the Catholic Church in Smyrna is
tacitly contrasted with heretical communities in the same city; and thus
the technical sense of 'Catholic' appears for the first time. But docu
mentary evidence combines with internal probability in displacing KaBo
XiKrjs and substituting ayi'as as the correct reading. The combination
of authorities, mL, in favour of oyias is too strong to be disregarded.
Moreover there is always a tendency on the part of transcribers to
substitute or insert a word like KaBoXiKrjs in place of the simpler text
before them. But if so, the only example where the word 'Catholic'
appears in its later technical sense in this document has vanished, and

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 607
the one supposed anachronism, on which special stress is laid, has
disappeared1. I should be very far however from admitting that, if the expression
had occurred here in its later technical sense, this occurrence would
condemn the document. There were already at the time of Polycarp's
martyrdom sectarian communities, Basilideans, Marcionites, Valentinians,
and others. What he himself thought of such sectarians is clear from
the narrative of his encounter with Marcion. But the idea of the
'Catholic Church' is the correlative to the existence of the sects. It is
therefore simply a question of evidence how soon the word itself
appears in this technical sense; and the acknowledged examples of this
use (in the Muratorian Fragment and in Clement of Alexandria) are
sufficiently near to the date of Polycarp's martyrdom to remove any
difficulty in its occurrence at this epoch. Every expression must appear
for the first time somewhere; and there is no valid reason why the
Smyrnaean Letter should be excluded from the competition for the
earliest example.
All these characteristics therefore are insufficient to raise even a
reasonable suspicion of spuriousness, if in other respects the account
will bear scrutiny. And certainly whether we regard the straight
forwardness of the narrative or the character of the incidents themselves,
the document commends itself. Why should so insignificant a body as
the Church of Philomelium have been chosen as the recipient, unless
events had occurred which dictated the address? Why should the
cowardice of a would-be martyr have been confessed, except that this
cowardice had actually been manifested? Why should the officers and
magistrates have been represented as showing so much consideration
for the prisoner — the police allowing him several hours of respite —
the irenarch taking him into his own chariot — even the proconsul
1 I have not thought it necessary to Gallican Churches again are striking ; but
discuss at length Keim's arguments found- they are equally well explained, if the
ed on.the literary plagiarisms which he Gallican brethren are the plagiarists.
discovers in this Letter of the Smyrnseans. The miraculous deliverance of Thekla
Beyond the scriptural obligations, these from death by burning is a widely dif-
are threefold — to the Ignatian Letters, to ferent incident from the phenomenon of
the Epistle of the Gallican Churches, and the arching flame on the pyre of Polycarp,
to the Acts of Thekla. The obligations and probably quite independent. But, if
to the Ignatian Letters will hardly be there be * plagiarism on either side, it
questioned, but reasons have been given may safely be charged to the Acts of
for placing them some forty or fifty years Thekla, a known forgery of the later de-
before Polycarp's death (see above, p. 315 cades of the second century.
sq.) The resemblances to ike Letter of the

608 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
endeavouring at first to rescue him from himself; unless the facts had
actually been so? We find no attempt here to pile up horror upon
horror, as in later martyrologies, such for instance as the Acts of Ignatius.
There is an air of truthfulness even in the slight incident of his being
made to dismount from the chariot with such rude haste that his shin
was bruised (§ 8). What forger would have been satisfied with so
trivial an injury ? So again, wherever we are able to apply the test of
history or of probability to the persons of the story, the result is strongly
confirmative of the veracity of the narrative. There is the Asiarch
Philip (§§ 12, 21). Criticism has been highly sceptical about the
description of this person both here and in the chronological appendix.
But recent discoveries in divers quarters, so far from justifying this
scepticism, have confirmed the account in every particular — his date,
his nationality, his office with the twofold title of Asiarch and High-
priest (see below, p. 612 sq.). Then again there is Nicetes. Here we
know nothing as yet of the actual person. Yet the name at least was a-
notable one at Smyrna (see 11. p. 958). But Nicetes has a sister Alee
(§ 17). This name likewise is found at Smyrna, as I have shown, and
rarely elsewhere (11. p. 325). From the mention of Alee in the account
of the martyrdom without any descriptive comment, we should infer
that she was some well-known Christian woman, probably belonging' to
Smyrna. Now a person of this name is greeted in affectionate terms by
Ignatius, when writing to the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn. 1 3 "AXktjv to noBrjrov
poi ovopa, comp. Polyc. 8). Keim alleges this coincidence to show that the
narrator plagiarized from the Ignatian Epistles. But no forger would
have invented this position. Herodes the son of Nicetes, as captain
of the police, is a main instrument in the martyrdom of Polycarp, and
his father abets him in this matter. What fabricator would have con
ceived the idea of representing the one as the brother, the other as the
nephew, of this devout Christian? or, having conceived it, would have
thrown it out incidentally in the words aSeXc/idv Se "AXkiis, thus leaving
the reader to supply the missing links for himself? On this subject I
have already had occasion to remark in reference to the Ignatian
Epistles (1. p. 353, 11. p. 325); and its force, in its bearing on this
Letter of the Smyrnaeans, when once pointed out, can hardly be misap
prehended. Again there is Marcianus, apparently the composer of the
narrative (§ 20). This name was borne by one of the more prominent
Christians in the circles in which Polycarp moved; for he is addressed
by Irenaeus (11. p. 982). Whether this was the same Marcianus or not,
we cannot say; but the coincidence at least deserves notice. Lastly the
amanuensis of the letter is one Euarestus. Of the individual we can say

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 609
nothing; but the name at least was common in these parts at this time
(11. p. 983).
Hilgenfeld, while maintaining the genuineness of the document as a whole, con
demns as a later interpolation the short passage § 6 ijv yap Kal dSivarov . . .§ 7 iirl
atjittV rpixovres. He has succeeded in convincing Keim (pp. 94, 165); though,
as Keim places the rest of the document a century later than the events, such an
interpolation from his point of view is wholly insignificant. The genuineness of
these few lines is not a matter of much real moment in itself; but the arbitrary
procedure, which deals with inconvenient passages in this way, deserves a passing
notice. Hilgenfeld makes two fundamental assumptions; (1) That this Letter of the
Smyrn:eans is a Quartodeciman document; (2) That the Quartodecimans kept the
14th Nisan, not as the anniversary of the Crucifixion, but as the anniversary of the
Last Supper. As connected herewith, he maintains that the ' great sabbath ' men
tioned in the Smyrnsean Letter is not a sabbath at all in the usual acceptance of the
word, but the First Day of Unleavened Bread, i.e. the 15th Nisan, as the great
festival of the Jews, irrespectively of the day of the week. Thus he finds an
exact coincidence between the day of Christ's passion and the day of Polycarp's
martyrdom. But neither according to his early view of the date (a.d. 166), nor according to
his later view (a.d. 156), does the 15th Nisan fall on a Saturday. Hence the men
tion of the TrapaaKevr) as the day of his apprehension is a difficulty. In his earliest
treatment of this question Hilgenfeld met the difficulty by explaining irapaaKevi) as
the Preparation for (the day before) the feast (Paschastreit p. 245 sq., i860). After
adopting the date A.D. 156, I find him translating it 'Friday' (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol.
xvn. p. 336, 1874). This, I suppose, must be from inadvertence, for he still treats
the passage as genuine. But later (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xx.. p. 143, 1877; comp.
xxii. p. 153, 1879) he discovers that it is spurious. His grounds are the following:
(1) Eusebius does not recognize it. But Eusebius in this part is paraphrasing and
sometimes abridging the document ; and, though his paraphrase is for the most part
very full, yet as this passage consists mainly of the writers' reflexions and comments
on the event, and adds next to nothing in the way of incident (only the one sentence
rj jra/>ao7ceuj;...6'7rXui'), he might well have ignored it, as he has ignored considerable
portions of §§ 1, 2. (2) He considers that some confusion is introduced into the
narrative, and that the parallelisms with Christ's passion are illogical. But the words
do not imply that Herodes himself came with the police, so that there is no incon
sistency with the after narrative. His name is introduced here simply because the one
parallelism, the betrayal by members of his own household, suggests the other, the
identity of name in one of the persecutors. Any inexactness or wresting that there
may be in the parallels is at least as natural in the original writer as in any subsequent
forger. Altogether we may say; (1) That this passage is conceived entirely in the spirit
of the rest of the letter; (2) That, as a later insertion, it is motiveless and quite un
accountable ; (3) That, as other parts of this document are imitated in the Letter of
the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (see above, p. 590), so there appear to be remi
niscences of this passage likewise in the same document. Thus the word KXi)pos
applied to martyrdom is found there more than once (§§ 10, 26, 48), and the idea of the
IG. 1. 39

6lO EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Koivuvla Xpiarov (Qeov) in the same connexion is likewise reproduced (§ 41) ; (4) That,
though in so very few lines we could hardly expect any decisive indications of
identity of style, yet there are resemblances which deserve notice. The opposition
of persons iKelvos p.iv...ol Si reproduces an antithesis which appears with frequency
in the other parts of the document (§ 7 iKelvov pikv k.t.X., § 10 ere p,iv...iKelvovs Si,
§ 17 tovtov p.iv...Tobs Si pidprvpas, § 20 vp.els p.iv...i)p.ets Si; § 2 robs irepieVTUiTas...Toh
Si); the Kal 'even,' which occurs twice here, is likewise exceptionally common and in
some passages appears, as here (i)v yap Kal aSivarov), in somewhat strained connexions
(§ 8 aTr&vrojv Kal twv irwirore <rvp.pefiXr]K6T(ov, § 14 81a tovto Kal irepl irdvTuv ae
alvH, § 18 Sirov Kal &k6Xov8ov i)v); and the reference to wonted custom (t&v avm\BSsv
abrois) has several parallels elsewhere (§ 9 i>s (Bos avrois Xiyeiv [Euseb. & aivrjBes
abrois Xiyeiv ecrrlvj, § 13 eis (80s abrois, § 18 as (Bos abrois tKavaev).

¦a. SUPPLEMENTARY PARAGRAPHS.
The Supplementary Paragraphs fall into three parts, separate in
form the one from the other and not improbably written by different
hands ; (1) The Chronological Appendix, giving particulars as to the
time of the martyrdom and ending with a doxology (xxi); (2) The
Commendatory Postscript, recommending Polycarp's example to the
imitation of the readers (xxii. 1); (3) The History of the Transmission,
purporting to give the pedigree of the existing copy traced down from
the autograph manuscript through three or four stages (xxii. 2, 3).
The three parts require to be considered separately.

(i) The Chronological Appendix.
This is generally treated as a later addition to the letter, and as
coming from a different hand. The main ground for this view is the
fact that Eusebius betrays no knowledge of it. His silence will be
dealt with hereafter. But one point appears to have been overlooked,
which seems to me of the highest importance in determining this
question. I refer to the relation which the close of this paragraph bears to the
Epistle of Clement, as evidence that it formed part of the original docu
ment. Just as the opening of the Smyrnaean Letter is modelled on the
opening of Clement's Epistle, so also the end of the same epistle is
copied in the concluding words of this paragraph. The comparison of
both passages in the two documents will show the character of the
obligations.

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 6ll
'H iKKXrjcria tov ®eov rj irapoi- H eKKXrjrria tov ®eov rj irapoi-
Kovcra 'Pdprjv rg iKKXrjcria too ®eov Kovcra Itpvpvav Tjj eKKXrjcria rov ®eov
ry irapoiKOvo-rjK.dpiv6ov...xdpi.s vpiv rg rrapoiKOvcrrj iv $iXoprjXia> . . . eXeos
Kal elprjvrj diro rravroKpaTopos ®eov Kai eiprjvrj Kai ayairrj [otto] OeoC
8ia lijtroi! Xpicrrov irXrjBwBeirj. irarpos Kal [toS] VLvpiov rjpSv Irjcrov
XpicrToC rrXrjBvvBeirj.
aijTco oo£a, riprj, Kparos Kai peyaXia- co rj 8o£a, riprj, peyaXoi-
crivrj, Bpovos aicovios, airo tcov aicovcov crvvrj, Bpovos aiiovios, otto yeveas
xai eis tous aicovas tcov aitovcov. aprjv. eis -yeveav. aprjv.
The obligations being the same in kind at the beginning and at the
end of the letter, it is a reasonable and indeed an almost irresistible
inference that they were penned by the same hand. The Epistle of
Clement was known to Polycarp, whose extant letter shows an intimate
acquaintance with its contents. It would naturally therefore be studied
by the chief members of Polycarp's circle. But it is almost incon
ceivable that some chance person several generations later, taking up
the letter and observing that its commencement was a close parallel to
Clement's Epistle, should entertain the design, and take the trouble, of
adding a termination copied from the same source, when his object was
simply to append a precise, business-like, notice of the date. The
extreme improbability of such a procedure obliges us to accept this
chronological postscript as part of the original letter, unless indeed it
contains demonstrably false statements and anachronisms which are
inconsistent with the authorship of contemporaries and eyewitnesses to
the events.
Now this postscript comprises within a small compass an excep
tionally large number of historical references, so that the opportunities
of testing its authenticity are unusually great When we come to
examine these, we find not only that they do not contradict history,
but that fresh accessions to our knowledge of the archaeology and
chronology of the age have furnished and are furnishing fresh testimony
to the veracity of the statements.
The following are the particular points in the statement, which I
shall take in succession ;
(i) The time of the martyrdom is very precisely given. It took
place 'on the 2nd of Xanthicus, being the seventh before the Kalends
of March, on a great sabbath, at eight o'clock.'
The 2nd Xanthicus is confirmed by the Acts of Pionius (Ruinart,
Act. Mart. Sianc. p. 188), of whom we are told that he was apprehended
while he was celebrating 'the birthday of Polycarp the martyr,' and
59—2

612 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
this is defined as 'the second day of the sixth month' (see above,
p. 540) '.
The day in the Roman Calendar corresponding to this Asiatic date
of Polycarp's martyrdom is given as vii Kal. Mart, i.e. February 23.
This is a correct statement, supposing that the solar months had already
been introduced into Smyrna. I shall hereafter discuss the theory that
this clause giving the Roman date was a later addition and formed no
part of the original paragraph. It is sufficient here to observe that
February 23 is Polycarp's day in the early Syriac Martyrology (see
above, p. 544). We are thus carried back to the age of Eusebius, or
even earlier (see 11. p. 417). There is no indication of any other day
ever having been observed in the East
The mention of the ' great sabbath ' accords with the statement in
the document itself (§ 8) ; and, so far as it goes, is an indication of the
same authorship. I shall have to discuss the meaning of this expression
hereafter. The hour of the day we have no means of testing2. ' The eighth
hour' might mean either 8 a.m. or 2 p.m., as we reckon from midnight
(according to the Roman civil computation) or from 6 a.m.3 Either
is consistent with the narrative ; but the former is the more probable,
as the catastrophe was hurried on in all its later stages after the
martyr had left his hiding-place; and moreover these spectacles were
usually held before mid-day (Philo c. Place. 10, 11. p. 529 m).
(2) The name of the Captain of Police. Nothing is here added to
the information given in the document itself, where also his name
Herodes is given.
(3) The name of the Chief-priest, Philip the Trallian. In two
respects this postscript supplements the information which we find in
the narrative itself respecting this person; and on both points strong
confirmatory evidence has appeared in recently discovered monuments.
First ; whereas in the Letter itself he is styled Asiarch, here he is
described as Chief-priest. Independent reasons have been given else
where for believing that these were two different names of the same
1 The corresponding Roman date which see II. p. 983. The reading of the Mos-
is given in the Latin copies of the Acts cow MS, &pa ivdrij, is a striving after
of Pionius (iv Id. Mart.) presents diffi- conformity to the Gospel narrative (Matt.
culties which I shall have to discuss here- xxvii. 45 sq., Mark xv. 33 sq., Luke xxiii.
after. 44).
2 On Zahn's punctuation which makes s See the commentators on John xix.
trapp&roi p.eydXu, dipa 678677, the time of 14, especially McClellan and Westcott,
the apprehension, not of the martyrdom,

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 613
office (11. p. 990 sq.). So far as it goes therefore, the fact that he is
not designated by the same title in the two places is favourable to the
credibility of this paragraph. Secondly ; he is described as a native of
Tralles. In illustration of this statement annotators and critics till
recently could only appeal to the fact mentioned by Strabo (xiv. p. 649;
see 11. p. 967) that owing to the wealth of Tralles its citizens were
frequently appointed Asiarchs. But a flood of new light has now been
poured upon these and other points relating to Philip the Trallian by
inscriptions, in most cases recently discovered and in others recently
identified. These are as follows :

h . 6Xymtti[kh] . BoyAh . r • ioyAio[n] . tplAlTTTTON . TpAAAlA-
NON . TON . ACIApXHN . H9(ON . CNCKA . OAYMTTIAAI . CAB.
Found at Olympia and published by Dittenberger Archaologische Zeitung
xxxvni (1880). p. 62. 2.
[ANAT696NTA . fn6 . TjOY . 6[eiOmTOYj . AYTOKpATOpOC . AN-
T00N[eiNjOY . 6K . toon . kAayA[i]anoy • Aama . KO . ioY
ApTeMlAOOpiOONA . Tp<\AAlANO[N] . N6IKHCANTA . AN&pOON
TTANKpATION . OAYMTT|[aJAA . NS-' . ApXiepATSYONTOC . Ka1
&ra>N08eTOYNT0c . [to . B'] . r. iof • tpiAi'rmoY . y[ioy]
BoyAhc . Ap)(iepeoo[c . <\]ci'ac . kai . ArooNo9e[TOY] . Aia
Bi'oy . aAytapxoyntoc . no . kA . M6Ait[oonoc . k<\i . e]ni-
MeAH9eNTOC . r • IOY ¦ XPYCEpC001"00]-
Found at Tralles, and published by Sterrett in Mittheilungen des Deut-
schen Archdologischen Institutes in Athen, viii. p. 321 (1883). For the
number of the Olympiad Sterrett reads N[r]> but Prof. Ramsay assures
me in a private letter that it is distinctly ns-. The insertion [to B'] is
likewise Ramsay's; for which the following inscription is the jus
tification. 3-
ackAhthakon . AioreNoyc . TTeprAMHNON . N6IKHCANTA . ottAon .
OAYMHIdliA . NS"' . ApXiep&TCYONTOC . KAI . Ar"CON096TOYNTOC •
t6 . B' . r . ioyAi'oy . <PiAittttoy . fa? • BoyAhc . Apxiepecoc .
ACIAC . KAI . A|-OON09eTOY . AlA . BlOY . AAYTApXOYNTOC . [nO.J
kA . meAi'toonoc.
Found in the Jewish Cemetery amidst the ruins of Tralles, and com-

614 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
municated to me by Prof. Ramsay by letter dated Smyrna, May 8,
1884. The end of the inscription is lost.

4-
[ANATG96NTA] . flTO . TOY • 9CI0TAT0Y . AYTOKpATOpOC . AN-
T00N6INOY . 6K . t[<jOn] . KAAYAlANOY . AAMA . TTOpOON. . .TAION .
cpiAAAeA[cpON] . NCIKHCANTA . an^poo[n] . TTYPWHN . oAYMnidiAA .
n[s~'] . APXI6P*T€Y0n[t]0C . KA*! . A|-CON09eTOYNTOC . TO . B' .
r . ioy . (piAi'nnoY . yoy • Bo[y]Ahc . Apxiepeooc . aci'ac . kai .
ArwN09GT0Y . Aia . Bi'oy . aAytapxoyntoc . fr . kA . MeArrco-
noc . eniM£AH9eNT0c . r • ioy . XPYc[e]pooTo[c].
Given in Lebas and Waddington in. 1652 c, where however it is in
correctly read. I have printed it here with the corrections suggested
by Ramsay in a private letter. The number of the Olympiad is given n
in Lebas, but it comes at the end of the line. The addition of *" is
required by the two previous inscriptions. Ramsay's correction MeXi'-
tcovos for MavTicovos is justified on the same grounds.

5-
r . ioyAion . cpiAinrroN . eniTponoN . toon . ccBactoon . TTATepA .
ioYAlOY • (plAlTTTTOY . CYNKAn[TIK]0Y . CTpAT[H]|-0f . ptUMAICON .
H . CYNOAOC...TOON . AHO . Iconi'ac . KAp] . eAAHCn0NT0[Y] ¦
TON . i'AlON . A|-[oo]N09eTHN . KAl . AOPCTHN . KAI . CyepreTHN .
eniMeAH9eNT[oo]N . cepAni'ooNOc . TOY • CepATTl'oiNOC . M^rNHTOC .
And . cmfAoY . oAymttioni'koy . kai . tiB . kAayAi'oy . cnepxeioY.
Found at Tralles and given in Boeckh C. I. G. 2933.

6.
[...6T6IMHJCAN . tpy<Poo[n]iano[n . a]nni'oy - 6A6N0Y . YION .
...AMCpl9AAeA . TON . Aei'[KTHN] . KAI . 6ICAr6i[r]0N . TOON .
[iep]coN . eiceAACTiKcoN . [ei]c . thn . oikoymsnhn . [ny]-
9lCON . [....ArWNOojN . npOOTON . M6TA . THN . ANANe[o)]dN .
ArcoNo8eTofNTOc . [r.J . ioyAi'oy . o>i[Ai'nnoY • nA]Tpdc . cyn-
KAHT[lKOf] . ANACTHCi^NTOON . K.T.X.
Found at Tralles and given in Boeckh C. I. G. 2392.

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 615
7-
KATA . Jb\ . CfHCplCMeNA . yUO . THC . BOYAHC . KA*I . TOY .
Ahmoy • r ¦ io[y]Aion . (piAinnoN . ton . kpaticton . nATepA .
cynkAhtikoy . KAI . And . eniTpcilTCON . Aoj-iCTe[YjCANTA .
KAI . THC . HMCTCpAC . TTOAeWC . M6T* . CYNOIAC . T£N0M6-
NON . £N . TTACIN . eyepreTHN.
Found at Aphrodisias and given in Boeckh C. I. G. 2790.

[h] . copdc . ka! . h . nepi . ay[t]hn . kamapa . kai . 6 .
nA[pA]KeiM6N0C . BoOMOC . KaI . H . TTApeCTOOCA . cth'Ah .
A6YK0'Al80C . AAAOYXOY . r • IOY • CplAlTTTTOY . CYrKAHTIKOY .
AOYAOY . npArM[A]T6YTOY • KAI . TYn[a|]k0C . KAI . T6Kn[oOn] .
KAl . CKrdN[cON] . Ka'i . 9[p6MMAT00N].
An inscription at Tralles, given in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hel-
linique 1881, p. 346, and described thus; 'A Aidin dans la cour de la
maison de Ahmed Kouthemgou, stele avec corniche.'
Of this Philip the Asiarch of Tralles nothing was known beyond
the notices in the Letter of the Smyrnaeans four or five years ago.
The Olympian inscription (no. 1) first gave his full name Gaius Julius
Philippus, and thus we are enabled to identify him with the Philippus
mentioned in the already known inscriptions (nos. 5, 6, 7) published in
Boeckh, who had wrongly assigned them to a much later age (see below,
11. p. 968). The inscription (no. 4) given in Lebas and Waddington,
though not correctly, ought to have done something towards clearing
up the matter, but was strangely overlooked. The inscriptions (nos.
2, 3) have been quite recently . discovered, the former being now pub
lished for the first time. They are highly valuable, as supplementing
the evidence. The remaining inscription, no. 8, only refers to our
Philip incidentally.
These inscriptions mention two persons, father and son, bearing the
same name, Gaius Julius Philippus. The father, with whom we are
concerned, is Asiarch or High-priest of Asia. He also bears certain
other local offices in connexion with the religious ceremonials and
games. This refers to the reign of Antoninus Pius. In the succeeding
reign, under the joint sovereignty of the brothers M. Aurelius and L.
Verus, he is procurator (iiriTpoiros) of the Augusti. He seems to have
been a man of great munificence, and the erection of a monument to

616 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
him at Olympia points to benefactions which deserved this recog
nition. His local influence and wealth would probably secure the
elevation of his son to the senatorial dignity — an honour which began
to be accorded more freely to provincials under the Antonines. This
son was also praetor. His honours are evidently regarded as throwing
back a reflected glory on the father. Sterrett (Mittheil. d. Deutsch.
Archdol. Inst, vm (1883). p. 322 sq.) speaks of the last inscription
given above (no. 8) as belonging to 'the tombstone of C. Julius
Philippus,' apparently meaning the father, of whom alone he is
speaking. But how is this reconcilable with the designation ' a slave'?
If I read it rightly, it is the epitaph of one Daduchus (a proper name,
which occurs occasionally elsewhere; see C. I. G. Index, p. 81, Devit
Lex. Forcell. Onomast. s. v. Daduchus), who was the slave and factor
(irpaypaTevT-qs)1 of C. Julius Philippus the son of the Asiarch; and its
chief value for our purpose is as showing that the son had the same
praenomen (Gaius) with the father.
But what shall we say as to the date of the Asiarchate of this Philip
the Trallian ? We shall see in the next chapter that on entirely inde
pendent grounds the date of Polycarp's martyrdom has been fixed at
a.d. 155. Is this reconcilable with the notices of Philip?
Now the Olympian inscription (no. 1) calls him Asiarch in the
232nd Olympiad; and the beginning of this Olympiad was a.d. 149.
If therefore the martyrdom is correctly dated a.d. 155, we might sup
pose that Philip was Asiarch more than once. This is the view of
Lipsius (Jahrb.f. Protest. Theol. i88r, p. 575). Examples are found of
persons holding the office twice and even three times (11. p. 997). This
solution is unobjectionable in itself, but does not seem to be necessary.
In the three Trallian inscriptions (nos. 2, 3, 4), belonging to the
reign of Antoninus Pius, he is styled High-priest of Asia. These are
dated the 56th (Trallian) Olympiad. Unfortunately we do not know
from what point of time these Trallian Olympiads were reckoned.
Evidently they did not follow the computation usual in Asia Minor,
which starts from the Sullan era B.C. 85; for the 56th Olympiad would
not then fall within the reign of Antoninus Pius, but within that of his
predecessor. A solution however is suggested by another Trallian
inscription (Bulletin de Corresp. Heltin. 1881, p. 325 sq.) :
ANATSJ96NTA . yHO . 9e[0Y . ANT0ON]eiNOY • 6K . TCON . [. ..Tl]d-
pcoN . Aionycion . AaoAikga . n£Ikh[canta . ttJaiAcon . nyr-
1 For SovXos irpaypiarevTiis comp. C. I. G. 3101, and for irpaypjurevrirs see the
Index to C. I. G. pp. 38, 159.

LETTER OF THE SMYRNAEANS. 617
MHN . 6AYM[TTIAAA] . H' . M6TA1 . THN . ANANe[f_OCIN . <\]pXiepA-
T6Y0NT0C . [KAl . ArCON]o66TOYNTOC . TO . [B' . AYp .] ATTO-
AtONlAOY • l6po[KAfcOYc] . TTApAAoHOY . [a]Aytapxoyntoc .
C6JT0Y [A . eJYApeCTOY . [4niM6AH]96NT0C . TCON . ANAp[lAN-
tcon . t]oy . Apxiepecoc.
This is the same inscription which is given less correctly in Boeckh
C. I. G. 2934, Lebas and Waddington no. 611 (comp. 1652 c).
Here Antoninus Pius is no longer OeioVaTos but 0eos. He has
therefore died and been deified meanwhile. But the monument was
erected by him. Therefore his death must have occurred during its
erection. This fixes it to a.d. 161, in the March of which year he
died. But it is erected in commemoration of a victory obtained at
' the 8th Olympiad after the Restoration,' presumably in the earlier part
of the same year, when the monument was erected. We have there
fore to deduct 8 x 4= 32 years from a.d. 161 for the era of the Restor
ation. This gives us a.d. 129; which year we know from other
sources to have been the date of Hadrian's visit to these parts (see
above, p. 432). During his progress through the provinces, he was
everywhere greeted as Founder, Saviour, and Restorer. Medals cele
brating his visits were struck to him commemorating his ' adventus ' at
the several cities, and designating him Restitutor (see Clinton Fast.
Rom. s. a. 133). On coins of Tralles itself he is commemorated as
'founder' ktiott/s (Mionnet iv. 1069, p. 184; see Diirr Reisen des
Kaisers Hadrian p. 50)'. Moreover it was in this same year a.d. 129
that Hadrian visited Athens (for the second time), assisted at the dedica
tion of the Olympieion, and restored the Athenian Olympia. This
was celebrated as a general festival, at which delegates were present
from all the Greek cities of Asia Minor (see Diirr, p. 44 sq.). The
Athenian Olympiads were reckoned from this epoch (C. I. A. 483
AYTOKpATOpA . KAICApA . TpAIANON . CeBACTON . oAf/WIION . C6BACT0"
1 The extraordinary honour paid appa- Tralles (see below* 11. p. 146), and the
rently to Hadrian at Tralles appears from emperor is here identified with him. Si-
the following unpublished inscription milar identifications have been already 110-
which was copied by Mr Pappaconstan- ticed in the case of other cities (see above,
tinos in a Turkish house at Aidin, and p. 444). It should be observed also that
communicated to me by Prof. Ramsay; we have here the same name, perhaps
All . AAPA2IQ . 2EBA2TQ . BT- the same person, Claudius Melito, who
MEM . KAATAIfiS . MEAITfiN . is mentioned in the inscriptions already
0 . IKPETS . AII0KATE2TH2EN. quoted (p. 613).
Zeus Larasius was the patron god of

618 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
noAeiTOON . toon . In . too . noNTCp • h . BoyAh . ka'i . 6 . Ahmoc .
ton . caytoon . eyepreTUN • eN • th . rrpdoTH . dAYMniA'Ai . Aia .
npecBeYTWN... ; comp. C. I. G. 1345). From this incident doubtless
it was that Hadrian obtained the name ' Olympius.' Immediately after
leaving Athens he visited proconsular Asia (Wood Discoveries at
Ephesus Inscr. v. 1, p. 2; see Diirr, p. 124). The consequence was an
institution (called frequently ' a restoration ' by a fiction) of Olympian
festivals in the Asiatic cities1.
We seem thus to have arrived at the era of the ' Restoration,' and
to have connected the reckoning of the Trallian Olympiads with this
era. But how then shall we account for the 56th Olympiad, which, as
we have seen, fell during the reign of Antoninus Pius ? It would seem
that in order to give an air of antiquity to the celebration, 50 Olympiads
were added on at the beginning; so that the Olympiads might be
reckoned indifferently the ' 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. after the Restoration,' or
the '51st, 52nd, 53rd, etc.' absolutely. This practice was not un
common. Thus we read of the 517th commemoration of the quin
quennial Ephesian festival (Wood's Ephesus Inscr. vi. 8, 18, pp. 54,
68). If this solution be adopted, the 56th Olympiad, at which,
Philip is designated High-priest of Asia, would coincide with a.d. 153.
But it has been shown, if I mistake not, that the office of High-priest
or Asiarch was held for four years (11. p. 994 sq.); and, supposing Philip
to have been in office from a.d. 151 to 155, or from a.d. 152 to
156, his tenure would cover both the notices in the Trallian inscrip
tions and the probable date of Polycarp's martyrdom. Moreover it is
also reconcilable with the Olympian inscription (no. 1); for, though
the 232nd Olympiad began a.d. 149, the inscription does not say that
the monument was erected in the first year of the Olympiad. There
are therefore the four years a.d. 149 — 153 to range over; and we are
thus brought well within the limits which on other grounds we have
assigned to Philip's tenure of office.
(4) The name of the proconsul is given in this postscript as Statius
Quadratus. In the narrative itself he is not named. But it will be
shown in the following chapter that Statius Quadratus held the Asiatic
proconsulate somewhere about the time when Philip the Trallian was in
office and when the martyrdom must have taken place.
Thus all the particulars affecting the date are confirmed in some way
or other; and the credibility of the paragraph has been established by
1 The Olympia at Cyzicus (C. /. G. have been established about the same
3674, 3675 ; comp. Aristid. Op. 1. p. 544) time.
and those at Smyrna (C. I. G. 3208) must

LETTER OF THE SMYRN^ANS. 619
a mass of evidence gathered from various quarters and far exceeding
what we had any right to expect.
But an anachronism has been discovered in the words which follow.
It is objected that the contrast between the temporal and the eternal
rulers — between the high-priesthood of Philip and proconsulate of
Quadratus on the one hand, and the kingdom of Christ on the other —
indicates a much later date than the middle of the second century; that
such a formula is impossible before a.d. 525, when Dionysius Exiguus
invented the mode of dating from the Christian era; and that it is still
rare even in the 9th century1-
But why impossible? What has it to do with the dating by the
Christian era ? The contrast between the earthly king and the heavenly
king is as old as Pilate's days (Joh. xix. 15). In the ages of persecution
the Christians were again and again brought face to face with it. The
alternative between ' Caesar is Lord ' and ' Christ is Lord ' was forced
upon their consciences, as we see from this very Letter of the Smyr
nseans (§ 8); and such a mode of expression was the natural, I might
almost say, the necessary consequence.
As a matter of fact it occurs frequently in those Acts of Martyrdom
which on internal grounds we should pronounce the earliest. In Ruinart's
collection for instance, we find it in the Acts of Pionius p. 198, of
Epipodius and Alexander p. 123, [of Symphorianus p. 128]2, of Maxi
mus p. 204, of Peter, Andrew, Paul, and Dionysia p. 207, of Lucianus
and Marcianus p. 214, of Cyprian p. 264, [of Cyrillus p. 290], [of
Genesius p. 313], of Procopius p. 387, [of Vincentius p. 406], of Agape,
Chroma, and others p. 427, of Irenasus p. 434, of Pollio p. 436, [of
Euphus p. 439], of Crispina p. 479, [of Afra p. 484], of Serenus p.
518, [of Phileas p. 521], of Peter Balsamus p. 527, of Julius p. 570, of
Marcianus and Nicander p. 573, of Firmus and Rusticus p. 642.
Besides these Acts which have found a place in Ruinart, many other
examples are collected by D. Blondel De Formulae Regnante Christo in
Veterum Monumentis Usu p. 373 sq. (a.d. 1646). See also Acta
Timothei p. 13 (ed. Usener). After every allowance made for a large
1 Gbrres Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XXI. the Letter of the Smyrnaans but also in
P- 53 (1878), adopting the view of Bas- the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (Zeitschr.
nage Annal. Pol. Eccl. 11. p. 362, who /. Wiss. Theol. XXII. p. 97 sq., 1879;
condemns the Acts of Maximus, etc., on Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, p. 259).
this ground (see above, p. 487). Gbrres This objection is repeated by J. Reville
inadvertently writes 'Dionysius Areopa- de Ann. Dieque Polyc. Mart. p. 30.
gita' for Dionysius Exiguus. He has s In those examples which I have in-
subsequently withdrawn this objection, eluded in square brackets the contrast is
finding the form in question not only in indirectly implied, but not directly stated.

620 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
percentage of spurious documents among these Acts, there must remain
a considerable number of genuine writings; and even the spurious were
probably in most cases composed before the date arbitrarily assigned to
the introduction of this formula. But indeed this ghost of a difficulty
may at length be regarded as laid for ever. In the recently discovered
Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, which are among the earliest documents
of this class (a.d. 180), and whose authenticity is undisputed, this con
trast between the earthly and the heavenly ruler appears in its most
emphatic form. In the body of the document Speratus, the leader of
the martyrs, is represented as saying, 'Eyco tijv fiacriXeiav rov vvv atcoVos
ov yiviacrKOj- alv& he ko.1 Xarpevco tco ip<2 ©e<3. . . eWyivcoo-Kco rdv HLvpiov rjpm
Kal j3acriXea tcoV jSacriXemv Kal Secrirorrjv iravruiv tcoV eBviov. At the close
again the date is given; «ri npaicrevTos to /3 Kai KovSiavov tcov uVaTiov
Kai A%aTovpvivov tov avBvirarov, KaB rjpds 8e fiacriXevovTos tou Kupiou ijjmv
Irjaov "KpicrTOv.
A very strong case is thus made out for the credibility of the state
ments in this chronological postscript. On the other hand it has
been commonly supposed that Eusebius was unacquainted with it;
and his alleged ignorance is regarded as an evidence of a later date.
But after the cogent argument for the unity of authorship offered above
(p. 610 sq.), some other explanation must be sought for this ignor
ance if it really existed. Thus we might suppose that his copy of the
document was mutilated at the end. This would be an easy solution.
But, after all, what solid ground is there for believing him ignorant?
The paragraph contains matter which may be highly interesting to us,
but which would have no value for him. He abridges the document
before him, and he ends naturally with the sentence which closes the
account of the martyrdom. The rest of the main document, as well as
these postscripts, is left untouched. But it may be urged that he shows
himself ignorant of the true date of the martyrdom, and that this para
graph mentioning the proconsulate of Statius Quadratus would have put
him in possession of the information required. My reply is, that
judging from other cases, he was without the means, and would not
have taken the trouble, to identify the year by the proconsul's name.
. In several other instances he mentions (always in quotations from other
writers) the proconsulates during which certain events took place; but
in every case he shows himself ignorant — both in the Chronicon and in
the History — of the date of the incidents mentioned. Thus the letters
of Hadrian relating to the Christians are connected with the procon
sulates of Serenius [Licinius] Granianus and Minucius Fundanus
(H. E. iv. 8); the martyrdom of Sagaris and the Paschal controversy at

LETTER OF THE SMYRN.EANS. 621
Laodicea with the proconsulate of Servillius [Sergius] Paulus (II. E. iv.
26); incidents in the Montanist struggle with the proconsulate of Gratus
(H. E. v. 16); certain others in the same struggle with the proconsulate
of ^Emilius Frontinus (H. E. v. 18). It is clear then that he had no
list of the proconsuls before him which, would settle the chronology;
and that he grudged either the time or the labour which would have
enabled him to supply the deficiency. He deals in the same way
likewise with other provincial governors, as for instance Pliny the pro
praetor of Bithynia during the Christian persecution there (If. E. iii. 33),
and Atticus the legate of Syria when Symeon was martyred (II. E. iii. 32),
though it was a matter of real interest in both cases to have ascertained
the exact dates. (ii) Commendatory Postscript.
The second postscript is omitted in the Moscow manuscript and in
the Latin version. So far therefore as documentary evidence goes, it
has less support than any other part of the letter, and we cannot with
confidence maintain its genuineness. Yet on the whole, it appears
more likely to be genuine than not. Its omission, if genuine, is easily
accounted for on the ground of superfluity. Not so its insertion, on the
supposition of its spuriousness. There is nothing in the words them
selves which suggests a later date. The form of the doxology mentioning
the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is due, as the authorities show, to
a subsequent alteration. May not this postscript have been an appendix
added by the Philomelian Church, when they forwarded copies of the
letter, as they were charged to do (§ 20), to churches more distant from
Smyrna than themselves? The tenour of the paragraph suggests such
an origin for it. (iii) History of the Transmission.
After the paragraph containing (as I have ventured to suggest) the
Philomelian postscript, certain notes follow, professing to give the
history of the transmission of the document. We are first told that
Gaius transcribed the letter from a copy belonging to Polycarp's disciple
Irenaeus, and that Socrates (or Isocrates) again transcribed it in Corinth
from Gaius' copy. This note professes to come from Socrates, or Isocrates,
himself. He concludes with a salutation, 'Grace unto all men'. After
this comes another note purporting to be written by Pionius. He tells
us that he copied it from the transcript of the last-mentioned transcriber;
that Polycarp revealed its locality to him in a vision, of which he pro-

62 2 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
mises to give an account in the sequel (Kar?cos StjXcoctco ev tco Kat9e^s); and
that the manuscript which was thus revealed to him had been much
worn and blurred by time. Who then was this Pionius? Do we read
of any other person or persons bearing the name and connected with
the history of Polycarp? The true and the false Pionius.
(i) Among the documents included in Ruinart's Acta Martyrum
Sincera p. 188 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859) is a narrative of the martyrdom of
one Pionius and others. We are told at the opening that on the 2nd
day of the 6th month, being a great sabbath, on the birthday of
Polycarp the martyr, the persecution overtook Pionius, Sabina,
Asclepiades, Macedonia, and Lemnus. Lemnus was a presbyter of the
Catholic Church, but Macedonia was (as we learn at a later point in the
narrative) a Montanist (§ n). Pionius with Sabina and Asclepiades
employed the evening before 'Polycarp's birthday' in prayer and fasting;
and in his sleep he saw a vision which foretold their impending fate.
The sabbath came. After the wonted prayers, when they had tasted
the holy bread, they were apprehended and taken into the forum. As
it was the sabbath, crowds of Jewish women were assembled there,
keeping holiday. The address of Pionius which follows is in large part
addressed to the Jews. When after certain occurrences, which it is un
necessary to give in detail, they are taken to the prison, they find there
Lemnus and Macedonia already in captivity. At length, after the usual
examination and trial and condemnation, Pionius is put to death,
Two stakes are erected, to which Pionius and Metrodorus a Marcionist
are tied, Pionius on the right hand, Metrodorus on the left, 'their eyes
and mind turned toward the east'. So he wins the crown of martyrdom.
A note is appended to the effect that these things happened in the
proconsulate of Julius Proculus Quintilianus, and in the consulate of
the Emperor Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius and Vitius Gratus
[i.e. a.d. 250], on the fourth before the Ides of March.
These Acts bear every mark of genuineness. The writer is evidently
acquainted with the topography of Smyrna (§§ 10, n). Though the
chief martyr and his companions are careful to declare themselves
emphatically members of the Catholic Church as opposed to the sects
(§§ 9, 19), yet one martyr is credited to the Marcionites (§ 21) and
another to the Montanists (§ 1 1) — thus testifying to the veracity of the
narrator. The progress through the streets and the gibes of the crowd
are related with a life-like vigour, which bespeaks their truthfulness.

LETTER OF THE SMYRNA ANS. 623
The incidents are frequently such as could hardly occur to a forger; as
for instance when Sabina being asked her name says 'Theodota', and
the explanation is given that Pionius had schooled her to say so ('prae-
dixerat verba') lest she should fall into her cruel mistress' hands by
giving her right name, (g 9). Again a person out of the crowd says to
her, 'Couldn't you die in your own country?' (§ 18). What this means we
are not told and can only conjecture. But taking it in conjunction with
the other allusion we may surmise that she was a runaway slave. At
any rate the absence of any explanation is an indication of its truthful
ness. Quite incidentally too we learn from her answer her relationship
to Pionius, which is nowhere directly told us: 'What do you mean by
my country? I am Pionius' sister' (' Quae est mea patria? ego Pionii soror
sum'). So again on another occasion one says in derision: 'See the
little fellow is going to offer sacrifice' ('Ecce ad sacrificandum homun-
culus pergit'). This, we are told, was said of Asclepiades, who was with
Pionius (§ 10). But why it was said of him we are not told. Was he a
mere lad, or was he short of stature? Nothing is related of the ultimate
fate of either Sabina or Asclepiades, though from something which is
said (§ 18) we infer of the latter that he was likely to be reserved for the
gladiatorial combats in the arena.
Moreover there is an entire absence of the miraculous or preter
natural in any form. The only approach to this throughout the narra
tive is the premonitory dream which foretold their coming fate. But
what more natural than this? 'When persecution was raging around,
when they had been celebrating the eve of a famous martyrdom with
prayer and fasting, when probably Pionius himself was conscious of
having committed overt acts which would attract the vengeance of the
persecutor, what else could form the subject of his dreams but their own
impending martyrdom?
Internal evidence therefore points decidedly to its genuineness.
We may suspect indeed that the narrator has expanded the harangues
which are placed in the mouth of Pionius; but this does not affect its
veracity as a narrative of incidents. Did not Thucydides furnish his
heroes likewise with even more elaborate speeches?
And external evidence confirms the result suggested by an examina
tion of its contents. The document is only known to us in Latin; but
there can be little doubt that it is substantially the same which was
known to Eusebius in the original Greek. After giving an account of
the Smyrnaean Letter on the death of Polycarp, he adds (H.E. iv. 15)
that accounts of other martyrdoms were likewise attached in the same
volume (iv -rrj airy irepl avrov ypacpfj) — martyrdoms which 'occurred in

624 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
the same Smyrna about the same period of time with Polycarp's
martyrdom' (viro tijv avrrjv irepioSov rov XP0V0V rV* rov TLoXoKapirov
paprvpias). Among these he names Metrodorus 'of the Marcionite
heresy' and especially Pionius, to whose doings he devotes several
lines. The description of these doings corresponds with the account
in this document. He mentions his several confessions (tc£s koto
pepos opoXoyias), his 'boldness of speech', his 'defences of the faith be
fore the people and the rulers', his 'didactic harangues', his 'kindliness
(8e£icoo-eis) towards those who had succumbed to the temptation in the
persecution', his 'exhortations which he made to the brethren who came
to see him in prison', the tortures which were inflicted upon him and
'his sufferings consequent thereupon (§§ 15, 20) and his nailings' (§ 21),
his 'endurance on the pyre', and his death (§ 21). All these incidents
appear in the extant Acts. The document was included by Eusebius, as
he himself tells us, in his own Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, to which
he refers his readers for fuller information. This work of Eusebius, as
I have already stated, seems to have been compiled during the Dio
cletian persecution, and therefore about fifty years after the martyrdom
occurred. But Eusebius falls into a serious error with regard to its date. In
the chronological notice appended to the document, as we have seen,
the martyrdom is stated to have taken place under Decius (a.d. 250);
and internal evidence points to this epoch. But Eusebius apparently
makes it nearly synchronous with Polycarp's' martyrdom, and therefore
under the Antonines. There can, I think, be little question that this
is his meaning. For, though the expression viro rrjv avrrjv irepioSov tov
Xpdvov might in itself mean 'at the same recurring season of the year'
(and so interpreted it would be consistent with the facts), yet the
sequence of his narrative will not admit this interpretation. Having
thus mentioned consecutively the martyrdoms of Polycarp and Pionius,
he goes on to speak of accounts of other martyrs as being given 'next
in order' (etjrjs...<pepeTai), obviously in the volume which he has
mentioned previously. He gives the names of these other martyrs,
'Carpus and Papylus and a certain woman Agathonice' (Ka'p7rou koi
IIa7roXou Kai ywaiKos 'AyaBoviKijs), and he says that they suffered in
Pergamon dying 'gloriously after many magnificent (8ia7rpe7ms) con
fessions.' He then proceeds (iv. 16); ' Contemporary with these (Kara
tootoos) Justin, of whom we spoke a little before. ..is crowned with a
glorious martyrdom' (0eico KaTaKoo-peirai paprvpioj). But Justin certainly
perished under the Antonines.
In fact Eusebius seems to have been misled by the opening notice

LETTER OF TPIE SMYRNAEANS. 625
of these Acts, in which it is stated that Pionius was celebrating 'the
birth-day of Polycarp', and to have jumped at the conclusion that he
was a contemporary of Polycarp's. He may, or may not, have had in
his copy the chronological notice at the close, which we have. If he
had, it is strange that he should have overlooked the name of the
emperor Decius. If however the word 'imperator' was wanting and
the name was given in his copy, as it is in some of ours, C. Messio
Quinto Trajano Decio, this would be quite possible. I am disposed to
think also, that in the heading of the Acts in his copy something was
said about r] avrrj irepiohos tov xpo'vov (for the expression is noticeable),
and that he understood it to mean 'the same epoch' instead of 'the
same recurring season of the year'.
But does his error extend likewise to the group of Pergamene
martyrs whom he mentions just after ? Until recently the martyrdoms
of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice, were represented only by the
Acts in the Metaphrast (Patrol. Graec. cxv. p. 106 sq.). These are
obviously spurious. But in the Revue ArcMologique 1881, p. 348 sq.,
Aube" published for the first time a shorter form of the Acts from a
Paris ms, Graec. 1468. There seems no reason for doubting that we
have here the same Acts of which Eusebius speaks, and that they are
authentic. Carpus and Papylus are brought before the proconsul at
Pergamon. Papylus describes himself as belonging to Thyatira.
When asked 'Hast thou children (reKva exeis)?' he replies 'Yes, many
by God's grace ' (koi ¦n-oXXa Sia toV ®edv). He would seem from this
answer to have been a bishop of his church. The Acts of the Meta
phrast assign these martyrdoms to the reign of Decius; and Aube" so
places them along with those of Pionius and Metrodorus (p. 349). In
the genuine Acts no date is directly given, but they suggest a divided
sovereignty (to1 irpoa-Tdypara rZv AvyovcrToiv p. 354, eis j3Xacrcprjpiav . . .
tw OecoV koi tcoV 2e/3acrrcoi/ p. 357); nor is this inconsistent with the
fact that in one passage a single emperor is named (outcos yap eWXeuo-ev
6 avroKpaVcop, p. 355). These expressions would seem to point to
the reign of M. Aurelius1 (a.d. 161 — 169, 177 — 180), or to that of
1 The day of these Pergamene martyrs in the Hieronymian Martyrology (where
is April 13th in the ancient Syriac Mar- however there is much confusion of the
tvrology ('In the city of Pergamus of the names between this and the preceding
number of the ancient confessors Cyrillus day). The Metaphrast (§ 18) assigns
[k Carpus] the bishop, Agathonice, and them to October 13, which is the day of
Paulus [1. Papylus]'); in the Old Roman Carpus, the companion of S. Paul, in the
Martyrology ('Apud Pergamum Asiae Old Roman Martyrology. The Menaa
Carpi episcopi et Papyrii [1. Papyli], have the same day and the same story as
;, Agathonicae, et aliarum multarum'), and the Metaphrast.
IG. I. 40

626 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Severus (a.d. 198 — 2 1 1), with their respective colleagues1. The name of.
Agathonice is introduced in these genuine Acts (AyaBoviKrj Se' tis
eo-Tcoo-a Kai iSoucra k.t.X.) in a way which explains the vague reference
of Eusebius (ywaiKos 'AyaBoviK-rjs) ; whereas in the Metaphrast's account
(§ 1 7) she is made a sister of Papylus.
(2) From the true Pionius we turn to the spurious. A Life of
Polycarp is extant full of legendary matter and demonstrably false in its
main incidents. It has been shown elsewhere (11. p. 1009 sq.) that, so far
as we are able to test it, this biography is a pure fabrication. Wherever
it crosses the path of authentic history, its falsity is betrayed. Else
where the author is free to exercise his invention without fear of detec
tion, and he indulges this license freely. He may possibly have had a
very slender thread of tradition on which he has strung his stories; but
even this is questionable.
It has been shown likewise that the Letter of the Smyrnssans was
incorporated in this life; that, when the Pionius of this postscript
speaks of 'the sequel' in which he purposes to relate how he discovered
the manuscript of the Letter, he' refers to a subsequent portion of the
Life no longer extant; that in this way he declares himself to be the
author of this biography; and that thus his true character is revealed.
He is a spurious Pionius, who wrote in the latter part of the fourth
century. The name is a pseudonyme used by the writer to cover his
pious fraud. The real Pionius had shown a reverent devotion to the
memory of Polycarp. What more suitable personage then could be
found than this revered martyr, on whom to father the spurious
biography of Polycarp?
These inferences have been drawn from the general relations between
the Life of Polycarp and this Letter of the Smyrnceans with its post
script (11. p. 1006 sq.). But we may here notice especially two
characteristic features in the spurious Life, which reappear in this post
script, and thus point to an identity of authorship. First ; The writer
avails himself largely of the supernatural. Inspired visions and miraculous
occurrences form a very considerable part of his narrative. It is espe
cially here that he gives the rein to his inventive faculty. Secondly; He
does not scruple to appeal to documents, where these documents have
no existence. Thus at the outset (§ 1) he relates how he 'found in
ancient copies ' (evpov iv dpyaiois avTiypacpois) an account of S. Paul's
visit to Smyrna, and accordingly he represents the Apostle as saying
things which he never said and never could have said (§ 2). Again
1 Zahn (Forschungen zur Geschichte Eusebius is correct in assigning them to
des Neutest. Kanons, p. 279) holds that the reign of M. Aurelius.

LETTER OF THE SMYRN^ANS. 627
(§ 12) he speaks of the Epistle to the Philippians as one among many
other writings of Polycarp with which he was acquainted (e« tcov e'<pev-
puTKopeviav), though it is morally certain that in his age no other work
by this father was extant.
Now these two features are reproduced in the writer of this post
script. He has a supernatural revelation which discovers the lost
manuscript of the Martyrdom. Too much stress however must not be
laid on this ; for the true Pionius also has a dream, though of a wholly
different kind and easily explicable from natural causes. Indeed the
dream of the true Pionius may have suggested the vision of the false.
Again, like the spurious biographer, the writer of the postscript is ready
with any number of pre-existent documents, to give colour to his
narrative. We have the whole pedigree of the transmission. The
first stage introduces the name of Polycarp's most famous scholar
Irenaeus. The second stage is marked by the name of the orthodox
interlocutor in the famous Dialogue with Proclus directed against the
Montanists (Euseb. H E. ii. 25, iii. 28, 31, vi. 20), Gaius, who seems
in the course of the work to have spoken of Irenasus as his master :-
Of the third person in the pedigree of transmission — written in different
copies Socrates or Isocrates — we have no knowledge; but we may
surmise that his name was not unknown in the third and fourth
centuries. Nay, have we not in this Pionian postscript the very echo
of the language in the Pionian Life, where previous documents are
referred to ? Where the one writes eK tcoV Tatov avnypdcpiov, avafrrrrjo-as
aura...Kar9cos St/Xcoctcd ev tco Ka6e£rjs...iK tov xpdvov KeKprjKora, the Other has
(§ 1) KaBrns evpov ev dpxaiois avnypdcpois, iroirjcropai Ka6e£fjs rdv Xoyov.
If then the spurious Pionius be the author of this postscript, he is
responsible for the edition of the Smyrnaean Epistle. Our Greek and
Latin copies have the Pionian postscript and therefore represent the
Pionian edition. Eusebius alone of all extant authorities is prior to
the false Pionius and gives an independent text. Now our spurious
Pionius was before all things a miracle-monger. Among other miracles
he relates (§ 21) that on the eve of Polycarp's appointment to the
episcopate a white dove was seen hovering about his head, and around
it a circle of light. As a dove thus visited Polycarp preparatory to his
1 I have given reasons elsewhere (your- Hippolytus had attended the lectures of
nal of Philology 1. p. 98 sq., 1868) for Irenaeus (Photius Bibl. 121); and it
attributing this Dialogue to Hippolytus— seems probable that in this Dialogue (or
the praenomen Gaius being assigned in some other work ascribed to him)
to the orthodox interlocutor, whether Gaius claimed Irenasus as his master.
himself or another, in this conversation.
40 — 2

628 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
consecration, so also a dove is found leaving him, or at least leaving
his body, when his spirit is wafted to heaven (see 11. p. 974 sq.). But
this miracle appears only in the Pionian copies, not in Eusebius.
Moreover by the abruptness of its appearance an interpolation is
suggested1. Is it not the same dove which appears on the two occa
sions, and was it not uncaged and let fly by the same hand? We
cannot resist the suspicion that our spurious Pionius was responsible
for both these appearances.
1 The words irepio-repd Kal are con- 460), Keim (Urchristenthum pp. 94, 166),
demned, either as an interpolation or as a Wieseler (Christenverfolgungen p. 39),
corruption, by critics as various as (see and Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f Wiss. Theol.
11. p. 976) Wordsworth, Lagarde, Zahn, xxii. p. 162).
Funk, Renan (L'Eglise Chritienne p.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM.

'"PHE question relating to the date of the Martyrdom involves two
points, the year and the day. It will be seen presently that the
two are not altogether unconnected, but for the purposes of investiga
tion they may conveniently be taken separately.

i. THE YEAR OF THE MARTYRDOM.
The main source of opinion respecting the year of Polycarp's
death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been the Chronicon
of Eusebius. It is necessary therefore to examine carefully what
Eusebius says; and this investigation is the more needful, as his
meaning seems to have been almost universally misunderstood.
After the seventh year of M. Aurelius he appends the notice 'A
persecution overtaking the Church, Polycarp underwent martyrdom,
and his martyrdom is handed down in writing. Many also in Gaul
suffered martyrdom bravely and their struggles are recorded in order in
a writing extant to the present day.' The passage is quoted above,
p. 541. Eusebius is here assumed to date Polycarp's martyrdom in
this 7th year of M. Aurelius, i.e. a.d. 167 '. The following considera
tions however will show this inference to be unwarrantable.
(1) The notice is not placed opposite to, but after this year. More-
1 According to others in the previous verfolg. p. 59), Keim (Aus dem Urchris-
year a.d. 166. So for instance Noris (de tenthum p. 101). This displacement
AnnoMaced.i. ^p.30), Masson (Aristid. however is not favoured by the text of
Op. in. p. lxxxix, ed. Dindorf ), Clinton the Chronicon. Still less can be said in
(Fast. Rom. 1. p. 157), Wieseler (Christen- favour of Ussher's year, a.d. 169.

630 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
over Polycarp's martyrdom is associated with the persecutions at Vienne
and Lyons, which we know to have happened a.d. 177. The bearing
of these facts seems to be obvious. Eusebius here connects together
all the incidents relating to the persecution of the Christians, which he
supposed to have taken place about this time. He had no knowledge
of the precise year or years in which they occurred. As a matter of fact,
the Gallican persecution took place some ten years later; and therefore,
so far as this notice goes, the martyrdom of Polycarp might have taken
place as many years earlier. We can only infer with safety that Eusebius
supposed Polycarp's martyrdom to have happened during the reign of
M. Aurelius. But there is no reason for assuming that this supposition
rested on any definite historical grounds.
(2) This solution, suggested by the position and character of the
notice itself, is confirmed by a comparison with other similar notices in
this part of the Chronicon. Thus the persecutions in Trajan's reign are
treated in precisely the same way, being collected together and placed
in an unattached paragraph after the 10th year of this emperor. There,
as here, the arrangement has been misunderstood; and the martyrdom
of Ignatius, of which Eusebius left the date indefinite, has teen assigned
to that precise year (see below, 11. p. 447 sq.). Intermediate between
these two paragraphs, he has a similar unattached notice (after the
8th year of Hadrian) in which he gathers up the incidents relating to
Hadrian's treatment of the Christians — the presentation of the Apologies
of Quadratus and Aristides, the letter of Serenius Granianus, the
emperor's rescript to Minucius Fundanus.
Nor is this treatment confined to incidents affecting the relation
between the Church and the Empire. Again and again, events of which
the exact date was unknown, or which spread over several years, are thus
grouped together into an isolated paragraph. Thus after Hadrian 7
and after Commodus 9 respectively he gives lists of six and of nine
successive bishops of Jerusalem, evidently because he did not know the
years of their respective accessions, though possessing a continuous list
of the occupants of this see. So again after Trajan 1, he mentions that
S. John survived to the times of Trajan, and states that after him his
scholars Papias and Polycarp were famous; after Hadrian 21 he gives
an account of the heresiarchs who taught in Rome about that time;
after Antoninus 1 1 he mentions certain philosophers who flourished at
that epoch. All these notices are in the immediate neighbourhood of
that with which we are concerned.
(3) A comparison of the Chronicon with the History still further
confirms this view. After recording the visit of Polycarp to Rome in

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 63 1
the days of Anicetus, and then mentioning the death of Antoninus Pius
and accession of M. Aurelius with his brother Verus (H. E. iv. 14), he
at once relates the martyrdom of Polycarp, introducing it with the words
iv tou'tco, 'meanwhile' or 'at this time' (iv. 15). At the conclusion of
this narrative he mentions other martyrdoms recorded in the same
volume, describing them by an error which has been considered already
(p. 624) as taking place at 'the same period of time' (viro rrjv avrrjv
irepioSov too xpo'vou). He then turns to Justin Martyr, whose death he
describes as contemporaneous with these persons (Kara toutous). After
disposing of Justin and his writings (iv. 16 — 18), he mentions Soter as
succeeding Anicetus in the 8th year of the same reign (that of M. Aure
lius), and follows up this statement with notices of the successions in the
two other great sees, Alexandria and Antioch (iv. 19, 20). Then he
gives an account of certain famous writers, beginning with Hegesippus
and Dionysius of Corinth and ending with Tatian and Bardesanes (iv.
21 — 30). The fourth book closes with the death of Soter, and the fifth
commences with the accession of Eleutherus. This accession he places
in the 17th year of 'Antoninus Verus,' and he speaks of it as a season
of fierce persecution in different parts of the empire. This he infers
from the extant record of the martyrdoms in one particular locality, Gaul.
Hereupon he gives an account of the persecutions at Vienne and Lyons,
and of the delegacies sent by the sufferers to Eleutherus bishop of Rome
(v. 1 — 4). This part of his narrative ends with the statement that these
occurrences took place 'in the time of Antoninus ' (v. 4 iirl 'AvtcoviWu).
So far his chronology, though vague at times, is intelligible. But in the
very next sentence (v. 5), setting himself to relate the incident of the
Thundering Legion, he designates the hero of this incident 'Marcus
Aurelius Caesar,' and describes him as the brother of this Antoninus
whom he had first mentioned (TooYoo Sr) aSeXcpov MdpKov AvprjXiov Kai-
o-apa k.tX). Now the accession of the joint emperors M. Aurelius and
L. Verus took place on the death of Antoninus Pius (a.d. 161), but
L. Verus died a.d. 169; thus M. Aurelius was sole emperor from a.d.
169 to the end of a.d. 176 or the beginning of a.d. 177, when he asso
ciated his son Commodus with himself in the supreme power. Eusebius
therefore is convicted of gross ignorance respecting the imperial annals
at this time. He has prolonged the life of L. Verus for several years,
and he has hopelessly confused the two imperial brothers. Moreover
it is clear that when he wrote the History, at all events, he was not in
possession of any information which enabled him to fix the exact year
of Polycarp's martyrdom.
The relation of the History to the Chronicle in matters of chrono-

632 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
logy is obscure1. In the present instance however, the sources of
information which Eusebius had before him in the two cases were
plainly the same — the Letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the death of
Polycarp and the Letter of the Gallican Churches containing an account
of the persecutions at Vienna and Lyons — for these two documents are
mentioned in both works. Nor is there any evidence that he drew
different inferences from them in the two cases; though in the History
he connects the persecution in Gaul with the accession of Eleutherus,
whereas in the Chronicle he is silent about this connexion. In this
respect only it seems probable that he had discovered a chronological
link meanwhile.
The inference from this investigation therefore is that Eusebius did
not profess any knowledge of the exact year of Polycarp's martyrdom,
bid that he probably supposed it to have taken place under M. Aurelius.
There is no indication however that he had any historical grounds for
this supposition.
Subsequent writers derive their knowledge from Eusebius. Jerome
(see above, p. 541) in his edition of the Chronicon fixes the date, which
Eusebius had left uncertain, definitely to the 7th year of M. Aurelius.
It is his constant practice to treat these loose notices of Eusebius in
this way. In his Catalogus again he says that it happened 'regnante
Marco Antonino et Lucio Aurelio Commodo.' This ought to mean
during the joint reign of M. Aurelius and his son Commodus (i.e.
a.d. 177 — 180). But doubtless Jerome intended by the second name
L. Aurelius Verus, who at an earlier date bore the name L. f£X\ws
Aurelius Commodus, but dropped some of his names, when he became
emperor1'. The author of the Chronicon Paschale, in his account of Poly
carp's martyrdom, shows a knowledge, either direct or indirect, not
only of the History of Eusebius, but also of the Letter of the Smyrnseans
itself; for he gives information derived from the chronological postscript
1 On this subject see below 11. p. 465. till after the death of Lucius Verus. Pro-
2 If the Armenian Version of the bably (with the exception of the name
Chronicon (p. 170 Schone) be correct, the ' Aurelianus ') the Armenian truly repre-
error was derived from Eusebius, for sents Eusebius, in which case he may
the reign is there designated ' M. Aureli- have written 0 koX Ko/ioSos. Yet in his
anus (sic) qui et Berus, Lucius Aurelius History, though there is much confusion
Comodus ', but Syncellus p. 664 has ipa- between the two imperial brothers Mar-
alXevae IttdpKos A.vp-r)Xios 6 Kal Ovijpos eus and Lucius (H. E. iv. 13, v. 45), he
AoiSkios Te Abpr)Xios Kal K6p.oSos, which never gives the name Commodus to
is inaccurate in another way, for Com- either.
modus was not associated in the empire

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 633
(§21), of which Eusebius says nothing. He places the martyrdom (see
above, p. 552) in the consulship of ^Elianus1 and Pastor, i.e. a.d. 163,
in which year the consuls were M. Pontius Laelianus and A. Junius
Pastor. It is not obvious why he should have chosen this particular
year. As he seems to have interpreted trayS/JoVco peydXm according to
the Christian language of his own day to mean the Saturday before
Easter Day (inserting the definite article, t<3 peydXip era/J/JdVco), and to
have altered the name of the month accordingly from vii Kal Mart.
to vii Kal. April, so that the martyrdom might fall within a possible
Easter season, we might suspect that he selected the earliest year
after the accession of M. Aurelius, when Easter Day fell on vi Kal.
April, according to his reckoning. At all events it is difficult to resist
the impression that the choice of this year was connected with his
Paschal calculations.
On the other hand Idatius places the martyrdom in the 1st year of
M. Aurelius. After the consuls of the year 161, he writes 'His conss.
orta persecutione passi Polycarpus et Pionius' (Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 162,
ed. Bonn.). This is perfectly intelligible. Polycarp's martyrdom is the
first incident mentioned by Eusebius in his History after the accession
of M. Aurelius, and is introduced with the words iv tovtw, 'At this time'.
All the writers hitherto quoted have placed the martyrdom during
the reign of M. Aurelius, following either the Chronicle or the His
tory of Eusebius. On the other hand Georgius . Hamartolus with
his later plagiarists, and perhaps also some earlier chronicler whom he
copied, assign it to the reign of his predecessor Antoninus Pius (see above,
P- 557)- Though cogent reasons will be given hereafter for adopting
this as the correct view, it seems to me highly doubtful whether these
writers based their opinion on any historical tradition or critical investi
gation. The name Antoninus was common not only to Antoninus
Pius and M. Aurelius, but likewise to Commodus and several later
emperors. Hence confusions are frequent. Georgius might have derived
his information ultimately from Eusebius through some intermediate
writer who omitted to say which of the Antonines was meant. Eusebius
several times calls M. Aurelius by the name 'Antoninus ' alone (iv. 26,
30, v. 4, 9) and, as we have seen (p. 631), he describes the persecutions
ui Gaul as happening iirl 'Avrwvivov.
Socrates stands alone in placing the martyrdom under Gordian,
a.d. 238—244 (see above, p. 546). It is not easy to explain this gross
1 ' Vetere, ut videtur, errore, quia in L. aeliano exaratum esse diserte tra-
duobus titulis, Hispano (C. I. L. II. ditur'; Klein Fast. Cons. p. 76.
3552) et Romano (C. I. L. vi. 1497),

634 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
chronological blunder. Perhaps he confused the bishop of Smyrna
with some other martyr bearing the same name. It has been already
noticed that the early Syriac Martyrology mentions at least three
others (p. 421). Perhaps he was misled by finding the name of
Gordian as a persecuting emperor in his copy of the Acts of Pionius
which were' attached to Polycarp's Martyrdom (see below, p. 697). I
may observe also that the name of Gordian was M. Antonius Gor-
dianus, and this may possibly have assisted the confusion.
The Meislea are even wider of the mark than Socrates, for they
place Polycarp's martyrdom under Decius, a.d. 249 — 251 (see above,
p. 56r). This is an almost incredible blunder in a book possessing a
sort of Church authority ; but it is capable of explanation. The com
pilers learnt directly or indirectly from Eusebius, that he made it
synchronous with the martyrdom of Pionius (see p. 624). Being how
ever more familiar with the Acts of Pionius than with the circumstances
of Polycarp's death, and knowing that Pionius suffered under Decius,
they post-dated it accordingly. This is the converse to the error of
Eusebius himself, who ante-dated the martyrdom of Pionius and placed
both under M. Aurelius.
The earlier modern critics for the most part followed the authority
of Eusebius, as they supposed, and placed the martyrdom in the 7th
year of M. Aurelius, ad. 167. To this general view however there
were a few exceptions. iEgid. Bucherius ( Tract, de Pasch. Cycl. fud.
8) adopted a.d. 169, supposing that the Quadratus mentioned in
the Acts of Polycarp was the colleague of L. Verus in the consulship
(a.d. 167), and that he would therefore naturally be proconsul in
the spring of the next year but one. The consul of a,d. 167 how
ever was not Statius Quadratus, but M. Ummidius Quadratus 1. Never
theless Ussher adopted this same date with this same identifica
tion of the proconsul. But he considered that he had found a striking
confirmation of it in other quarters. He believed himself to have
shown that the Smyrnaean month Xanthicus commenced on March 25,
so that the 2nd Xanthicus would be March 26; he accordingly adopted
the Roman date for the martyrdom as given in the Chronicon Paschale,
vii Kal. Apr. ; and he found that in a.d. 169 March 26 would be the
Saturday preceding the Paschal festival, and therefore it would be
properly called the 'great sabbath', as the day of the martyrdom is
1 It should be observed that, when sion between Titus and Tatius or Statius
these earlier critics wrote, the name of the seemed not altogether impossible. For
consul of a.d. 167 was supposed to be his correct name see the references in
Titus Numidius Quadratus; and a confu- Klein Fast. Cons. p. 77.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 635
designated in the Acts (see Ignat. et Polyc. Mart. p. 69 sq., and esp.
Dissert, de Maced. et Asian. Anno Solari c. iii, Works vii. p. 367 sq.).
Samuel Petit (a.d. 1633) was another exception to the general rule
(Var. Led. iv. 7, quoted by Pearson Minor Works 11. pp. 527, 537).
He boldly placed the date as late as a.d. 175. Like the former writers
he identified the Quadratus of the martyrdom with the colleague of L.
Verus; but he observed that an interval of full five years was required
by law to elapse before entering upon the proconsulship (see below,
p. 639). More recent critics have discovered another chronological clue.
Among the works of the rhetorician ^Elius Aristides, a younger contem
porary of Polycarp, are certain orations entitled Sacred Discourses,
written in praise of the god ^Esculapius, wherein he describes the
course of a long illness which extended over many years, interspersing
from time to time valuable chronological notices. In these mention is
twice made of a Quadratus, proconsul of Asia. It is natural to assume
that this is the same person who held the office at the time of Polycarp's
martyrdom. Thus the chronology of Polycarp is closely linked with
that of Aristides.
Valois (a.d. 1672) in his notes on Euseb. H. E. iv. 15 was the first,
so far as I have observed, to pay attention to this fact (though it had
been noticed before by Ussher) ; but he was not very happy in the use
which he made of it. He argues as follows;
Aristides says in the Fourth Sacred Discourse, that Severus was
proconsul shortly after the plague which raged in Asia; but Eusebius
[Chronicon 11. p. 170, Schone] places the plague in the 8th year of
M. Aurelius. Therefore Severus was proconsul in the 9th year. Pollio
immediately preceded Severus in this office [Aristides Op. 1. p. 529],
and therefore his proconsulate fell in the 8th year of this reign. Again,
the immediate predecessor of Pollio was Quadratus, for he must be
meant by o cro<pio-nf s [Op.'i. p. 531]. Therefore Quadratus was proconsul
in the 7th year; and this is exactly the date assigned by Eusebius to
Polycarp's martyrdom.
This calculation is based on manifest errors and doubtful assump
tions. So far from saying that Severus was proconsul immediately
after the plague, Aristides states distinctly that the plague occurred
many years after the proconsulate of Severus (Op. 1. p. 504 Kai xpdVois
817 vo-repov ij Xoipoj&rjs eKeivrj <rvvej3rj vdcros : comp. p. 475). Nor again
does Eusebius assert that the plague broke out in the 8th year, but that
it reached Rome then (Xoipdo^js voo-os iiriKpaTijo-ao-a pexpi "Poiprjs
tyOave, as reported by Syncellus). It raged in Asia Minor for some years
previously. Lastly the identification of ' the sophist ' with Quadratus

636 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
seems to be a mistake. The person intended is probably Glabrio, who
had been mentioned just before (p. 530).
Pearson in his posthumous work Dissert, de Serie Prim. Romae
Episc. ii. c. 17 (Minor Theological Works, 11. p. 538 sq.) controverts the
position of Valesius, but on grounds not altogether satisfactory. He
takes the Quadratus of Aristides to be not Statius Quadratus, but
T. Numidius [more correctly M. Ummidius] Quadratus, who was consul
a.d. 167, and (as he supposes) proconsul of Asia a.d. 170. As Statius
Quadratus held the consulate a.d. 142, and the general rule imposed
an interval of five years ' before a person succeeded to the proconsulate
of Asia, he would hold this latter office a.d. 147 (pp. 536, 541). Pearson
finds a confirmation of this view in the statement of the chronographer,
already quoted (see above, p. 633), that Polycarp suffered under
Antoninus Pius. Pearson's date is adopted also by Dodwell (Diss.
Cypr. iv. § 4), and others.
Card. Noris (De Anno Maced. 1. 2, p. 30) refutes Valesius, but does
not mention Pearson, of whose investigations he is apparently ignorant.
He himself decides in favour of a.d. 166, rather than 167, because in
the former year Feb. 23 fell on a Saturday.
It was reserved for Masson to treat the chronology of Aristides with
thoroughness, and thereby to establish an authority, which was defer
entially followed by nearly all succeeding writers till quite recently,
This work he accomplished in his Collectanea Historica ad Vitam
Aristidis, first published with Jebb's edition of Aristides (Oxon. 1722)
and reprinted a century later in Dindorf s edition of this same author
(Lips. 1829). From this latter edition my references are taken, both
for the text of Aristides and for Masson's dissertation.
The following are the main points in his construction of the Aristi-
dean chronology.
(i) As Polycarp was martyred under Quadratus, and as Eusebius
places the martyrdom in a.d. 166, it follows that Quadratus must have
held the proconsulship from the summer of a.d. 165 to the summer of
a.d. 166.
(ii) He considers that the mention of 'the emperor in Syria', which
in the narrative of Aristides (Op. 1. p. 453) is connected with the pro-
consulship of Quadratus, must refer to the sojourn of L. Verus in that
province from a.d. 162 — 166.
(iii) In Op. 1. p. 460, after giving a diary of the two months Po-
seideon and Lenaeon during the proconsulship of Quadratus, Aristides
1 A minimum interval of five years the average interval being twelve or
was fixed, by Augustus (see below, p. 639); thirteen years.
but it was largely exceeded at this time,

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 637
continues, to pev ovv tcov aXovo-icov ti tis &v Xeyoi ; 17877 ydp Kal irevre irwv
o-wex<i5s eyeVovTo Kai irpoo-eVi prjv<Sv. Masson makes two assumptions
respecting these five years and some months; (1) That they refer to what
took place before the two months; (2) That they cover the whole time
from the beginning of the illness. « Thus the proconsulship of Quadratus
synchronizes with the sixth year of the malady.
This then — the proconsulate of Quadratus — is the fixed date by
which the other incidents in the malady are regulated. Thus Severus
was proconsul in the tenth year. His proconsulship therefore fell in
a.d. 168, 169. The malady lasted, as Masson reckons, thirteen years.
Consequently it must have begun at the end of a.d. 159 (p. Iii) and
ended a.d. 172 (p. cxxxii).
The erroneousness of the assumption with regard to Eusebius has
been shown already. Yet this is really the central pillar of his edifice.
His explanation of 'the emperor in Syria', in which he finds an ad
ditional support for his system, will be examined hereafter. At present
it will be sufficient to consider the third point, the interpretation of the
passage in Aristides Op. 1. p. 460.
Here again it seems impossible to accept his explanation. After
the close of the two months' diary relating to the malady in the ab
domen (rjTpov), Aristides says that the god told him he would experience
no difficulty (prjSev eo-eo-Bai Svcrxepes). He then relates that, though
these aXotJo-iat continued five years and some months, though there
were vomitings for two years and two months, though there were
frequent bleedings, frequent abstinences from food, and so forth, yet he
was able to continue his rhetorical exercises uninterrupted, and this
consoled him. Obviously then he is here relating the fulfilment of the
god's promise; so that these incidents, at all events for the most part,
must have occurred after this prediction \ But even if they had all
taken place before, there is nothing to show that these dXovo-iai began
with the beginning of the malady2.
Moreover this interpretation is at variance with the words which
follow immediately after; 'So much for the consequences of the malady
in the abdomen (rd irepl toC rjrpov); and similar to the course of the
complaint in the abdomen was that of the tumour which happened
1 In other words ijSr, means 'at the the akovatat thus brings us to the close,
time when they ceased', and not 'at the or nearly so, of the whole malady. It
time when the god foretold the issue >. will be seen hereafter that Waddington's
2 Waddington places the dXovalai alto- chronology is comparatively unaffected
gether after the god's prediction. This by his interpretation of this passage;
view may be doubtful; but it is at least whereas Masson's explanation is of car-
confirmed by the fact that the close of dinal importance to his own system.

638 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
many years previously' (opoiov Se tco irepi to ijrpov avve/3rj Kal to tou
epvparos iroXXois eVecri irporepov).' Plainly he had gone forward in
his narrative up to this point; and he only now, when he begins his
account of the tumour, traces his steps backward to an earlier epoch.
The revolt against Masson's chronology was led by Letronne Re-
cherches sur I'Agypte p. 253 (a.d. 1823). Aristides relates (Op. 1. p.
519 sq.) that he was born when Jupiter was in Leo. 'This would be the
case in a.d. 117 and a.d. 129, the periodic time of Jupiter being about
12 years. Masson (p. xxiii sq.) adopted the later date; but Letronne
has shown from the chronology of Heliodorus, the prefect of Egypt,
with whom Aristides had relations (Op. 1. p. 524), that the earlier date
is imperatively demanded. Now Aristides elsewhere, writing of a time
when several years of his malady had already passed (Op. J. p. 548),
speaks of himself as being then in middle age (rjXiKias rjSrj peo-ws exoipi).
Hence the chronology of his malady is dependent on the date of his
birth and will require to be pushed back accordingly. Borghesi (Iscri-
zioni di Sepino, 1852, reprinted CEuvres v. p. 345 sq.) accepted this
position of Letronne, and carried the argument some steps farther.
Having made a special study of the sequence of Roman offices, and
having observed the average intervals between the consulship and the
Asiatic or African proconsulship at different epochs (CEuvres m. p.
185, 191 sq., iv. p. 145 sq., 535 sq., v. p. 142 sq., 469 sq.), he pointed
out the strong improbability that in the age of the Antonines Statius
Quadratus, who was consul a.d. 142, should have waited till a.d. 165,
before he obtained the proconsulship of Asia. Accordingly, while still
retaining Masson's arrangement of the sequence of events, he pushed
the chronology twelve years farther back in accordance with Letronne's
view. This gave a.d. 153, instead of a.d. 165, as the year when
Quadratus entered upon his office. But he supposed him to have held
office for two years and to have condemned Polycarp in February 155
(CEuvres v. p. 373 sq.). Why he should have postulated the unusual
extension of the proconsulship to a second year, it is difficult to explain.
At the same time he showed that the presence of the emperor in Syria
and the peace with Vologesus, to which Aristides refers as synchronous
with the proconsulate of Quadratus, and which seemed to Masson to
point decisively to the reign of M. Aurelius, may be explained by
notices of events which occurred under his predecessor Antoninus Pius1.
1 Aristides (Op. 1. p. 467), describing were rov tote, thus referring it to the
the first year of his malady, mentions 2aX- time of the incidents recorded. Borghesi
f}tov tov vvv vtotov. The vvv evidently is misled by this error and identifies the
refers to the time when Aristides is writ- person with P. Salvius Julianus who was
ing ; but Masson explained tou vvv as if it consul A.D. 148. The person intended is

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 639
The way had thus been prepared by Letronne and Borghesi. But
to Waddington belongs the credit of a thorough reconstruction of the
chronology of Aristides on the lines thus indicated, and of the final
overthrow of Masson's system. His investigations appeared in a paper
entitied Vie du Rhiteur AElius Aristide in the Memoires de Flnslitut etc.,
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres xxvi. p. 203 sq. (a.d. 1867); and he has
since supplemented them in his Pastes des Provinces Asiatiques. This
latter work forms part of Lebas and Waddington's Asie Mineure; but it
has likewise been reprinted privately in an octavo form (Paris, 1872).
To M. Waddington's kindness I am indebted for a copy of this reprint,
and to it my references will be made.
As the question depends partly on the succession to the Asiatic pro
consulate, a few words of explanation will be useful by way of preface
to the review of Waddington's investigations.
By an ordinance of Pompeius, revived by Augustus (a.u.c. 727), the
government of the senatorial provinces could not be undertaken until
five years after the tenure of the city magistracy (Dion Cass. liii. 14;
comp. Sueton. Oct. 36). The two proconsular provinces Asia and Africa,
the blue ribbands of the profession, would accordingly have fallen
regularly to the two consuls who had held office five years before — the
lot being employed to apportion them between the two. But several
causes tended to lengthen the interval. In the first place the practice
of appointing consules suffedi gained ground. Thus there might be four
or six or even more consuls in a single year. Again, though the pro
consulate was commonly an annual office, yet the tenure might be
extended at the pleasure of the emperor, where the emergency seemed
to require the continuance of the same ruler (see esp. Marquardt
Romische Staatsverwaltung 1. p. 404 sq.). We are told that Augustus
(Dion Cass. Iv. 28) in the latter part of his life frequently prolonged the
term of office to a second year. So too of Tiberius (Dion Cass. Iviii.
23) it is related that in his later years he continued proconsuls in office
for as long a period as six years. These statements are borne out
by examples. A recently discovered inscription (Bull, de Corresp. Hel-
Ikique 1884, p. 469) speaks of C. Vibius Postumus as holding the
proconsulate for three years (to rpls avBrndrw). This must have been
somewhere between a.d. 12—19. M. Silanus again was proconsul of
Africa a.d. 32 — 37, and P. Petronius proconsul of Asia a.d. 29 — 35.
Both these causes tended to create a block. On the other hand death
doubtless his namesake, who held the in regarding the year in which Quadratus
consulship a.d. 175, as Waddington has entered upon his office as the sixth of the
pointed out. malady of Aristides.
Borghesi also follows Masson (p. lxxxix)

640

EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

would thin the ranks of the expectants; while others again were set
aside at the discretion or by the caprice of the emperor, or would be
passed over by their own desire. Then again; though, as a rule, the
two senior men of consulaT rank would draw lots for the two
provinces, yet an exceptionally able man would occasionally at some
great crisis be elected without regard to his seniority as a consular.
We meet with two of these irregularities combined in the person of
Galba, the future emperor. He was appointed to the proconsulate of
Africa out of due course (extra ordinem) ; and he held the office for two
years (Sueton. Galb. 7).
As so much depended on the will of the emperor or the require
ments of the times, the intervals were different at different epochs.
Thus Commodus seems to have been prodigal in the creation of con-
sules suffecti. Hence the block increased, and we find an interval of
nineteen years — the longest on record — between the consulate (a.d. 198)
and the Asiatic proconsulate (a.d. 217) of Q. Anicius Faustus (see
Borghesi CEuvres v. p. 468). In the age of the two Antonines the
average interval was apparently about thirteen years, whereas both
before and after that age it was somewhat longer.
The following list relating to the two proconsulates in the second
century is drawn up with the aid of Waddington Pastes Asiatiques

Name

Consul

Province

Proconsul

A.D.

A.D.

A. Caecilius Faustinus

s

99

Africa

116

Ti. Julius Ferox

s

99

Asia

116

Cornelius Priscus
C. Minicius Fundanus

s s

(beforel (i°5 J
107

Asia
Asia

120
124

T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus
L. Venuleius Apronianus
M. Peducaeus Priscinus

00 0

120123 141

Asia Asia Asia

(some time before
I 138
138
not later than 1 60

L. Statius Quadratus
M. Cornelius Fronto1

0 s

142
*43

Asia
[Africa]

[i54]
before 161

L. Lollianus Avitus

0

144

Africa

not later than 1 59

C. Popilius Pedo

s

(about )
\ 148/

Asia

not later than 1 60 .

Ser. Cornelius Scipio Orfitus
C. Serius Augurinus
P. Julius Geminius Marcianus

0
0 0

149 170

AfricaAfrica Asia

163169182 or 185

Pedo Apronianus

0

191

Asia

204 or 205

Q. Anicius Faustus

s

198

Asia

217

M. Aufidius Fronto1

0

199

[Africa]

218

The two Frontos, though appointed, never actually entered upon their office.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. , 641
passim (comp. Bull, de Corresp. Hellcn. 1882, p. 285), Marquardt Rom.
Staatsverw. 1. p. 406, and Borghesi 11. cc. As the governors of the
senatorial provinces, by an order of Claudius still in force, were directed
to start for their provinces before the middle of April (Dion Cass. Ix. 17),
the proconsuls would not enter upon their office till May. Thus the
proconsular and calendar years nearly bisect each other. The years
here given for the proconsulates are the years in which they entered
upon their office. The second column distinguishes the consuls as ordi-
narii or suffedi.
Masson had taken the supposed Eusebian date of the proconsulship
of Quadratus as his starting point, and arranged the chronology of
Aristides accordingly. Waddington adopts a different principle. He
investigates the chronology of Aristides independently. In this way he
arrives at a date for the proconsulship of Quadratus; and, as this does
not agree with the date supposed to be given by Eusebius, he discards
the authority of the latter altogether. His chronological structure (so
far as we are concerned with it) is built up as follows.
(1) The fixed point of the chronology on which everything else
depends is the Proconsulship of Julianus (V. du R. A. p. 208 sq., F. A.
210 sq.). Aristides (1. p. 532 sq.) relates how Julianus the proconsul
assisted him in the recovery of some property. This was during his
residence at Pergamon. But it appears from another passage (1. p. 483)
that his residence in Pergamon falls during the second year of his
malady — a year and some months after its commencement (irapeXBovros
eviavrov Kal prjviSv).
The date of Julianus however may be accurately determined. In
an Ephesian inscription recently discovered (Wood's Ephesus, Inscr.
v. 3, p. 6) we have mention of ['io]yAianoc . d . KpATioroc . ANefnATOc,
where it is dated the 8th tribunician year of Antoninus Pius, i.e. a.d.
145. But the proconsuls came into office in May. Was the year of
Julianus then a.d. 144, 145, or a.d. 145, 146? The answer to this ques
tion is supplied from another quarter. On an Ephesian medal com
memorating the marriage of M. Aurelius and Faustina his name
again appears as proconsul, em . [k]A . 'ioyAianoy, and from other
notices (C. I. G. 3176, Capitol. Marcus 6) we ascertain that this
marriage took place a.d. 1461. Julianus therefore was proconsul from
May 145 to May 146.
1 If however our authorities are strictly inscription dated March ia, a.d. 147
accurate, it seems necessary with Momm- (T. Atilius Maximus being proconsul), in
sen (Hermes vm. p. 205) to place the mar- which M. Aurelius thanks the persons
riage a year earlier. There is a Smyrnsean addressed for their congratulations on the-
IG. I. 41

642 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(2) The next step is the Proconsulship of Severus ( V. du R-A.^.m,
sq., F. A. 217 sq.). Aristides relates some dealings with Severus, then
proconsul of Asia, in the tenth year of his illness soon after the winter
solstice (Op. 1. pp. 502, 505). As his malady had begun in midwinter
(1. p. 481), the years of his illness corresponded roughly with the
calendar years. Severus therefore must have been proconsul from May
153 to May 154. According to Masson this proconsulship would fall in
a.d. 168, 169. The following tests may be applied to the two systems.
(i) During the proconsulship of Severus (Op. 1. p. 524) letters
arrived from Italy 'from the princes, from the emperor himself and his
son' (7rapci tcov jSacriAcW, tou Te avroKpdropos avrov Kal tov 7raiSo's). This
language is intelligible as applied to Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius
in a.d. 154. On the other hand, if Masson were correct, the reference
would be to M. Aurelius and Commodus. But why is Commodus, a
child of seven years, mentioned, while L. Verus who was joint emperor
with M. Aurelius, and to whom the affairs of the East were especially
committed, is ignored? The reign of the fratres Aitgusti marked an
epoch in the history of imperial Rome2. The uniqueness of the event
was recognized on all hands; and the language which on Masson's
hypothesis Aristides here employs respecting it is hardly conceivable.
(ii) The great plague is placed by Aristides (1. p. 504) 'long after'
(xpdvois Sij vo-repov) this epoch. But the plague was brought to Rome
by the soldiers of L. Verus on their return a.d. 166; and in Asia Minor,
of which Aristides is here speaking, it had raged much earlier. Thus
Masson's chronology produces a hopeless anachronism.
(iii) Simultaneously with the letter from the princes comes another
from Heliodorus, 'who had been viceroy of Egypt' (tou ri}5 Aiyvirrov
birth of a son (C.I.G. 3176). This is the phrases suscepta filia by 'apres la nais-
first year of his tribunician power, so that sance de son premier enfant' (F. A. p.
he must have received it not earlier than 211).
Jan. 1, A d. 147. But Capitolinus (Mar- 2 Spartian. Hadr. i\ 'Hi sunt, qui
eus 6) says that he had the tribunician postea duo pariter Augusti primi rem-
power conferred upon him after the birth publicam gubernaverunt ', jEUus 5 ' Ipsi
of a daughter, suscepta filia. Unless there- sunt qui primi duo Augusti appellati sunt,
fore this is an error of Capitolinus or his et quorum fastis consularibus sic nomina
transcribers for suscepto filio, the son born praescribuntur, ut dicantur non duo Anto-
in A.D. 147 must have been his second nini sed duo Augusti; tantumque hujus
child, and the marriage must be dated as rei et novitas et dignitas valuit ut fasti
earlyasA.D. 145. In this case we have the consulares nonnulli ab his sumerent ordi-
alcernative of A.D. 144, 145 or a.d. 145, nem consulum, Capitolin. Marcus 7 ' tunc-
146 for the proconsulship of Julianus. que primum Romanum imperium duos
The bearing of this alternative will be Augustos habere coepit', Eutrop. viii. 9.
considered hereafter. Waddington para-

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 643
virdpxov yevopevov). But it appears from Corp. Inscr. Graec. 4955, that
Heliodorus was governor of Egypt on Aug. 12, a.d. 140 (Letronne Re-
cherches sur I'Egypte p. 253 sq.). This is too far removed from Masson's
date. (iv) The sequence of honours bestowed upon Severus, as learnt
from the inscriptions (C. I. G. 4033, 4034), points to about the year
140 or 141 as the date of his consulship (Waddington F. A. p. 218 sq.).
If we allow the average interval of twelve years or thereabouts, before
the proconsulship falls to him, we shall be brought to Waddington's
date. But Masson's is far beyond the mark.
(3) The next stage brings us to the object of our search, the Pro-
consulship of Quadratus. It is twice mentioned by Aristides.
(i) In the Fourth Sacred Discourse he relates certain incidents as
having taken place in the proconsulship of Severus (1. p. 505). At a
later point (p. 521) he speaks of 'the arrival of Quadratus the rhetorician
to assume the government of Asia ' (dcpiKopevov ydp Ko8paYou tov pZ/Topos
iirl rrjv ttjs 'Ao-ias dpxrjv). After continuing his narrative for a short
space further, he says; 'But I will go back to the point where I said a
little while ago that I would stop and leave off my narrative ' (iirdveipi
8e, ou juiKpco irpocrBev ecprjv o-Tijcras KaraXelij/eiv toV Xo'yov). He then
continues, 'Severus the governor of Asia held office, I think, a year
before my comrade' {p. 523 d A%ej3/jpos d ttjs 'Acrias rjyepiov ijp£ev, olpai.,
eViauTip irporepov tov rjpeTepov eraipov) 1. The comrade here mentioned,
argues Waddington, can be none other than his brother rhetorician
Quadratus, with whom he was evidently on intimate terms. If so, the
proconsulate of Quadratus must be assigned to the year a.d. 154, 155.
The martyrdom of Polycarp therefore, as it happened in February,
must have taken place in a.d. 155. This year the 23rd of February
fell on a Saturday, and thus the notice of the 'great sabbath' (Mart.
Polyc. 8, 21) is so far satisfied. Moreover L. Statius Quadratus was
consul in a.d. 142, so that the usual interval had elapsed before he
entered upon the proconsulship of Asia. An interval of 23 years, which
Masson's date requires, is without a parallel. Waddington further adds
that in the inscription Corp. Inscr. Graec. 3410, bearing his name as
proconsul (ctati'oo . KcoApATCp . ANeYTT&rco), a fine is ordered to be paid
1 We must regard oTp.ai as a rhetorical to q.cp.a iv Svoiv arpooia'iv, Kal Tplrr/v,
affectation, as it is used elsewhere in Aris- oT/iai, rivd iirrryayov, rjv KaXovoiv ol
tides. It does not, as some have sup- ypap.fuanKol p-oi SoKelv ItqSov, where
posed, throw any doubt on the statement the olpMi does not express any more hesi-
which it accompanies. See Op. I. pp. 467, tation than, the poi SoKeiv.
470, 480, 493, and esp. p. 511 iiripava
41 — 2

644 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
'into the exchequer of Caesar' (eic . ton . KAi'capoc . <pi'ckon), whence he
infers that there could only have been one emperor at the time, and
that therefore this proconsulate could not have fallen during the joint
reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus. The last argument however is
abandoned in his later work (F. A. p. 221), Mommsen having mean
while pointed out that this was a recognized expression for the
'imperial exchequer', whether the sovereignty was divided or not at the
time. It will be seen from this account that the keystone of Waddington's
structure is the identification of the kraipos with Quadratus. Nor does
there seem to be any one else in the previous narrative with whom the
person so described can be identified. The expression erdxpos indeed
is used of several others (pp. 509, 519, 527); but there is no reason to
think that any of these were proconsuls. Masson (p. cxxxi) says, 'Quis
iste merit [eraTpos], vaticinari non datur'. But, as Aristides was writing
for the general public, we cannot suppose that he would use an ex
pression which was unexplained by the previous part of his narrative.
(ii) In the First Sacred Discourse (p. 446) he gives an elaborate
diary of the events, more especially dreams, which happened in the
months Poseideon and Lenaeon (roughly corresponding with January
and February) of a particular year when he was suffering from a com
plaint in the abdomen (ijrpov). Among other incidents he records how
in a dream he saw certain things and 'fancied that he related them
afterwards, as a dream, to Quadratus the governor'. Plainly Quadratus
was proconsul at this time. On this point Masson and Waddington
are agreed.
During these same two months however he had other dreams which
bear upon the chronology. In one of these he fancied that he saw
Antoninus the elder emperor ('Avriovivov tov avroKparopa toV irpeo-fH-
repov) and the hostile king, whom he afterwards names Vologesus,
making peace with one another. In another he had 'an audience with
the emperor, having been sent to the emperor who was then in Syria'
(eyiyvero rj rrpocroBos rj irpos tov avroKparopa, iirerrdp-q^eiv 8e 10s toV iv rjj
%vp'ia rdre avroKparopa). Elsewhere, there is mention sometimes of 'the
emperor' (0' avroKpaTiop) in the singular (p. 451), sometimes of the
emperors (01 auTOKpaVopes) in the plural (pp. 456, 457, 458). In one
place (p. 457) he records how he dreamt that he stood between the two
emperors, 'the older1 and 'the younger'. 'The younger', he says,
'seemed to him to have the age (or stature) of a boy' (eSdxei Se' poi ko!
iraiSos rjXiKiav exeiv).
If Waddington's date be correct, thc older emperor will be Antoni-

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 645
nus Pius, and the younger M. Aurelius. On the other hand Masson's
computation requires that the elder should be M. Aurelius and the
younger Commodus, while the emperor in Syria is neither the one nor
the other, but L. Verus, who is known to have been in Syria in the
years from a.d. 162 to a.d. 165. The Parthian war was carried on
meanwhile by his generals, while the emperor gave himself over to
luxury and self-indulgence, spending his winters at Laodicea and his
summers at Daphne of Antioch. It was brought to a successful issue
in a.d. 166; peace was made; and the two emperors celebrated a
triumph (Capitolin. Marcus 8, 9, Verus 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Dion Cass. lxxi. 1, 2,
Galen Op. xiv. pp. 613, 647, Eutrop. viii. 10, Victor Cces. 16, Orosius
Hist. viii. 15, Polyaen. Strateg. i. 1, Lucian Quom. Conscrib. Hist. 14 sq.,
Pseudomantis 27, Fronto pp. 120 sq., 132, 204, 208 sq., 217 sq.). This
known fact is the main point in Masson's favour.
As a negative argument on the same side, it is further urged that
there was no incident during the reign of Antoninus Pius to which the
dream of Aristides could refer. Indeed the notices in Capitolinus seem
to exclude it altogether. He says expressly in one place (Pius 7),
that this emperor 'never undertook any expeditions' (nee ullas expedi-
tiones obiit) except to his country house in Campania, lest the
provincials should be burdened with the expenses of his retinue. But
this statement must not be too literally interpreted. He has plainly in
view here not military campaigns but imperial progresses. Again this
same historian states elsewhere (Pius 9), that Antoninus 'deterred the
king of the Parthians from the invasion of Armenia by his letters alone
(Parthorum regem ab Armeniorum expugnatione solis literis repulit).'
But, as Borghesi truly says (CEuvres v. p. 377), Capitolinus speaks 'too
emphatically' here. An inscription is extant at Saepinum (C. I. L. ix.
2457) commemorating one L. Neratius Proculus, of whom it speaks as
M1SSO . AB . IMP . ANTONINO . AVG . PIO . AD . d[e]dVCEN[d]aS . VEx[l]i-LA-
tiones . in . syriam . ob . [b]ellvm . [par]thicvm. This emperor, by
whom he was despatched to Syria in command of the troops, can be
none other than Antoninus Pius. Some critics indeed have persuaded
themselves that the sovereign meant is M. Aurelius. But M. Aurelius
never called himself, or was called in his lifetime, Pius. His son and
successor Commodus adopted this name, and thenceforward it generally
forms one of the imperial designations. At the same time Commodus
seems to have imposed it upon his deceased father, so as to preserve its
genealogy unbroken from its first holder to himself. Thus we read of
DIWS . M . AVRELIVS . ANTONINVS . PIVS . GERMANICVS . SARMATICVS
(C. I. L. 11. 1340). Yet even after his decease he is never called Anto-

646 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
ninus Pius alone, but some other name is added to distinguish him from
his predecessor, the true Antoninus Pius. So far as I have observed, the
praenomen Marcus is never absent1. Moreover, as the Parthian war
under M. Aurelius was especially entrusted to his co-emperor L. Verus,
it is difficult to explain the omission of the name of the latter, if this
were the occasion to which the inscription refers. From this inscription
Borghesi inferred a conflict with the Parthians under Antoninus Pius,
and applied it to explain the reference in Aristides. The silence of the
historians is only a trifling difficulty in a reign for which the extant
accounts are so meagre and fragmentary. But this view has con
firmatory evidence which Borghesi overlooked. John Malalas, a writer
whose gross errors elsewhere I have had occasion to expose (11. p. 437
sq.), and whose statements always require sifting and confirmation, but
who sometimes (especially in relation to Antioch) supplies important
facts, states (Chronogr. xi. p. 280 sq., ed. Bonn) that Antoninus Pius
went to quell an uprising of the Egyptians who had murdered Dinarchas,
and after suppressing it proceeded to Alexandria. Immediately after
this incident, and apparently in connexion with it, this chronographer
states that he visited Antioch and erected certain buildings there. The
suppression of a rebellion in Egypt is mentioned likewise by Capitolinus
(Pius 5)2. As the emperor had not left Rome a.d. 153 and is found
again in Rome in November a.d. 157 (see Schiller 1. c. p. 632), this
visit or these visits to the East must be placed during the interval. The
cursus honorum of Neratius Proculus also, as gathered from the
monument at Saepinum, requires that the Syrian expedition should take
place some four years at least before the death of Antoninus Pius
(Borghesi CEuvres v. p. 376).
Nor is it difficult to trace the probable course of this Parthian
embroglio from the meagre information which we possess. Trajan had
read the Parthians a severe lesson which they did not soon forget. But
a new generation arose, and with it a new king. The Vologesus with
whom we are concerned, the fourth or according to some the third of
that name, ascended the throne in a.d. 148 (Waddington in Borghesi
1 C.l.L.u. 1725 [imp.caes.divi.]an- 2 These Eastern expeditions of Anto-
tonini . pil . sarmatici . germanici . ninus Pius are recognized by most recent
filivs . divi . pii . nepos, belonging to writers on this period of Roman history;
A.D. 182 and referring to Commodus, is e.g. Sievers Studien zur Gesch. d. Pomi
an apparent exception ; but the words in schen Kaiser p. 204 sq., Schiller's Ge-
brackets are filled in from conjecture and schichte der Romischen Kaiserzeit I. p.
doubtless incorrectly. Yet even here the 631 sq., 639 (1883).
person meant is identified by the context.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 647
l.c p. 374)- Immediately the peaceful policy of his namesake and
predecessor was reversed. The interference of the Parthian king in
the affairs of Armenia brought him into collision with the Romans.
Armenia was invaded by Vologesus. This could not be overlooked by
the Roman emperor. A strong letter of remonstrance was sent by
Antoninus. But he was shrewd enough to know that stout words were
unavailing, unless backed by stout deeds. Aristides elsewhere (Op. 1. p.
108) describes him in the Homeric phrase as ' a good sovereign and a
warrior strong' (/JacriXeus r ayaBos Kparepds r aixprjrrjs). So he prepared
war, that he might preserve peace. Troops were massed in Syria, as
the inscription of Saepinum shows. Like the coronation stone of Scone
in later ages, the royal throne of Parthia played an important part in the
dispute. There is indeed a curious parallelism between the fate of the
two. Like its Scottish counterpart, the Parthian chair of state was
carried off as the spoil of victory, was demanded back as the condition
of peace, and was ultimately withheld. Trajan had captured it; and
Antoninus now refused to give it back (Capitol. Pius 9). The danger
of war was at one time so great that the Roman emperor went in
person to Syria so as to be near the scene of action. A peace however
was patched up — the peace of which Aristides dreams. But even
during the lifetime of Pius the restlessness of Vologesus caused alarm l.
We are told that in the delirious fever which ended his life the Roman
emperor talked repeatedly of the kings who had aroused his anger
(Capitol. Pius 1 2). No sooner did the news of Antoninus' death reach
the ears of Vologesus, than he broke out into overt acts of hostility.
Syria was invaded. Elegia, an Armenian fortress, the scene of more
than one previous conflict, was beleaguered and taken. The Roman
army which garrisoned it was cut in pieces and the generals slain (Dion
Cass. lxxi. 2). Hence arose the more famous Parthian war under
Marcus and Lucius, which was conducted by the latter.
The superior claims of Waddington's chronology over Masson's
will appear, when tested in several ways.
(i) The proconsulship of Quadratus then falls into its proper
place in relation to other proconsulships. Its relationship to that of
Severus has appeared already. But it satisfies this test in the case of
other proconsuls also. Fronto was consul suffectus in July a.d. 143
(Klein's Fasti Consulares p. 69); yet he was appointed to the procon
sulate of Asia during the reign of Pius who died a.d. 161 (Fronto
pp. 86, 169, ed. Naber). Lollianus Avitus was consul in a.d. 144;
1 Capitol. Marcus 8 'Fuit eo tempore paratum sub Pio, Marci et Veri tempore
etiam Parthicum bellum quod Vologesus, indixit.'

648 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
yet not only he, but his successor Claudius Maximus, were proconsuls of
Africa during the reign of the same emperor Pius (Apuleius de Magia 85,
94). These examples are given by Waddington ( V. du R. A. p. 240 sq.).
A recent discovery enables us to add also the case of Peducaeus
Priscinus. He was consul in a.d. 141 ; and he too appears as proconsul
of Asia under Pius (Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus Inscr. vi. 7, p. 52)'.
Thus we find the consuls of the years immediately preceding and
immediately following Quadratus appointed to one or other of the
two great proconsulships under Pius; and as the rule of seniority
generally prevailed, we must suppose that Quadratus held the office of
proconsul during the same reign.
(ii) It harmonizes better with the circumstances of Aristides' life, and
more especially of his illness. The sickness lasted for seventeen years.
This is clear from the dream related 1. p. 469 sq. The god appeared
to him and ' putting out his fingers and reckoning certain periods of time
(xpdvovs nvds) said Thou hast ten years from me and three from Sarapis,
and at the same time the three and ten appeared as seventeen owing to
the position of his fingers.' This, he adds, was not a dream but a true
vision (ovk 6Vap a'XX' virap). Stress is laid afterwards on the complete
fulfilment of this prediction (pp. 471, 474, 475, 477). Masson infers ,
from the passage that the sickness only lasted thirteen years in all.
But the 'seventeen' must have some meaning; and Waddington rightly
interprets it as signifying that four years of the malady had already
passed when the vision was seen, so that thirteen had still to run. Now,
if the sickness began, as Masson supposes, in a.d. 159, so that the
proconsulship of Quadratus (a.d. 165, 166) was in the sixth year, it
would still have eleven years to run, and would not be ended till a.d.
176. Even on Masson's own showing it only terminated a.d. 172.
But Aristides elsewhere (1. p. 474 sq.) speaks of the plague as breaking
out at the close of the period which the god had predicted for the
duration of his malady. Now we know that it was spread through the
East and ultimately brought to Rome by Verus' army. In a.d. 166 it
raged in the West so virulently that the Marcomannic expedition was
very nearly prevented by its ravages. Its outbreak in Smyrna therefore
must be placed during a.d. 162 — 165. But this is many years too
early according to Masson's chronology. On the other hand in
Waddington's scheme the seventeen years would have elapsed at the
1 His name was M. Peducaeus Stloga Inscr. Graec. 2966), who was consul in
Priscinus. In the note on Wood's Ephe- a.d. no and proconsul under Hadrian;
sus he is confused with an earlier M. see Waddington Pastes p. 201.
Peducseus Priscinus (mentioned Corp.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 649
end of a.d. 161, and therefore immediately before the time when the
first outbreak of the plague is possible. The notices of the plague
therefore present a second insuperable difficulty in the way of Masson's
view, not less great than the one which has been pointed out previously
(p. 642). (iii) Our third test of the two schemes is the harmony with the
traditions of Polycarp's life.
1 Now the only probable interpretation of Polycarp's words at the
time of his martyrdom (§ 9 ; see 11. p. 963) is that he was then eighty
six years of age. If therefore Masson's date of the martyrdom be
adopted, he was born about a.d. 80. But it is not possible to place the
death of S. John later than about a.d. 100. Yet Irenaeus says that he
was not only a disciple of S. John, but that he was appointed bishop of
Smyrna by Apostles (Haer. iii. 3. 4). On the other hand Waddington's
chronology would make him 31 years old in a.d. 100, so that the
tradition of his relations to S. John and the Apostles becomes credible.
Again; Irenaeus speaks of the true tradition as being handed down
by 'the successors of Polycarp to the present time' (01 pexpi vvv SiaSe-
heypivoi tcV noXoKapirov), meaning, as the context shows, his successors
in the episcopate of Smyrna. This sentence was certainly written
during the Roman episcopate of Eleutherus (i.e. between a.d.
177 — 190), for the fact is mentioned in the context; and it may have
been written somewhat early in this period. But, if we take the latest
possible date, a.d. 190, Masson's chronology only leaves an interval of
twenty four years — a period hardly sufficient to justify such an expres
sion. The additional eleven years allowed by Waddington's date are a
clear gain and render the language intelligible.
(iv) Lastly; it accords better with other chronological data in the
account of the martyrdom itself. A certain Philip of Tralles is men
tioned in connexion with the martyrdom, in the body of the document
as Asiarch (§12) and in the chronological postscript (§ 21) as High-priest.
Now it has been shown; (1) that these two titles are different desig
nations of the same office (11. p. 990 sq.); (2) that in an Olympian
inscription Philip the Trallian is styled Asiarch in the 232nd Olympiad
which began a.d. 149 (above, p. 613); (3) that in three Trallian inscrip
tions belonging to the reign of Antoninus Pius and dated the 56th
(Trallian) Olympiad he is called High-priest (above, p. 613 sq.); and
(4) that, granting the office to have been held for four years (as I have
endeavoured to prove, 11. p. 994 sq.), a probable explanation of the
dating by Trallian Olympiads can be given which would make Philip
High-priest or Asiarch in this very year, a.d. 155, which Waddington

650 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
assigns to the martyrdom. Anyhow his tenure of this office —designated
by either name — is connected in the inscriptions with the reign of
Antoninus Pius. He lived into the succeeding reign, but he is no
longer distinguished by either of these titles.
It should be added also that throughout the Smyrnaean Letter the
singular is used of the emperor. Polycarp is urged to declare 'Cassar is
Lord' (§ 8 Kopios KaiVap) ; he is bidden, and he refuses, to swear by
'the genius of Caesar' (§§ 9, 10, rrjv Kaio-apos tv^t/v). It is at least a
matter of surprise that these forms should be persistently used, if the
event had happened during a divided sovereignty.
Waddington's reconstruction of the Aristidean chronology has been
accepted in the main by Renan L 'Antkhrist p. 566, L' E\glise Chritienne
p. 452 sq. ; Lipsius Zeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 188 sq. (1874),
Jahrb.f. Protest. Theol. iv. p. 751 sq. (1878), vn.p. 574 sq. (1881), ix.
p. 525 sq. (1883); Hilgenfeld AZeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 324 sq.
(1874), xxii. p. 154 sq. (1879); Volkmar Jenaer Literaturzeitung 1874,
no. 274, p. 291 ; Gebhardt AZeitschr. f Histor. Theol. 1875, p. 377 sq.;
Zahn Patr. Apost. 11. p. .165, 1876; Funk Pair. Apost. 1. pp. lxxxiii, xciv
sq., 1878; Aub£ Histoire des Persecutions p. 319 sq., La Pol'emique
Pdienne p. 184 sq., 1878; Doulcet Rapports de I'iglise Chritienne tic.
p. 103, 1883; Marquardt Romische Staatsverwaltung 1. p. 375, 1873;
Friedlander Sittengeschichte Roms in. pp. 440, 442, 654; H. Schiller
Geschichte der Romischen Kaiserzeit 1. ii. p. 684, 1883 ; E. Egli Zeitschr.
f Wiss. Theol. xxv. p. 227 sq. (1882), xxvn. p. 216 (1884). On the
other hand Uhlhorn (Herzog Real-Encyklopddie, ed. 2, s. v. Polykarp)
and Wordsworth (Church History 1. p. 161 sq.) incline to the older
view ; while J. ReVille De Anno Dieque quibus Polycarpus Smyrnae
martyrium tulit p. 51 (Genevae 1880) states the grounds for the
different views and declines to pronounce an opinion.
This favourable reception of Waddington's essay was not undeserved.
Altogether it is a masterly piece of critical work. Objection may be
taken to particular points; but its great recommendation is that it hangs
together and satisfies so many tests. Future discoveries may refute
some of the special criticisms ; but it is not likely that they will vitally
affect the broad conclusions. But, while it appears to be perfectly
sound in its main lines, and his date of the martyrdom may be accepted
as approximately correct, yet the possibility remains that (so far as re
gards the notices in Aristides) the date of Quadratus' proconsulship ought
to be placed a year or two before or after a.d. 155. Thus for instance
the years of the proconsulates and the years of the sickness nearly bisect

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 651
each other, and careful adjustment is necessary in dealing with occur
rences near the point of bisection. Waddington has not treated this
source of divergence with precision; and, though he may have dis
cerned, he has not stated, the possibilities which are opened out by
different adjustments.
There are two points more especially in the chronology of Aristides,
at which the ultimate dates are dependent on the mode of adjustment ;
(1) The business with Julianus, which occurred near the transition
from one proconsular year to another; and (2) The business with
Severus, which occurred near the transition from one sickness year to
another. (i) Aristides was first taken ill about midwinter (Op. 1. p. 481;
comp. p. 502 sq.), so that the successive years of the sickness cor
respond roughly to our Julian Calendar years. But the proconsuls
came into office about May. If therefore an event took place at some
indeterminate time towards the middle of the sickness year, it might
fall either at the end of one proconsulate or at the beginning of another.
This consideration applies to the transactions of Aristides with the pro
consul Julianus (Op. 1. p. 532 sq.). He arrived at Pergamon in the
second year nf Aristides' illness, ' a year and some months ' after its
commencement; and probably no long interval elapsed before these
transactions1. If they happened before May, Julianus' term of office
was drawing to a close; if after May, it was just commencing. Thus,
while accepting Waddington's date for Julianus (a.d. 145, 146), and
likewise his relative chronology which places the proconsulate of Severus
in the 10th year of the sickness and makes Quadratus the immediate
successor of Severus, we have still an alternative as to the martyrdom.
If we place the business with Julianus at the commencement of his
proconsulate (say July, a.d. 145), then the second year of the illness was
a.d. 145, and the martyrdom occurred a.d. 154. If on the other hand
we place it at the close (say April a.d. 146), then the second year of
the illness was a.d. 146, and the martyrdom a.d. 155.
The question is one of historical probability; but it seems inde
terminable in itself. His business with Julianus was the obtaining
redress for the plunder of certain property which had occurred apparently
during his absence, though this is not certain. He could hardly have
1 Masson places them in the third year nounced impossible. If this position
of the malady, thus making a great part were accepted, it would be possible to
, of a year or more elapse after the arrival throw the martyrdom as far back as A.D.
of Aristides at Pergamon. This does not 153.
seem probable, but it cannot be pro-

652 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
returned before March. But the matter might have been taken in hand
at once after his return. We are told that the proconsul was holding an
assize at Pergamon (p. 532 dyopd 8' rjv SikcoV); and in this particular
business he appears to have acted with great promptness. There is
nothing therefore to prevent our placing these transactions (say) in
April. But considerations might also be urged on the other side, such
as the pressure of business which would render it impossible for the
proconsul to attend to such matters when he was giving up office, and
the like. The point therefore cannot be settled on its own merits. In
order to decide we have to call an extraneous consideration to our aid.
The 23rd of February was a Saturday in a.d. 155, but not in a.d. 154.
This fact decides in favour of a.d. 155.
(ii) The second incident, where different adjustments are possible,
occurs at a later point in the chronology. Aristides speaks of certain
transactions with Severus then proconsul, as taking place in the 10th
year of his illness (1. pp. 502, 505). It was then midwinter (xupw V
i]v oXiyov perd rpoirds). His illness, as we have seen (p. 642), likewise
commenced about midwinter. Did these transactions with Severus fall
at the beginning or at the close of his tenth year? If we accept the
former view with Waddington, then we get a.d. 155 or a.d. 154 as the
alternative dates of the martyrdom, according as we have adopted the
later or the earlier date in the previous case (the transaction with
Julianus). If the latter view be adopted with Lipsius, then the alternative
dates of the martyrdom are pushed a year forward, a.d. 156 or
a.d. 155.
Unlike the former, this question is one not of historical probability
but of grammatical interpretation. Aristides says (p. 502) that when the
tenth year of his sickness ' was come round ' (eVei Sera'™ rrepirjuovTi), he
had a certain apparition. A person appeared to him, telling him that
he himself, when sick with the same sickness, as the tenth year came
round (rrjv avrrjv vocrov vocnjo-as rrepilovri tco SeKaVco eVei), had been ordered
by ^Esculapius to go to the place where his sickness began (rjpiaro
o-vXXeyeo-8ai), and that doing so he was cured. This occurred in winter
soon after the solstice (oXiyov perd rpoirds). Taking this as a divine
counsel, Aristides went accordingly to the ^Esepus, where he had had
the first symptoms of his illness. He then relates how his sickness had
begun, and how at its commencement he had gone to Italy. These
events, he adds, had taken place the tenth year before (ravra... irpoeye-
yovei irporepov eVei SeKaYco). Later on, he informs us that this second
visit to the ^Esepus was made when Severus was governor of Asia
(P- S°S)-

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM.

653

This language must, I think, describe the beginning, not the end,
of the tenth year. For though irepiiovTi might designate any time
during the course of the year1, on the other hand irepirjKovn denotes the
arrival of the year in due round, and therefore points to its commence
ment3. Moreover Aristides afterwards uses the expression rrpdrepov
Socarcp erei, ' previously in the tenth year ', but this is not suitable lan
guage if he had meant that ten whole years had elapsed.
By combining these two alternatives of adjustment in different
ways, we get four possible arrangements of the chronology as exhibited
in the following table. A is the solution of Waddington ; C that of
Lipsius, and of Hilgenfeld, who thus place the martyrdom a year later

Events

A

B

C

D

Aristides' illness commences)
at midwinter j

H4. 145

143. 144

I44> 145

'43. 144

1st year of illness

'45

144

145

144

Julianus becomes proconsul

145 May

145 May

145 May

145 May

Business with Julianus

146 (April)

145 (Juty)

146 (April)

145 (July)

Severus becomes proconsul

153 May

r52 May

154 May

153 May

10th year of illness

154

153

154

153

Business with Severus

154 (Jan- Feb-)

153 (Jan. Feb.)

154 (Dec.)

153 (Dec.)

Quadratus becomes pro- )
consul \

154 May

153 May

155 May

154 May '

Martyrdom

155 Feb.

154 Feb.

156 Feb.

155 Feb.

1 Comp. p. 537 irepiibvri Si rip (ret Kal
p.T)vl pAXurra, p. 544 iripnrrip p.iv (rei ire-
piivri [1. Tepi'Cbvri] p.rivl rip avrip xal ijpA--
pais paXurra rats abrois.
2 Gebhardt (p. 388) argues that, as
irepiijKOvTi is evidently a synonyme for
irepuwrt, it can only signify circumacto.
Wieseler (Christenverfolg. p. 98) rightly
objects to this. The word irepiiovri
might have more than one meaning, but
it could not possibly have the past sense
circumacto, so as to signify that the revo
lution was completed. In Thucyd. i. 30
KoplvBioi irepiiovri rip Bipei jripupavres
vats k.t.X. the Scholiast explains it tvi-

o-rapA-vip, ' v/hen the summer came round '
(see Arnold's note) — a sense which it
certainly could bear and which is not im
probably correct in that passage. Com
pare also Xen. Hell. iii. t. 25, Aristot.
Hist. An. vi. 14 (p. 568), in which pas
sages, as in most others where this
participle occurs, there is a false v. 1.
irepibvn, irepibvros.
As regards the other word, the simple
verb r)Kw denotes ' I am come ', ' I ar
rive ', so that irepii)Keiv is ' to arrive in
the circuit of the seasons'; and if so,
it can hardly by any possibility denote
the completion of the year.

654 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
than Waddington. Gebhardt (p. 379 sq.) follows the principles of D ;
but he gets wrong in his calculations1, and coincides with Lipsius and
Hilgenfeld in dating the martyrdom a.d. 156. I do not know that B
has been advocated by any one.
The motive of Lipsius in preferring the later date is as follows.
In his Chronologie der Romischen Bischofe (Kiel 1869) he fixes the year
of the death of Pius, and therefore of the accession of Anicetus, in the
Roman episcopate, as a.d. 154 at the earliest, and a.d. 156 at the latest
(see p. 263). But it is recorded on the best authority (Iren. iii. 3. 4)
that Polycarp paid a visit to Rome when Anicetus was bishop. If the
martyrdom took place in February 155, this would still be possible; but
(if Lipsius' papal chronology be accepted) it demands the earliest
possible date for Anicetus and even then it allows very little time. The
gain of a year therefore is important.
Hilgenfeld is influenced by a different motive to adopt the same
date, a.d. 156. He regards the Letter of the Smyrnceans as a Quarto-
deciman document; and as part of this theory he supposes the 'great
sabbath' (§§ 8, 21) to be the 15th Nisan (AZeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. xvn.
p. 330 sq.). Before Waddington's investigations appeared, while still
adhering to Masson's date a.d. 166, he had maintained this view (Pas-
chastreit 241 sq., i860; Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. iv. p. 288 sq., 1861).
But, by making certain assumptions with respect to the calendar used
by the writers of the Smyrnaean Letter, he finds himself still able to
make the 2nd of Xanthicus, the day of Polycarp's martyrdom, cor
respond with the 15th Nisan, the supposed day of the Crucifixion, even
after adopting Waddington's general results. This correspondence of
the days however will only suit a.d. 156, and not a.d. 155.
It has been shown that the language of Aristides is unfavourable
to the substitution of this later date (a.d. 156). And, when we turn
from the orations of Aristides to the notices of Polycarp, the evidence
is still more strong against this substitution. The martyrdom is stated
to have taken place on the 2nd of Xanthicus and on a ' great sabbath.'
Now the 2nd of Xanthicus (February 23) fell on a Saturday in 155, but
not in 156. Hilgenfeld, as I have already mentioned, disposes of this
difficulty in his own way.
Lipsius cuts the knot without attempting to untie it. He condemns
the mention of the 'great sabbath' outright as a spurious and legendary
addition. It is difficult to see on what grounds he can do this, while
accepting the proconsulship of Quadratus as a historical fact. The
latter is mentioned in the chronological postscript to the Martyrdom
1 See the criticisms of Lipsius yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1878, p. 763 sq.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 655
alone. The notice of the great sabbath has a far higher title to respect;
for it occurs not only in this postscript (§ 21), but in the body of the
document itself (§ 8). It is indeed the best authenticated of any of
the chronological data relating to the martyrdom.
I mentioned incidentally at an earlier point (p. 641) one possibility
which has escaped Waddington. It is necessary to revert to this now.
It was pointed out that the marriage of M. Aurelius and Faustina in all
probability took place a year earlier than Waddington places it. This
allows the alternative of a.d. 144, 145, or a.d. 145, 146, for the consul
ship of Julianus, whereas Waddington contemplates only the latter.
But, if the former were adopted, then the proconsulship of Quadratus
would be removed a year back correspondingly, and the martyrdom
would fall in a.d. 154. The reason for rejecting this solution is the fact
already mentioned, that the 2nd of Xanthicus did not fall on a Saturday
in that year.
We have seen that the great majority of subsequent critics have
accepted Waddington's revision of the Aristidean chronology with or
without modifications which have no great importance. Amidst this
general chorus of approbation however, two dissentient voices have been
raised loudly. It has been strenously attacked from directly opposite
quarters, by the ultra-conservative critic Wieseler (Christenverfolgungen
etc. p. 34 sq., 1878), and by the ultra-radical critic Keim (Aus dem
Urchristenthum p. 34 sq., 1878).
Wieseler has subjected Waddington's results to a thorough exami
nation; but his failure only serves to establish Waddington's main
position more firmly. He himself accepts a.d. 166 as the date of the
martyrdom, believing that he can claim the authority of Eusebius for
this year, while in the Aristidean chronology he is found for the most
part agreeing with Masson. His processes have been criticized by
Lipsius in yahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1878, p. 751 sq.; and Wieseler has
made a reply to Lipsius in Studien u. Kritiken 1880, p. 141 sq. The
thorough sifting which the question has thus undergone is a guarantee
of the results.
Wieseler is obliged to confess that Waddington rightly dates the
proconsulship of a Julianus in a.d. 145, 146; but he supposes that
there was a second Julianus proconsul some years later (p. 65). He
cannot deny that there was one Heliodorus prefect of Egypt about
a.d. 140, but he supposes that Aristides refers to another bearing the
same name and office some years later (p. 66). Pie is willing to allow
that Statius Quadratus was proconsul, as Waddington insists, some

656 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
years before a.d. 166, but he supposes that another Quadratus held the
proconsulate in that year (p. 69) '. He is prepared to admit that the
Severus, of whom we read elsewhere, was proconsul about the time
which Waddington assigns to him; but he postulates another Severus
likewise proconsul some years later (p. 72). Of this second Julianus,
this second Quadratus, this second Severus — all proconsuls of Asia like
their namesakes — or of this second Heliodorus — prefect of Egypt like
the first — there is no record in history or in the monuments hitherto
discovered. A theory which requires all these duplicates stands self-
condemned. Moreover the old historical difficulties which beset Masson's
chronology remain unsolved. Thus the date of the plague still stands
in the way. Aristides says that the plague came at the close of his
malady; but the chronology of Masson and of Wieseler places it many
years before the close (see above, p. 648). Wieseler, so far as I have
observed, does not address himself to this subject at all2. Yet it is a
fatal flaw in his reckoning. Again the difficulty in reference to the
letter ' from the emperor himself and his son ' (tou Te avroKpdropos avrov
ko.1 tov iraiSos) is shifted but not removed by Wieseler's modification of
Masson's views. Whereas Masson (p. cxix), and after him Clinton,
place the proconsulate of Severus, during which the letter arrives,-
a.d. 168, 169, and refer the expression to M. Aurelius and Commodus,
though L. Verus was still living, Wieseler places it a.d. 167, 168, and
refers it to M. Aurelius and L. Verus. He has thus obviated the objec
tions founded on the omission of Verus' name and on the tender years
of Commodus. But he has introduced new difficulties as great or even
greater. Why should Aristides say ' the emperor himself and his son,'
when M. Aurelius and L. Verus were joint-emperors? Why 'his son'
and not ' his brother ', when they were known as the ' fratres Augusti ' ?
It is quite incredible that an independent author like Aristides, writing
long after the events, and referring to a time when they had been
associated in the empire for several years, should have used this lan-
1 Somewhat perversely he urges that, but to the presence of the name ' Statius '
because some mss and authorities read in the original text.
A^rpdrios and Tdnos for aZt&tios, the ' Ina later investigation however (p.
word ought to be left out altogether, as 103), relating to a wholly different matter,
in the Moscow Ms, holding that the Quad- he refers to the passage of Aristides (Op.
ratus of Polycarp's martyrdom was not a I. p. 504), as evidence that a six months'
Statius (p. 69). Keim also (p. 148) ar- plague desolated Asia Minor about A.D.
gues in the same way. Yet it ought to 170, 171. Thus he is ready to produce a
be evident that all these corrupt readings duplicate plague, just as he produced du-
are so many witnesses not to the absence plicate proconsuls and a duplicate prefect.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 657
guage, which is without a parallel either in extant literature or in the
inscriptions. In the correspondence of the two with their friend and
tutor Fronto this brotherly relation is recognized some thirty times.
Fronto, writing to the one of the other, speaks of 'frater tuus,' and
they in like manner designate each other ' frater meus ' (Fronto Epist.
PP-85, 87, 94, 95, 101, 104, in, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 133, 137,
138, 202, ed. Naber). Moreover Fronto several times mentions Antoninus
Pius as 'pater vester' and Hadrian as 'avos vester.' In like manner
Julian (Caesares 312) speaks of t^s twv dSeXcpcoV £wcopi'3os, Brjpov Kal
Aovkiov. So too the Augustan historians habitually designate them
'brothers' (Spartian. Hadr. 24, ALL Ver. 5, 7, Capitolin. Pius 4,
Marcus 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, Verus 3, 4, 7, 8, ir, Lamprid. Commodus
1). So likewise Aurelius Victor (Caes. 16). So also Galen (Op. xiv.
p. 650). The same is also the language of the inscriptions, where they
are designated ' fratres imperatores ' (C. I. L. in. 781) and ' divi fratres '
(C. I. L. v. 6971). And again they are coupled together as 'the
affectionate brothers' <piXaSeX<poi (Corp. Inscr. Att. in. 532, 533). In
the same way in the statute book their legislation is commonly quoted
under the name of the ' divi fratres.' But we have even more direct
testimony than this. Aristides himself elsewhere distinctly calls them
brothers (Op. 1. p. 394 Bavpacrrov pev rov prjhev Seopevov j3acnXeveiv ei
prj 80K0117 tc3 d8cX<pcp, Bavpacrrov Se too prj Sexopevov j3acriXeveiv el pr) crvv
tc3 dSeXcpco) \ Moreover Wieseler himself is obliged to commit the
1 Against all this mass of evidence as ' adoptatio in filium '. Again in
Wieseler can only refer to Capitolin. Vulcat. Gallic. Avid. Cass. 1 Lucius
Marcus 5 ' Antoninum Pium Hadrianus writes to Marcus ' sub avo meo patre tuo
ea lege in adoptionem legit, ut sibi Mar- innotuit'. Wieseler supposes the historian
cum Pius adoptaret ; ita tamen ut et to be referring to Antoninus Pius. Yet
Marcus sibi Lucium Commodum adop- Marcus in reply says ' Scis enim ipse quid
taret ', but this same writer says two avos tuus Hadrianus dixerit ', and Lipsius
chapters later § 7 'Post excessum Divi is probably correct in supposing that
Pii, a senatu coactus regimen publicum Hadrian is intended by Lucius also. The
expert, fratrem sibi participem in imperio utmost that can be made of such passages
designavit...Caesaremque atque Augus- is that Lucius privately regarded himself
turn dixit ... Antonini mox ipse nomen as standing in a quasi filial relation to
recepit, et quasi pater Lucii Commodi Marcus. But the language of contem-
esset, et Verum eum appellavit addito porary and succeeding generations alike
Antonini nomine filiamque suam Lu- is unanimous in designating them ' bro-
cillam/ntfre'despondit.' Again Spartum. thers.' See on this subject Lipsius yahrb.
All. Ver. 5 'Antoninus Verus, qui adop- /• Protest. Theol. 1878, p. 756 sq. Lucius
tatusesta Marco vel certe cum Marco, was forty years old at the time when Aris-
et cum eodem aequale gessit imperium '. tides is supposed so to designate him,
It must be remembered that there is such being only seven or eight years younger
a thing as ' adoptatio in fratrem ', as well than Marcus.
IG. I. 42

658 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
same critical offence which he charges against his opponent, and to
postulate an imperial visit to the East of which history records nothing.
The avTOKpaToip of Aristides Op. 1. pp. 451, 453, who is represented as
being in Syria at the time, could be none other according to his view
than M. Aurelius himself. He is forced therefore to send M. Aurelius
to the East about a.d. 166 to conclude the negotiations with Vologesus
(p. 70 sq.), though the silence of history in this case would indeed be
strange, where it has preserved at least an outline of the Parthian
war under M. Aurelius and of the expeditions of this emperor.
Wieseler's own reconstructions deserve a passing notice. He sup
poses the eraipos mentioned by Aristides (Op. 1. p. 523) as the successor
of Severus in the proconsulate to be his friend and fellow-citizen
Rufinus, whose name occurs elsewhere in this discourse (pp. 510, 514,
532 sq.). But Rufinus is not mentioned in any close connexion with
the passage relating to the successor of Severus, whereas the account of
his intercourse with Quadratus has immediately preceded it. Moreover
at least two other persons are called specially his eraipoi in this very
speech — Pyrallianus (p. 519) and Pardalus (p. 527); while of several
persons collectively he says (p. 509) that ' from that day forward they
all became his eraipoi.' There is therefore no reason why Rufinus
should be singled out here. There was however a person of the name
M. Junius Rufinus Sabinianus proconsul of Asia in a.d. 170 (see
Waddington Pastes Asiatiques p. 233), and Wieseler identifies him with
Aristides' friend. Moreover the senior colleague of this Rufinus in the
consulship (a.d. 155) was C. Julius Severus. Wieseler supposes (pp.
72, 98) this to be the Severus of Aristides, who might well by virtue of
his seniority have obtained the proconsulate of Asia the year before.
This combination is specious in itself and might have deserved consi
deration, if it had not formed part of a general chronological scheme
which is burdened with difficulties. In favour of Waddington's identifi
cation of the proconsul Severus as against Wieseler's, it should be
urged that the description of the former exactly accords with the account
of Aristides (1. p. 505), who describes him as ' one of the notables
of Upper Phrygia' (pdXa twv yvwpipiav Se/Jr/pos tcov dird T^s dvo>6ev
cppvyias). He is designated (C. I. G. 4033) 'a descendant of kings
and tetrarchs ' (fiacriXeiov Kal Terpapx^v).
Wieseler's was at least a serious attempt to deal with the chrono
logical data of the period. Keim's attack cannot claim this praise.
He steers clear of the chronology of Aristides altogether. Accepting
a.d. 166 as the date of the martyrdom on the authority, as he sup
poses, of Eusebius (p. 101), he suggests (p. 147 sq.) that the author

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 659
of the chronological appendix to the martyrdom may have confused
L. Statius Quadratus the consul of a.d. 142 with T. Numidius
[M. Ummidius] Quadratus the consul of a.d. 167, and because the
latter was consul in Rome the year after the martyrdom may have
represented the former as proconsul of Asia the year of the martyr
dom. The rest of his criticism is such as this beginning would lead
us to expect. It is a shadowy attempt to show that the surrounding
circumstances point to the later rather than the earlier date for
Polycarp's death '. Thus for instance, because Irenaeus (iii. 4. 3) says
of Marcion 'invaluit sub Aniceto', he argues that in the first year of
Anicetus Marcion cannot have been sufficiently important to be de
nounced by Polycarp as ' the first-born of Satan.' He considers it
highly improbable that the prelude to the Quartodeciman controversy,
as implied in the interview between Polycarp and Anicetus, can have
taken place as early as a.d. 154 or 155 (though he is quite satisfied to
accept a.d. 157 or 158), because the Quartodeciman controversy itself
did not break out in Laodicea till a.d. 167 (p. 154 sq.). He
assumes that Polycarp went to Rome for the express purpose of
settling the Paschal dispute, though Irenseus does not say so (see
above, p. 539). As the usages of Rome and Smyrna had been
divergent for a whole generation or more (see above, p. 433 sq.), the
divergence could hardly fail to come under discussion, when Polycarp
and Anicetus met face to face, especially if Eastertide were the time
of their meeting. He assumes that Quintus the Phrygian (Mart.
Polyc. 4) was a Montanist ; and having made this assumption he argues
in favour of the later year for the martyrdom, because at the earlier
date Montanism had not yet come to the fore (p. 155 sq.). He even
uses the astonishing argument (p. 156 sq.) that, judging from the sequence
of names— Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius— in Polycrates (Euseb.
H. E. v. 24; see above, p. 540), this writer intended only to enumerate
persons between a.d. 160 — 180, and that therefore we are not permitted
1 Keim (p. 149) considers that the out- statement. In that passage four at least
ward circumstances of the Roman em- of the six calamities enumerated by Ter-
pire better explain the persecution in tullian are mentioned as having occurred
A.D. 166 than at the earlier date, and in the reign of Antoninus Pius, besides
quotes Tertull. Apol. 40 ' Si Tiberis as- many others. The ' lues ' indeed might
cendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in be explained by the pestilence which
arva, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si raged in Asia Minor under M. Aurelius
fames, si lues, statim Christianos ad from A.D. 162-166; but in this case why
leonem adclamatur.' But anyone who should four years have been suffered to
will refer to the passage of Spartianus elapse before victims were demanded to
quoted above (p. 445) must demur to this appease the angry gods ?
42 — 2

660 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
to place the martyrdom of Polycarp as far back as a.d. 150—160.
As Polycrates mentions S. John immediately before he mentions
Polycarp, it might be argued with equal reason that the death of the
latter cannot have happened many years after the death of the
Apostle. All this is mere beating of the air. Waddington's argu
ments may fall short of absolute demonstration; and there remains
the bare possibility that the discovery of some unknown document
may falsify his conclusions. But assuredly they have not been shaken
by the arguments hitherto brought against them.
1. THE DAY OF THE MARTYRDOM.
The day of the martyrdom is very precisely given in the chrono
logical postscript to the Letter of the Smyrnceans (see n. p. 983 ; comp;
above, 1. p. 611 sq.), as follows;
' The blessed Polycarp is martyred on the second of the beginning
of the month Xanthicus, the seventh before the Kalends of March, on a
great sabbath, at the eighth hour' (paprvpei 8e d paKapios ILoXvKapires
prjvos 'aavBiKov Sevrepa larapevov, irpo eiTTa KaXayScoV MapTiW, cray8j8aTo»
peydXw, copa. dySorj). The mss bp indeed have Mauov, but b indicates
elsewhere that the day intended is vii Kal. Mart, (see n. p. 940). In v
the passage is wanting, but the date is introduced into the text of the
epistle at an earlier point (§ 16) tjj eiKaSi Tpirrj too cpevpovapiov prjvos (see
11. p. 976). The recently discovered Moscow ms m, which is else*-
where our best authority (see n. p. 939), preserves the correct reading
MapTicov. This reading had been conjecturally restored by Valesius
(on Euseb. H. E. iv. 15), by Noris (de Anno et Epoch's Syromaced.
p. 29, Lips. 1696), by Ideler (Handb. d. Chron. 1. p. 419), by Waddington
( Vie du Rhit. Arist. p. 236), and by several others, before there was
known to be direct authority for it in our text. This restoration was
made chiefly on the ground that the universal tradition of the Greek
Church places the festival of Polycarp's martyrdom on Feb. 23. The
discovery of m has placed, or ought to have placed, this reading beyond
the reach of doubt. The corruption MaiW however was earlier than
the Latin translation, which for prjvos 3av0iKoo\ . .cra/J/Jarcp peydXio substi
tutes, ' mense Aprilio, vii Kal. Maii, majore sabbato.' On the other
hand the Chronicon Paschale p. 480 (see above, p. 553) gives the date
of the martyrdom ' the 7th before the Kalends of April, on the great
sabbath ' (1-17 rrpd % KaXavScoV \ArrpiXiW, Tip peydXia cra/?/?arcp), omitting
all mention of the month Xanthicus. The reasons for this substitution
of April for March will be considered hereafter.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 66 1
Building upon these data, different modern writers have supported
four several days for the martyrdom of Polycarp, February 23, April 6,
March 23, and March 26, while in the Latin Calendar the festival has
for centuries past been kept on Jan. 26.
(i) February 23.
This day, the traditional festival of Polycarp, is adopted by the vast
majority of critics and historians.
In the Medicean Library in the ms Plut. xxviii. Cod. xxvi (see
Bandini Catal. Cod. Graec. Bibl. Laur. 11. p. 46 sq.) after the Com
mentary of Theon on the Tables of Ptolemaeus, amidst other astrono
mical and chronological matter, is a Hemerology of the Months of Different
Cities (UpepoXoyiov prjvmv Siacpopow 7roXecov), which contains thirteen
other calendars compared with the Roman. It was first discovered
by Masson about a.d. 17 15, but not then published by him. Among
these thirteen calendars is one called ' of the Asiatics ' ('Ao-iavioV) and
another 'of the Ephesians.' Subsequently a Leyden ms (Graec. n. 78)
was discovered with substantially the same contents, but instead of the
Cretan,- Cyprian, and Ephesian calendars, it substitutes those of Gaza,
Ascalon, and the Pierian Seleucia. All the seventeen are included in
an article of Sainte Croix in Mim. de TAcad. des Inscr. xlvii. p. 66 sq.
(1809). Their contents will be found in Ideler (1. p. 410 sq.).
¦ The ' Asiatic ' and ' Ephesian ' calendars agree in the limits and
lengths of the months, with one slight exception1, and differ only in
the names. They are not however correctly described by Ideler or by
writers generally before or after him. Their true character was first
pointed out by Usener (Bullet. delF Inslit. di Corrisp. Archeol. 1874,
p. 73 sq.). They are a strict reproduction of the Julian calendar, even
to the retention of a month of 28 days (Dystrus) corresponding to
February, but with these exceptions. (1) The Epheso-Asiatic months
commence eight days before the corresponding Julian months. Thus
Dius, corresponding to October, commences Sept. 23; Xanthicus, cor
responding to March, commences February 2 1 ; and so with the others.
(2) The year commences, not in midwinter, but about the time of the
autumnal equinox. (3) The months bear different names. In the
'Ephesian' calendar the Macedonian names are retained throughout;
1 There is a divergence of one day in Ephesian calendar otherwise corresponds
the commencement of the last month in exactly with the Julian in the number of
the 'Asiatic' calendar. This would days in each successive month. I have
seem to be an error on the part of the not recorded this divergence in the table
transcriber (see Usener, p. 75 sq.), as the given in the text.

662

EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

whereas the 'Asiatic' nomenclature seems to be founded on an old
Ionian calendar (e.g. Apaturius, Poseidaon, Lenaeus, etc.), but several of
the months have been renamed after persons or events (e.g. Tiberius,
Stratonicus, etc.).
The following table exhibits the Ephesian and Asiatic calendars.

Ephesian

Asiatic

Beginning

Days

Dius

Caesarius <

Sept. 23

31

Apellaeus

Tiberius

Oct. 24

3°

Audynaeus

Apaturius

Nov. 23

31

Peritius

Poseidaon

Dec. 24

31

Dystrus

Lenaeus

Jan. 24

28

Xanthicus

Hierosebastus

Feb. 21

31

Artemisius

Artemisius

March 24

3°

Daesius

Euangelius

April 23

31

Panemus

Stratonicus

May 24

3°

Lous

Hecatombasus

June 23

3i

Gorpiaeus

Anteus

July 24

3i

Hyperberetaeus

Laodicius

Aug. 24

3°

These two calendars have two peculiarities which distinguish them
from the rest. First ; it seems to have been a superstition in these
parts, that the last day of the month should be rpiaKas, ' the thirtieth.'
In order to effect this, those months which consisted of thirty-one days
were considered to have two first days, and accordingly in these
months alone the days are numbered A A B r A, etc. Secondly ; the
last decade of the month is reckoned backwards (as in the Athenian
lunar months) thus, IEK (i.e. SeKarrj i£i6vros), ©K (i.e. the 9th day in
the twenties), HK, ZK, S~K, EK, AK, TK, IIPO[TE] (i.e. irporepa, the day
before the 30th)1, A. But here again some religious scruple required
that the twenty-first day should always be 'the 10th of the waning
month', or ' the later 10th,' as Aristides calls it2. Hence in the month
Dystrus, which has only 28 days, some numbers are skipped, and the
21st, 22nd, 23rd, etc. are designated IEH, ZK, S"K, etc., so that the
month again ends as before IIPO, A.

1 It is apparently not IIPOTC (i.e.
irporpiaKas), as Ideler supposes (I. p. 415).
Though C is written in some places, it is
a corruption for 6 , if Usener be correct.
He compares Joseph. Aut. xiv. 10. 25
pnjvbs 'Aprep.ialov r% irporipa.

2 Op. I. p. 448 SeKdrr) varipa. The
Etymol. Magn. defines the expression
thus; varipa SeKarn i) e| eUdSos rjpipa
KaXeirai virb tuv' Attikuv rjv ripeis vpirriV
Kal e'iKoo-rr)v KaXovpiev. Comp. Corp.
Inscr. All. 11. 270, 297, etc.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM.

663

The following table therefore exhibits this portion of the Ephesian
calendar compared with the Roman.

ixKl.Feb.

ATCTPOC A

xvKl.Mar.

ATCTPOC TK

vii Id.Mar.

SAN6IK0C Ir

viii Kal.

B

xiv Kal.

EK

vild.

IZ

vii Kal.

r

xiii Kal.

AK

vid.

IH

viKal.

A

xii Kal.

VK

ivld.

ie

vKal.

E

xi Kal.

npo

iii Id.

K

iv Kal.

r

x Kal.

A

Prid. Id.

IEg

iii Kal.

z

ix Kal.

HAN0IKOC A

Idus

GK

Prid. Kal.

H

viii Kal.

A

xviiKl.Ap.

HK

Kalendae

e

vii Kal.

B

xvi Kal.

ZK

iv Non.

1

vi Kal.

r

xv Kal.

TK

iii Non.

IA

v Kal.

A

xiv Kal.

EK

Prid. Non.

IB

iv Kal.

E

xiii Kal.

AK

Nonae

ir

iii Kal.

r

xii Kal.

TK

viii Id.

IA

Prid. Kal.

Z

xi Kal.

nPOTE

vii Id.

IE

Kalendae

H

xKal.

A

vild.

is-

vi Non.

e

ix Kal.

APTEMICIOC A

vid.

IZ

v Non.

1

viii Kal.

B

ivld.

IH

iv Non.

IA

vii Kal.

r

iii Id.

ie

iii Non.

IB

vi Kal.

A

Prid. Id.

K

Prid. Non.

ir

v Kal.

E

Idus

IBS

Nonae

IA

iv Kal.

s-

xviKl.Mar.

ZK

viii Id.

IE

iii Kal.

Z

Thus it will be seen that the 2nd Xanthicus corresponded with vii
Kal. Mart, or Feb. 23, not (as commonly represented) because Xanthicus
began on Feb. 22, but because it began on Feb. 21 and being a month
of thirty-one days had two firsts, so that its real third was nominally
its second. This trick of repeating the same day in order to preserve
the same total has an analogy in the treatment of February in leap year
in the Julian calendar. It was a point of religion with the Romans
not to exceed the twenty-eight days in February, and therefore one
particular day, vi Kal. Mart. (= Feb. 24), was repeated (bissextum).
I shall have to return to the phenomena of these Ephesian and Asiatic
calendars again at a later point.
*. It is doubtless this same Epheso- Asiatic calendar, which is contem
plated in the inscription at Stratonicea in Caria (Lebas and Waddington
no. 514; comp. C. I. G. 2722), giving a memoria technica for the numbers
of days in the successive months in exact accordance with these ; and it
is worthy of notice, though this may possibly be an accident, that one
of the months in the 'Asiatic' calendar bears the name Stratonicus.
We meet also with the same adaptation of the Julian calendar in
Bithynia (Ideler 1. p. 421), in Crete (ib. p. 426), and in Cyprus (ib.
p. 427)- This calendar also agrees with the statement of Galen, himself a

664 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Pergamene, who spent some time at Smyrna and was about 25 years
old at the time of Polycarp's martyrdom. As I shall have occasion
to revert to this statement more than once, I shall save time by giving
it fully now.
Galen (Comm. in Hippocr. Epidem. i, Op. xvn. p. 19 sq., ed.
Kuhn) is explaining why Hippocrates dates by the equinoxes, the
motions of the stars, etc., rather than by the months. The motions
of the celestial bodies, he says, are the same for all men, whereas each
nation has its own months. Thus, if Hippocrates had mentioned
Dius, it would have been intelligible to the Macedonians, but not to
the Athenians. The reader however has only to remember that the
year is cut up into four parts by the equinoxes and the solstices, and
to know that the autumnal equinox coincides with the beginning of
Dius, the winter solstice with the beginning of Peritius1, the vernal
equinox with the beginning of Artemisius, the summer solstice with the
beginning of Lous. He will then understand the computations of
Hippocrates. ' But,' he continues, ' it is plainly necessary that the
months should be reckoned not according to the moon, as in most of
the Greek cities at the present time, but according to the sun, as in
all the Asiatic cities and in many of the nations, and so the year is
reckoned by the Romans, the whole of it being divided into twelve
months2'; after which he gives the number of days in each month
according to the Roman calendar. Then, after speaking of the lunar
calendar in Palestine and of the intercalary months, he continues;
' Wherefore, as I said, with these persons, since they so reckon the
months, it is impossible to define the days on which the equinoxes
and solstices and the risings of the conspicuous stars occur; but in
the computation of those who observe the sun such definition is pos
sible, as well by the Romans and Macedonians, as by my own country
men the Asiatics, and by many other nations (KaTa 8e tovs rjXiov dyovras
1 For iriparos, which stands in the doubtless correct, has been very generally
present text, we should doubtless read adopted. Wieseler however would sup-
UepiHov with Ussher and others. ply a word, rav dpxalwv [Alyvirrtw],
2 XPV st SrjXovori robs p.rjvas ov irpos Christenverfolgungen p. 84; but else-
o-eXrjvijv api8p,eia8ai, KaBdirep iv rats irXei- where (pp. 52, 92) he tacitly adopts 'Affia-
crrais vvv twv 'EXXr/vtSav irbXeoiv, dXXa vusv. From KaBdirep onward there is ap-
irpos t/Xiov Kal iv airdaais re rwvi dpxalwvr parently some confusion in the sentence,
ical iv iroXXoU twv iBvuv dpiBp,elrai Kal and I have been obliged to translate ac-
irapb. "Pwp.alwv 6 ovjiiras iviavros els i§' cording to what seems the obvious sense,
Siaipov/xevos- ivbs p.iv abrwv k.t.X. Here without following the precise construc-
for twv dpxaiav Ussher substitutes twj> tion of the Greek. I shall have to return
'Ao-iavwv. This emendation, which is to this subject again (p. 673),

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 665
¦vpumi SvWov, loWeo ecprjv, viro 'Poipaiwv Kai MaKeSoVcop 'AcriavSv re twv
iJueTepcov Kai 7roXXtov aXXcov e6Vcov)\
It will be observed that Galen leaves no room for exceptions, when
he classes 'all the Asiatic cities' among those who use the solar
calendar. We have no right indeed to assume that they all called the
months by the same name, nor even that their months commenced
with the same day (unless this should appear on other grounds). But
it seems tolerably evident that they had altogether discarded the lunar
calendar. The term 'Asiatics' however must at all events comprise
Proconsular Asia, whether we allow it a wider range or not. Ephesus
and Smyrna therefore would be included, not less than his native
Pergamon. This interpretation agrees with the records on the monuments.
The following are the only inscriptions of Proconsular Asia and the
neighbouring provinces, so far as I have observed, which give side by
side the Roman and the native dating.
(i) The first is at Nysa1 in the valley of the Maeander (Boeckh
C. I. G. 2943). The day of the month is given prjvds Topiriaiov iv-
veaKaiheKaTrj, irpd pias [e]iScoV Ao[y]oucrTCo[i']. It will be observed that
in the Ephesian calendar, as given above (p. 662), Gorpiasus 19 would
correspond exactly with Prid. Id. Aug. [= August 1 2]. The year is
fixed by the names of the consuls, Cossus Cornelius Lentulus and
L Piso, to a. u. c. 753 or b. c. i2.
(ii) The second is an Ephesian inscription published in Wood's
Ephesus Inscr. vi. p. 36, dated in the consulship of Sextus Attius
Suburanus and M. Asinius Marcellus, i.e. a. d. 104 (see below, 11.
P 493)- The month and day are given irpd rj KaXavSwv MapTiW...
prjvos 'AvBecmjpiuivos f? cre^ao-rfj3. As we have seen already, it was a
principle of these calendars of Proconsular Asia, that each month
1 This inscription certainly belongs to letter of the proconsul Gn. Lentulus Au-
Nysa, though Waddington and Perrot gur, that it was no part of the procon-
have referred it to Mastaura ; see Ramsay sul's letter, but was prefixed by the Ny-
in Bull, de Corresp. Hellen. vii. p. 270 sseans. He does not suggest that it was
(1883). a later insertion in the inscription itself,
2 Wieseler (p. 85 sq.) has entirely mis- as Wieseler seems to think, but implies
understood Boeckh's remark when he just the contrary. Of the date with which
supposes that there is any ground for sus- we are concerned, pvnvoss Topiriaiov k.t.X.,
pecting the Macedonian date privbs Top- he says nothing, and obviously regards it
malov as a later addition. Boeckh says as coeval with the inscription containing
of a Macedonian date puivos Aaialov itf, it.
which occurs at a later point in the same 3 For the meaning of SepWri} see be-
inscription and stands at the head of the low, p. 694.

666 EPISTLE OF S: POLYCARP.
should begin on ix Kal. Thus viii Kal. would correspond to the
2nd day of the month, as here represented1. Moreover it will appear
presently from a comparison of calendars, that Anthesterion was the
same month as Xanthicus. So far therefore there is perfect harmony.
But the reckoning here does not follow the system of the Ephesian
and Asiatic calendars in the Hemerologium, by which two first days are
assigned to all months containing 31 days (see p. 662), since in this
case viii Kal. Mart, would not be the 2nd, but the (nominal) ist of
Anthesterion. (iii) The third of these inscriptions is at Smyrna itself. It is
given by Lebas and Waddington in. no. 25, p. 15. It contains the
name Aurelia Felicissima, and is ascribed by Waddington to the age of
the Antonines. The dating is given Tavrrjs rrjs im.ypa<f>ijs i[K~]o-cppdyio-pa
direreBrj es to dpx[e]i*ov irpd irevre KaXavScoV EiowiW prj(vds) 'x^KaTtav/Sewvos
Terdprrj. It will be observed that, if we suppose an error either of the
stone-cutter or of the transcriber and read E100X1W for EiowiW (a very
easy mistake on the part of either)2, then v Kal. Jul. (June 27) corre
sponds exactly with Hecatombasus 4 in the Asiatic calendar given
above (p. 662).
(iv) A fourth example falls somewhat outside our limits both in
time and country; but I give it, as a valuable confirmation of the cor
rectness of the calendar in the Florentine Hemerology. In the Bullet, de
Corresp. Hellin. vn. p. 260 (1883) an inscription of Attalia in Pamphylia
is given by Prof. Ramsay with a Roman and native reckoning ; dirb rrjs
irpo a eiScoV M[a]iW etos T17S irpo 1 KaX. 'IowtW, Kara ITapcpvX. pr](vl) rj,
k/J' ecos Xa, tcov 1 rjpepwv. He describes it as ' certainly not earlier than
the third century, to judge from the forms of the letters '. These ten
days in the Roman reckoning, prid. Id. Mai — x Kal. Jun. (i.e. May 14 —
23), correspond exactly to the 8th month Daesius 22 — 31, as the 9th
month Panemus begins on May 24.
But the names of the months in the second and third examples
demand notice. The table on the opposite page will best explain what
I conceive to have been the relations of the several calendars with their
respective nomenclatures, and will serve as a basis of discussion.
(1) The first column gives the Macedonian names, which are also
1 The year in question, a.d. 104, is a error Ideler I. p. 428. Wieseler (p. 81 sq.),
leap year; but the nomenclature of the not seeing this, adduces this inscription
days in the Roman calendar was unaffect- as a proof that 'the calendar of the
ed thereby, the device of the Bissextum Hemerologium was not yet in use in ,
being invented to preserve the uniformity. Smyrna.'
2 See for a parallel instance of this

1

Macedonian

Asiatic

Athenian

Cyzicene

Ephesian

Smyrn^an

Deli an

I

Dius

Caesarius

Boedromion

[Boedromion]

Neocaesareon

Buphonion

2

Apellaeus

Tiberius

Pyanepsion

Cyanepsion

Apaturion

3

Audynaeus

Apaturius

Msemacterion

Apaturion

Maemacterion

Aresion
4
Peritius
Poseidaon
Poseideon
Poseideon
Poseideon
Poseideon
Posideon
S
Dystrus
Leneaus
Gamelion
Lenaeon
Lenaeon
Lenaeon
Lenaeon
6
Xanthicus
Hierosebastus
Anthesterion
Anthesterion
Anthesterion ¦
Anthesterion
Hieros
7
Artemisius
Artemisius
Elaphebolion
Artemision
Artemision
Galaxion
8
Daesius
Euangelius
Munychion
Taureon
Artemision
9
Panemus
Stratonicus
Thargelion
Thargelion
Thargelion
Targelion
10
Lous
Hecatombasus
Scirophorion
Calamaeon
Hecatombaeon
Panemus
n
Gorpiaeus
Anteus
Hecatombaeon
Panemus
[Sebastus]
Hecatombaeon
12
Hyperberetaeus
Laodicius
Metageitnion
[Cronion]
Metageitonion
Metageitnion ¦
668 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
retained in the so-called ' Ephesian ' calendar of the Florentine Hemer
ology (see above, p. 662). (2) The next system of months is the
' Asiatic ', as it appears in this same document (see above, p. 662).
(3) The third gives the familiar Athenian months. (4) The next, the
Cyzicene calendar, is introduced for the sake of comparison ; inasmuch
as Cyzicus was another Ionian city belonging to the Commune Asiae,
and its list of months is almost complete. The materials for this list
will be found in Boeckh C. I. G. 3657, 3661 — 3664, and J. H. Mordt-
mann Mittheil. d. Deutsch. Instit. in Athen vi. p. 40 sq. (1881). My
order differs from those of previous writers, e.g. Boeckh (in. p. 920)
and Ahrens (Rhein. Mus. N. F. xvn. p. 329 sq., 1862). The new
materials given by Mordtmann have antiquated these earlier lists. He
himself declines to pronounce upon the order of the months (p. 50) with
our present materials. But inasmuch as Poseideon was followed by
Lenaeon (C. I. G. 3664), Lenaeon by Anthesterion (ib.), Artemision by
Taureon (Mordtmann p. 45), and Calamaeon by Panemus (C. I. G.
3663, Mordtmann p. 44), we have only to retain Artemision and Thar
gelion in their proper places, and our calendar is very nearly completed.
As Ahrens (pp. 336 sq., 345 sq., 365) has shown, Panemus (Tidvrjpos) is
not a late importation into the Ionian calendar from the Macedonian,
but a transmission from a remote past. We need therefore have no scruple
in assigning to it a place different from that which it has in the Macedo
nian list. Its position, as I have given it, seems to be determined by the
fact that in the closely allied Samian calendar (see Ahrens I.e. p. 329 sq.)
Panemus is succeeded immediately by Cronion (Jlavrjpov ko.1 KpovicoVos),
and Cronion is followed by an intercalation (ipj3oXlpov). Two months
however, the first and last, in this Cyzicene calendar remain still
unnamed. The first was probably Bor;Spo/ucoV originally, and may
perhaps have been changed afterwards, as at Ephesus, into Neo-
Kaio-apecov; the last may have been Metageitnion or Metageitonion,
as at Ephesus and Priene (see Journ. of Hellen. Studies iv. p. 239), or
Cronion, as at Samos. The month Taureon appears likewise at Priene
(Journ. of Hell. Stud. iv. p. 238, v. p. 61) and at Samos (Ahrens p. 329)1.
Again Calamaeon has been found hitherto only at Cyzicus and Olbia, and
seems therefore to have been derived from Miletus, of which they were
1 As we seem forced by the evidence bolion), since this goddess had a festival
to put it in the place of Munychion, the in Munychion. Otherwise we should na-
name would appear to be connected with turally with Ahrens (p. 332) connect it
Artemis Tauropolos or Tauro (see Preller with the tabpeia, a well-known festival
Griech. Mytlwl. I. p. 241, who however in honour of Poseidon, of which we hear
wrongly identifies Taureon with Elaphe- at Ephesus and elsewhere.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 669
both colonies (Ahrens p. 335). It is wrongly given by Boeckh (11.
p. 598 sq.) as an Ephesian month1. (5) The list of Ephesian months
is taken from the forthcoming volume Greek Inscr. of Brit. Mus. in.
p. 78. By the kindness of the editor Mr Hicks, I am permitted to
anticipate its publication. He has gathered the names together from
the inscriptions. The first month NeoKaio-apecov is his restoration from
a comparison of two fragmentary passages [M]HNOS NEOK[AI2APE-
ONOS] and [NEO]KAI2APEO[N]. As this name is found likewise at
Teira near Tralles (Bull, de Corresp. Archeol. in. p. 57, 1878; Movueiov
tax BiflXioBrjKrj k.t.X. ii. i. p. 116 sq., Smyrna 1876), there can hardly
be any doubt about the restoration here. We may conjecture that,
like the corresponding Caesarius in the ' Asiatic ' calendar, it was sub
stituted for Bor/Spojuiun- when the solar calendar was introduced into
Ephesus under Augustus. (6) The data for the Smyrnaean months are
very scanty. Aristides, a Pergamene who spent a large portion of his
time at Smyrna, speaks of two successive winter months as Poseideon
and Lenaion. Lenaeon is mentioned likewise in a Smyrnaean inscription
(C. I. G. 3137). Philostratus also mentions the month Anthesterion
in reference to Smyrna (Vit. Soph. i. 25). The inscription giving He
catombaeon has been referred to already (p. 666). Yet another inscrip
tion, as read by Boeckh (C. I. G. 3203), mentions a month 2ey8acrros.
If the lacuna is properly supplied, the month intended would probably
be August, as apparently at Perinthus (Ahrens I.e. p. 345), though it
might possibly be the same as Hierosebastus, that is, Xanthicus or An
thesterion. But, looking at the context, we may well question whether
Se/JaoTds here is the name of a month at all. Probably the Smyrnaean
months would correspond generally with the Ephesian, though here
and there there might be a different name. Thus the third month
would probably retain the old Ionian name Apaturion, since we are
told that the Ephesians and Colophonians ' alone of the Ionians do
not observe the Apaturia' (Herod, i. 147). (7) The Delian list has
the advantage of being complete (Bull, de Corresp. Hellen. v. p. 25 sq.).
Though not very closely allied, it affords an instructive comparison.
I suppose then that, when the solar calendar was introduced, the
Macedonian names of the months were adopted generally in Procon
sular Asia, as well as in other districts of Asia Minor. As Ephesus was

1 The inscription CI. G. 2953 b, which Clodius Fasti lonici p. 22), and the mu-
Boeckh assigns to Ephesus, isnowgenerally tilated name of the month is correctly
allowed to be Delian (see Homolle Bull. restored not KAAAMAIfiN but TAAA3-
de Corresp. Hellen. II. p. 333 sq., v. p. 26, IfiN.

670 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
the capital of Proconsular Asia, and the authoritative documents were
issued thence, the general nomenclature adopted for the province got
the name of 'Ephesian' which it has in the Florentine Hemerology.
At the same time the great cities, such as Ephesus and Smyrna, retained,
at all events for municipal and religious purposes, the old Ionian names
of the months, introducing here and there a change in compliment to
the reigning powers, such as Neocaesareon for Boedromion, the opening
month in the year. The nomenclature, which the Florentine Hemer
ology terms 'Asiatic', can never have prevailed in the province generally.
It must have been confined to some particular city or neighbourhood
of 'Asia', and is perhaps only one type of several nomenclatures, more or
less various, which might be found within the limits of the proconsular
province. (ii) April 6.
Wieseler (Christenverfolgungen p. 47 sq.) arbitrarily rejects from the
chronological notice the words prjvos 'SovBikov Sevrepa. Icrrapevov irpd
iirrd KaXavScoV MapTiW (or 'AwpiXicov). He argues that the name Hav-
0ikos betokens a lunar month, and that a lunar reckoning is still further
implied in the word lorapevov. He insists moreover that the solar
calendar had not yet been introduced at Smyrna at the time of
Polycarp's martyrdom. But in a lunar calendar the 2nd of Xanthicus
would not correspond either to vii Kal. Mart, or to vii Kal. April., and
this part of the notice is therefore discredited. Though he regards it as
a matter of indifference to him how Feb. 23 came to be observed as the
festival of Polycarp, yet he tries to explain the fact. He infers from the
Paschal Chronicle that for some reason or other it was at one time kept
on vii Kal. April., and he believes that the calendar of Asia Minor was
at a particular epoch pushed a month farther back so that vii Kal.
Mart, took the place of vii Kal. April.
I shall have to consider presently the arguments by which Wieseler
endeavours to prove that a lunar calendar prevailed at Smyrna in the
middle of the second century. As regards the rest of his speculations,
it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that, even if we discard the
evidence drawn from the Acts of Pionius, which is surely very important,
the Syriac Martyrology (see above, p. 544), which places Polycarp's
martyrdom on February 23, carries us back two or three centuries earlier
than the Paschal Chronicle, and must therefore be regarded as far more
trustworthy. Having thus rejected both the Asiatic and the Roman dates for the
month and day, he falls back on the notice of the 'great sabbath', as

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 67 1
the sole authentic chronological note of the day. But this he considers
all-sufficient. He holds that the 'great sabbath' must refer to a Chris
tian, not a Jewish observance. He maintains with Ideler (n. p. 201)
and others that the Quartodeciman Paschal commemoration included
three days (Nisan 15, 16, 17) — the Passion and the Resurrection with
the intervening day when the Lord rested in the grave — corresponding
to the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, of the Western usage, though
independent of the days of the week. And accordingly he urges that
whenever the 15th Nisan fell on a Friday, the Saturday was called a
'great sabbath' by the Quartodecimans.
Having previously satisfied himself that Polycarp was martyred a.d.
166, he ascertains from a calculation made for him by Prof. Minni-
gerode on the basis of Largeteau's tables that the 15 th Nisan this year
would be Friday April 5 th, so that the day of Polycarp's martyrdom
would be Saturday April 6th, and in this particular year the Quartodeci
mans of Asia Minor would be keeping their Paschal celebration on the
same three days as the Westerns, who did not observe the Quartodeci
man usage (pp. 75, 76).
Moreover he believes himself to have shown that the greater
Dionysia were celebrated at Smyrna at this time of the year, the con
cluding day, the Pandeia, falling on the 16th day of the moon, and
therefore of Nisan : so that we have here the explanation of the hea
then festival which occupies a prominent place in the account of the
martyrdom. It will have appeared that in Wieseler's computation the day of the
month depends on the year of the martyrdom, and reasons have already
been given for rejecting a.d. 166. I need not stop to enquire whether
he is right in supposing that the Quartodecimans extended their Paschal
celebration over three days. But, granting that this was the case, it is
quite incredible that the intermediate day between the commemorations
of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection should be called peya cdj3j3arov
by the Quartodecimans in any year when it chanced to fall on a
Saturday, which would be the case at irregular intervals; while it would
have no special designation in the intervening years. The later Jewish
usage and the later Christian usage of the term afford no analogy for
such a theory.
Wieseler's hypothesis indeed seems to have nothing to recommend it.
It starts from an arbitrary rejection of evidence, and it lands us in con
clusions which are full of difficulty. Yet Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum
p. 163) expresses himself in favour of this same solution.

672 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(iii) March 23.
This date for the martyrdom has been recently proposed by
Dr Salmon in the Academy, July 21, 1883, p. 46 sq. Of all the theories
which depart from the traditional day, this is the most attractive and
deserves the greatest respect. It is as follows.
Pionius, the martyr in the Decian persecution (a.d. 250), revived
the commemoration of Polycarp's passion. He discovered a much worn
manuscript of the Letter of the Smyrnceans ; and he added a postscript
describing how he had found it. This is the note which we find appended
in our manuscripts (n. p. 985). At the same time he inserted the
Roman date vii Kal. Mart, corresponding to the Macedonian Xanthicus
2nd (prjvos 'BavBiKov Bevrepa. hrrapevov) which he found in the MS. In
doing this however, he inadvertently changed the day. The Smyrnsean
calendar in the time of Polycarp was lunar; but before the age of
Pionius the solar calendar had been substituted. Pionius, not being
aware of the change, interpreted Xanthicus 2nd according to the solar
calendar as Feb. 23. But in the lunar calendar Xanthicus corre
sponds to the Jewish month Nisan1, so that the true day of the martyrdom
was the 2nd Nisan. Now the 2nd Nisan during the years a.d. 154 — 161
only fell on a Saturday on two occasions; in a.d. 155 when it was
Saturday March 23, and in a. d. 159 when it was Saturday April 8. We
have thus a confirmation of Waddington's date for the martyrdom,
a. d. 155. Moreover this solution offers an adequate account of the
'great sabbath', 2nd Nisan being the first sabbath in the year2.
It has been made evident above (p. 622 sq.), if I mistake not, that
we can no longer identify the Pionius of the postscript to the Smyrnaean
Letter with the Pionius the martyr in the Decian persecution. In the
writer of the postscript we have detected the same hand which penned
the fictitious biography of Polycarp. Salmon's theory therefore loses
the support of this identification, and its attractiveness is somewhat
impaired in consequence. Still it would be quite possible to maintain
that the Roman date was inserted in the middle of the third century
by the genuine Pionius, who certainly took a great interest in Polycarp's
commemoration : or, if not by him, at least by some one else at a
comparatively early date, as for instance by the spurious Pionius the
author of the Life.
1 Josephus uses Xanthicus as an exact the corresponding Jewish lunar months ;
equivalent to Nisan (Ant. i. 3. 3, iii. 10. see Ideler 1. p. 400 sq. On this point
5, B. y. v. 3. 1), it being his common see below, p. 685.
practice to give the Macedonian names to 2 See also Wieseler p. 91, note 35.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 673
But it is essential to the validity of this theory to prove that the
original date (Eav0iKov SeuTepci lo-Tapivov) is according to the lunar
reckoning, either because it bears evidence of this on its face, or because
the lunar calendar can be shown to have still prevailed at the time,
or for both reasons. We have already seen that Wieseler maintained
this position, though he did not make any adequate use of it. Salmon
follows in the same line, and even employs the same arguments (though
apparently without any knowledge that Wieseler had anticipated him) ;
but he has turned the result to a much better account, if only the argu
ments could be accepted.
The reasons urged in favour of a lunar calendar at Smyrna at this
time are as follows.
(1) It is maintained that the statement of Galen quoted above
(p. 664), if correctly interpreted, implies this. He places among those
who still use the lunar calendar in his time 'most of the Greek
cities '. Smyrna is claimed as belonging to this category.
Doubtless Smyrna, as a Greek colony and the reputed birth-place
of Homer, might be called in some sense a Greek city1 ; and so in fact
the Smyrnaeans are sometimes designated (e.g. Pausan. ix. n. 7 rj Srj
Kal l%pvpvaiovs pdXicrra 'EXXryVcov Yjoco/AeVous oTSa : comp. Aristid. Op. I.
pp. 372, 425, 427, 435 sq.). This is the case likewise with Ephesus
(Wood's Ephesus Inscr. ii. 7, p. 10, toV tijpov tov 'Ecpeo-iW ko.1 tovs otXXous
"EXXrjvas), and with many other important cities in these parts. Indeed
Proconsular Asia would on this showing be entirely eviscerated, and
Galen's assertion respecting the ' Asiatics ' would become meaningless.
On the other hand Ephesus was commonly recognized as the metro
polis of Asia. Smyrna likewise was regarded as the eye, the jewel, the
crown, of Asia. Thus the Asia of Galen will be the Asia of S. John
(Rev. i. 4) and S. Peter (1 Pet. i. 1) and S. Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 19, etc.),
and the Asiani of Galen the Asiani of S. Luke (Acts xx. 4). In other
words the term is political and topographical, but not ethnological2.
1 Even the Macedonians are so called KaBdirep iv rats irXelarais vvv rwv 'EXXijvl-
(Boeckh C. I. G. 2954 irapd Si MaKeSoai Soiv irbXewv Kal iv drrdaais re rwv ' Aaia-
Kal tois aomtois IBveaiv tois 'TtXXriviKois) ; vwv k.t.X. For (i) The construction is
but Galen in the passage before us dis- halting without such a transference; (2)
tinguishes them from the Greeks. The vvv is not naturally translated as if
2 The text of Galen (see above, p. 664) vvv in, as the present text requires us to
is here accepted as it stands; but I con- translate it, but rather contrasts the pre-
fess to having a suspicion that 'the ma- sent with the past; (3) The false readings
jority of the Greek cities ' ought to be iriparos and apxalwv show that Galen's
transferred to the other side of the list, so text has been corrupted hereabouts.
thatthe words would run, aXXa irpbs ijXiov,
IG. 1. 43

674 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(2) But again the particular expressions used are thought to be
token a lunar calendar.
Thus it is supposed that only in a lunar calendar would the word
lo-rapivov be in place, as it implies that the numbering of the days was
not continuous and progressive, but that in the last decade of the month
they were reckoned backwards, SeKarrj, ivdrrj, etc., cpBivovros (or e£ioV-
tos), as in the Attic lunar calendar. The same argument is applied
likewise to the contemporary writer Aristides (Op. 1. 448 sq.), who not
only reckons the days in the last decade of the month backwards,
heKarrj, ivdrrj, dyhorj, etc., but even speaks (p. 452) of TpiTij cpBivovros.
It is assumed that in this passage he also must be following a lunar
computation. This argument however is disproved by facts. Doubtless the reck
oning of the last decade backwards was originally connected with the
phases of the moon, as prjvos cpBivovros suggests. But the word prjv
itself had no other connexion, and yet it was adopted as the designation
of a solar month. The same is the case with veoprjvia or vovpijvia,
which signified the 'new moon,' but was transferred to the first day
of the solar month; e.g. Plut. Galb. 22 ircrjXBev rj vovprjvia tov irparov
prjvos, ijv KaXavSas Iavouapias KaXoGcri, Romul. I, 2 vvv pev ovv ovSiv ai
Pco/mixai vovprjviai irpos ras EXXrjviKas opoXoyovpevov c^oucriv, where the
Roman vovprjviai are solar and the Greek are lunar. So again Sozomen
(H. E. vii. 18), speaking of the time of the celebration of Easter by
certain Montanists, gives as one of their reasons ttjv o-eXrjvrjv Sia oWae-
TijpiSos tco 17X10) crwieVai Kai dprpolv Kara Tavrdv vovprjviav crvpj3aiveiv, SO
that the sun as well as the moon has a vovprjvia. This transference of
vovprjvia is indeed so obvious as to be beyond question. Nor does the
backward reckoning of the last decade present any greater difficulty.
When the Romans substituted a solar for a lunar year, they still con
tinued their backward reckoning. Why should not the Macedonians
and the Greeks of Asia Minor have done the same ? But indeed we are
not left to bare hypothesis. We have seen above (p. 663) that of the
solar calendars included in the Florentine and Leyden Hemerokgia two
only (besides the Roman) retain the backward reckoning in the last
decade, and these two belong to Proconsular Asia. See also for other
authorities Ideler Handb. d. Chron. 1. p. 281 sq. • So also Oribasius, the
friend of Julian, writes (Coll. Med. ix. 8) prjvos Aco'ou cpBivovros irepirrr)
8' dvareXXovros rjXiov 6 Kocov eViTeXXeiv irap' ijpiv iv Uepydpa ireiri-
o-TevTai (11. p. 298, ed. Bussemaker & Daremberg, Paris 1851), where
the context shows that a solar calendar is meant.
(3) Again it is argued by Wieseler and Salmon that, if the name

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM.

675

Xanthicus were the designation of both a solar and a lunar month,
the confusion would be intolerable. Undoubtedly there would be
confusion, if the two were so called in the same locality and at the
same epoch. Yet this is exactly what happened with the Egyptian
months, where two calendars were used side by side (Ideler 1. p. 140 sq.).
But why need we suppose that in Proconsular Asia they were used
simultaneously? The Romans, when the Julian calendar was in
troduced, transferred the old names of the lunar months, Januarius,
Februarius, etc., to the new solar calendar. Why then should not the
Macedonians and the Greeks of Asia Minor have done the same?"
As a matter of fact, we do find the same names retained continuously
, in divers cities of Proconsular Asia long after the solar calendar had
superseded the lunar. Thus for instance at Julia Gordus we have the
following series of inscriptions1 ;
croos p ko.1 e . prj. Avo-\rpov\
erovs ppj3 prj. Havrjpov y
erovs cr prj. 3av8iKoC i/3'
eroos cr£' prj. 3av8iKou j3i
erovs crXcr prj. SavSiKoC £'
crows 0-X17 prj. AoSreou TeTpaSi
Itous t prj. Avcrrpov 18"
eToos ry prj. AvSveov
erovs tcY prj. Auorpou ai
erovs rvB' p. Ti.a\yrf\pov [ia']
Again in inscriptions found in and near Maeonia and Coloe, two
neighbouring Lydian cities in the valley of the Hermus, not far from
Philadelphia, we meet with these dates2;
eroos pic prj. 'Yirepfieperaiov Be = A.D.

= A.D.

21

= A.D.

58

= A.D.

Il6

= A.D.

123

= A.D.

IS2

= A.D.

iS5

= A.D.

216

= A.D.

219

= A.D.

220

= A.D.

275

eTOus cr
eTOus crc,
erovs eri
ctous cri£

prjvos ZavSiKOv ift
prjvos ZavBiKov
prj. 'ArreXXaiov ij3
p. Aiov y

erovs en's" p. AvcrTpov
1 These inscriptions will be found
partly in Lebas and Waddington Asie
Mineure Inscr. in. nos. 679 — 683, partly
in a paper by P. Paris in Bullet, de
¦ Correspond. Hellin. vm. p. 382—389.
' 2 I have treated these Masonian dates
as following the Sultan era (August, B.C.
85)1 as Waddington does, and have de-

= A.D.
= A.D.
= A.D.
= A.D.
= A.D.

36
Il6 123 126 133
172

ducted 84 years, disregarding the differ
ence in the commencement of the year.
So also Franz (C. I. G. in. p. 1104).
On the other hand Boeckh (11. p. 808),
following Leake, supposes them to refer
to the era of Actium (I know not for what
reason). This would push them some
54 years later.
43—2

676 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
eroos crvt,' p. Avcrrpov = A.D. 173
erous crrjv prjvos ZavSiKOv = A.D. 1 74
erous o"£a p. Aprepicriov = A.D. 177
eVous cr7r' prj. 'ApTejaeicr^ou] = A.D. 196
erous crCJ/S' prj. Aij[S]vaioo i — A.D. 208
erovs crq e prj. ' AireXXaiov — A. D. 211
eVous o-qt^' prj. Aeiov fti , = A.D. 215
eVous Ta prj. 'AireXXaiov = A.D. 217
erous tB' prj. 'Yirepj8ep[eTaiou] = A.D. 225
eVous tkB' prjvos ZavSiKoo = A.D. 245
erous tk& prj. Bai/8iKo[u] = A.D. 245 '-
Again at Philadelphia we find
erovs pie' [/A17VOS] Topiriaiov iy' = A.D. 31
ctous PO17 prj. 'YirepjSeperaiov S" = A.D. 94
eVous pir prj. Aeiov = A.D. 96
Itovs cr^y prj. Acoou = A.D. I79"-
Similar modes of dating are found from the Christian era onward in
many other towns of Proconsular Asia, e.g.
Silandus crows pprj prj. Topiriaiov = A.D. 64
^Ezani erous j3£p' prjvos AvcTTpov yi' = A.D. 78
Silandus ctous o-pir prjvos Aeiov e = A.D. 102
Apamea 4'toos TKyS' prjvos Arjov — a.d. 238s.
And the number of examples might be very largely increased.
We have thus ample evidence that the same mode of designating
the months (after the Macedonian names) prevailed in various cities
of Proconsular Asia from the Christian era till towards the close of the
third century. But on any showing the solar calendar must have been
introduced long before the end of this period. Either therefore it was
already introduced at the beginning of this period of three centuries
(as the inscription at Nysa indicates, p. 665), or if introduced during
the period, it caused no change in the names of the months. The
month with which we are specially concerned, Savt9iKos, EavSiKo's, or
ZavSiKos, appears throughout4.
1 These inscriptions will be found 2 From Bull, de Corresp. Hellin. vii.
partly in Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Graec. p. 502 sq., and Lebas and Waddington
3438. 3443- 3445 (with Add.), 3447, 3448, in. 661.
partly in Lebas and Waddington Asie s See Lebas and Waddington in. 7°9>
Mineure Inscr. in. 667 — 671, 700 — 703, 710, 904, Bull, de Corresp. HelUn. VIH.
and partly in Bull, de Corresp. Hellin. p. 311.
v. p. 325, vm. p. 378. * It is the opinion of Prof. Ramsay

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 677
(4) But it is part of the same theory that, when the solar months
displaced the lunar, they did not take new names, but were simply
numbered 'first month,' 'second month,' and so forth. This mode
of designation therefore is taken to indicate a solar calendar. Thus,
when Aristides (Op. 1. p. 469) writes 'It was the fourteenth day of the
second month according to our usage here (ijv rerpds iirl 8e«a too
Sevrepou prjvos, cos vopitppev ol Tavrrj)', he is assumed to be referring to
a solar calendar prevailing at Pergamon ; whereas elsewhere (p. 446 ;
see above, p. 644), when he mentions the names of the months, he is
supposed to have in view a lunar calendar still retained in Smyrna.
So again in the Acts of Pionius, the narrator, speaking of the com
memoration of Polycarp, describes it as 'secundo die sexti mensis'
(Act. Sine. Mart. p. 188, Ruinart). But this hypothesis again is not
borne out by the evidence. The probable view is that the numbering
of the months was adopted, not to distinguish the solar from the lunar
calendar (it would be a very poor expedient for this purpose), but to
secure intelligibility, where the names and order of the months differed
even in neighbouring towns, and intercommunication was thus per
plexing. This at all events is the opinion of Ussher (p. 359) and of
Ideler (1. p. 423) and many others; and it alone seems to be consonant
with the facts1. See, for instance, Bull, de Corresp. Hellen. v. p. 431 sq.,
where months are numbered and named in the same inscription. At
some places the numbering superseded the nomenclature earlier and
more completely than elsewhere, as for instance at Eumenia and
Sebaste, neighbouring cities of Phrygia*;
erovs crvrj' p. irparrov S' = A.D. 174
Itous o-rrff jjajvos [e]' = A. D. 205
erovs ctitB', prj. la' K =A.D. 205
eVous Tia' prj. irepirrov X . = A. D. 227
Itous tk' prj. & =A.D. 236
Itoos tk& prjvos B' = A. D. 245
erovs rp' prjvos ff k. = A. D. 256 .
that wherever ZavSiKo's is written, there supposes that another epoch is intended.
was a thin stroke across the Z, unobserved In the third and last inscriptions Paris
by the transcriber, thus making it ZoiiSikos. prints imc and Bk continuously, and is at
1 In C. I. G. 2693 e however, where a loss to explain the superfluous k. The
Boeckh has vipnrrw, referring obviously analogy of the ist and 3rd inscriptions
to a lunar month, the correct reading is (given in Boeckh) suggests that this
Wepirla: seeBull.de Corr.Hell.v. p. 117- letter denotes the day of the month, and
3 The dates are here treated as be- so I have treated it.
longing to the Sullan era; see Franz 3 See Boeckh C. I. G. 3872, 3892,
C I.G. m. p. 1103. Boeckh (in. p. 22) 3896. Bull, de Corresp. Hellln. vii. pp.

678 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
The facts then seem to justify the following conclusions.
The distinction between the numbering and the naming of the
months, as referring to the solar and lunar calendars respectively, is
not borne out by the documents. The former practice is certainly
adopted occasionally in lunar calendars, as the latter is used very
frequently in solar calendars. Moreover the two modes of designation
occur even in the same document. There is therefore no ground for the
supposition (improbable in itself) that Aristides computes according to
different calendars in different passages. If the same month was dif
ferently named, or if the same name denoted different months, in
different cities contiguous or otherwise related to each other1, there
was a special convenience in identifying the month by the number8.
Probably there was a tendency, as time advanced, to substitute the
numbering for the naming, as being more convenient. But in some
localities, as we have seen, the numbering is found at a very early date.
Thus the case for the survival of the lunar calendar in the
middle of the second century breaks down. The direct evidence
indeed is not very complete, but so far as it goes it is all on one side.
No example has yet been produced of the use of a lunar calendar in
Proconsular Asia at this time or for several generations before3.
Moreover probability would suggest the same conclusion. The cities
of Proconsular Asia were bound together by very close religious as well
as political ties. In the former respect, not less than in the latter,
Rome supplied the principle of cohesion. The Roman state-worship
was the most potent religious element which they had in common*. The
45°> 45r> 457: viii. p. 253 (papers con- inscription. It is assigned by Boeckh to
tributed by P. Paris) ; see Ramsay's cor- the 2nd or 3rd century B.C.
rections in yourn. of Hell. Stud. iv. p. 41 1. 3 In Athens however a lunar reckoning
1 The month Xanthicus is a good ex- long survived. Again in Greek Inscr. in
ample. In the following calendars it the Brit. Mus. II. p. 116 sq. a portion of
begins on the following days : Ephesian, a Rhodian lunar calendar is preserved
Feb. 22 (or rather Feb. 21, see above belonging to an epoch certainly not earlier
p. 663) ; Arabian, March 22 ; Gazan, than the Flavian dynasty, as the names
March 2 7 ; Antiochene, April 1 ; Tyrian, show. At Tyra in Mcesia Inferior in one
April 18; Ascalonite, April 26; Cappa- inscription dated a.d. 201 (C.I.L. in.
docian, May 11; Lycian and Sidonian, 781) xiii Kal. Mart, coincides with Le-
Junei; Seleucian, Dec. 1. See Ideler 1. pp. neeon 8, and in another dated A.D. 182
419, 430, 433, 434, 43S, 437, 438, 442. (Revue ArchSologique 1883, II. p. 84) V
2 We find one instance (C. I. G. 1845) Kal. Mai. coincides with Artemision 30.
at Corcyra, where the month is both It may be doubtful whether this calendar
numbered and named ip. p.i)vl SvwSeKanp was lunar or solar.
sal EikXefcji, two other months, Maxavebs 4 See above, I. pp. 444, 451 sq., and
and 'Apranlnos, being named in the same below, 11. p. 987 sq.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 679
Commune Asiae, which maintained this worship, celebrated its festivals
in the several cities according to some cycle. The inconvenience of
various and fluctuating lunar calendars with their uncertain inter
calations would be felt increasingly. It would be a matter of growing
importance that a definite day in the calendar of one Asiatic city
should correspond to a definite day in the calendar of another Asiatic
city as well as in the calendar of Rome. This would lead to the
adoption of a solar calendar on the Julian principle, though not
necessarily assigning the same names to the months, or even beginning
either the year or the several months at the same time. In short, the
establishment of the Asiatic Confederation, linking the cities one with
another and with Rome, would lead to a speedy reform of the calendar.
This suggestion of probability accords with the testimony- of facts.
The Nysaean inscription (see above p. 665) is about contemporary with
the Christian era, and nearly half a century later than the introduction
(b.C. 46) of the Julian calendar at Rome. The Commune Asiae at this
time must have been firmly established and in active working.
But indeed we are not left altogether to conjecture as to the epoch
of the introduction of the solar calendar in Asia Minor. Noris (de
Anno Maced. 1. 2, p. 17), drawing his inference from probabilities,
speaks of this change as the work of 'the Asiatic proconsuls.' We
seem now to have evidence which assigns it definitely to one particular
proconsul. It has been shown above (p. 661 sq.), that in the two solar calendars
belonging to Proconsular Asia, the 'Asiatic' and the 'Ephesian,' the
year begins on ix Kal. Oct. [September 23], and the first day of each
succeeding month throughout the year corresponds to ix Kal. of the
Roman calendar. Now the natural beginning of the year would have
been not Sept. 23, but Sept. 24, on which latter day the Julian reckoning
placed the autumnal equinox; and the only assignable reason for
antedating the commencement of the year by a single day is the fact
that this was the birthday of Augustus. But in the ' Asiatic' calendar
, the first month is named Caesarius, and the second Tiberius. As the
birthday of Tiberius fell during the second month (xvi Kal. Dec. =
Nov. 16), so the birthday of Augustus opened the first month. From
Augustus therefore it takes its name Caesarius \ Usener, to whom we
owe the true interpretation of these facts relating to these calendars of
Asia Minor (see above, p. 661), refers to Mommsen on C. I. L. 1. pp. 363,
387, for this use of Caesar simply when Augustus is intended. I might add
that the year of Caesar in Egyptian inscriptions (C. I. G. 4715, 5866 c
1 See also the remarks on the Ephesian month JH eoKataapewv above, p. 66g.

680 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
Add., Ephem. Epigr. iv. p. 27, v. p. 2) refers not to Julius but to
Augustus. But indeed we need not go so far for examples. Pro
consular Asia itself furnishes an illustration in a bilingual inscription
(C. I. L. in. 424) where a person erects a bridge a few miles out of
EpheSUS, DEANAE . EPHESIAE . ET . IMP . CAESARI . ET . TI . CAESARI . AVG . F .
(<\pTeMiAi . ecpeciAi . kai . AyroKpATopi . KAica.pi . cgBactooi . kai . TiBepicoi
KAicA.pi . ccB . yi<*>i), tne reigning emperor Augustus being designated
Cassar alone in the Latin. The spirit which dictated this inscription
would welcome the nomenclature which provided that the first two
months of the year should be called Caesarius and Tiberius, the great
goddess Artemis being already honoured with a month of her own. More
over, as we have seen, the arrangement of these calendars of Pro
consular Asia is such as to secure not only an annual, but a monthly
commemoration of Augustus' birthday. This, as Usener has pointed
out, is no novelty. These monthly commemorations of royal birth
days appear in the dynasty of Attalus (Hermes vn. p. 113 sq.) and
under the Ptolemies (Corp. Inscr. Graec. 4697, 1. 48, Kara prjva, the
Rosetta stone). It is worth observing also that among the months of
Aphrodisias, a city of Proconsular Asia in the valley of the Masander,
we find a Caesar (Kaio-ap C. I. G. 2842), as well as a Julieus ('IouXdJos
C. I. G. 2817 [?], 2827, 2836), a Tiberius (Ti/3[epios] C. I. G. 2817),
and a TrajanUs Augustus (Tpaiavos 2e/3ao-ro's 1 C. I. G. 2834), other
months named being Gorpiaaus and Xandicus. Indeed the nomen
clature of the months at Aphrodisias approaches more closely than any
other to that of the ' Asiatic ' calendar. Altogether we may say that
the structure of the ' Ephesian ' and ' Asiatic ' calendars points dis
tinctly to the age of Augustus, and is hardly conceivable at a later
date ; though perhaps the names of individual months might have been
altered afterwards, just as at Aphrodisias the month Trajanus would be
so called subsequently.
But who was the author of this very ingenious modification of the
Julian calendar devised to do honour to Augustus ? Usener has given
a highly probable answer to this question.
Paullus Fabius Maximus was consul a.u.c. 743. In due course he
held the Asiatic proconsulate. Now there are two Greek inscriptions,
one at Eumenia, the other at Apamea Cibotus, relating to action
taken with respect to the birthday of Augustus, in which he was the
prime mover. The first (C. I. G. 3902 b) is mutilated at the beginning.
It commences with a mention of the birthday of Augustus [7rpd ivvea
1 Should we read Se^aorj} for 2e/3aoToii? see below, p. 694.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 68 1
KaXavScoy] tcov 'OicTco/JpiW yeveBXiov rjpepas Kaicrapo[s]. It records a
vote of thanks to Paullus Fabius Maximus the proconsul ; it declares
that ' Asia crowns him ' for devising ' the honours to be paid to Cassar '
(ras eis Kaio-apa reipas) ; and it directs that both 'the table of Maximus
(to SeXToypdcprjpa to Ma&pov) and the decree of Asia be inscribed on
marble stelae in the leading cities of the dioceses.' The Apamaean
inscription likewise (C. I. G. 3957) is fragmentary. It does not in the
extant part mention the proconsul ; but it gives, very much mutilated,
the decree of the Asiatic Greeks ("E8o£ev tois e7ri Ti?s 'Aoias "EXX^o-iv)
conferring special honours on the birthday of the godlike Cassar
(tou Beiordrov Kaio-apos) ; it states that Providence in giving Augustus
conferred the greatest benefit on mankind ; it declares that his
birthday is the most auspicious time for commencing any public or
private enterprise (ovBeptas av and rjpepas eis re to KoiroV Kal e[2]s to
iSiov exacrTos ocpeXos evrvxecrTepas Xdj3oi dcfaoppas rj rrjs rrdcriv yevopevrjs
'.,, sutuxovs); it says that it coincides generally with the time when the
magistrates in the different cities of Asia enter upon their office ; and it
connects this imperial birthday in some way or other with the first day
of the month ([ui]av Kai rr)v avr-ijv veav vovp\rjviav  rrjv tov Kaijcra-
pos yeveBXiov, eKeivrj Te 7raW[cov  ] yris eo-Tiv irpd ivvea KaXavBwv
['OxTco^picov  irpo\Tepov TeiprjBrj k.t.X.). Its coincidence with the
commencement of the magisterial offices is easily explicable, since the
year in these parts began about the autumnal equinox. The connexion
of the imperial birthday with the first day of the month is not made
clear owing to the mutilation of the context ; but light is thrown upon
it by the structure of the calendars of Proconsular Asia. The lacunae
are filled in here, as I find them in Boeckh ; but it is a question whether
;. "QKTco/JpiV is right in this place, since the-reference seems to be to the
monthly recurrence of ix Kal. What else then can the SeXToypdcprjpa
of the proconsul Maximus have been, but the table giving his newly con
structed solar calendar, of which the central idea was the commemo
ration of Augustus' birthday ? If so, we have evidence that its publication
was followed up by a decree of Asia adopting the calendar and con
ferring honours on its author. As the Bithynian, Cretan, and Cyprian
calendars are framed on the same principle, these provinces must have
followed the example of Proconsular Asia.
But is it possible to fix the precise year when the proconsul Maximus
introduced this change of calendar? Usener answers in the affirmative.
In a.u.c. 746 ( = b.c. 8) a decree of the Senate changed the name of the
month Sextilis into Augustus (Censorin. de Die Natal, xxii. 16). The
general desire had been to confer this name on September, during

682 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
which month his birthday fell; but they acceded to his own wishes that
it should be given to Sextilis which had witnessed his greatest achieve
ments and honours (Dion Cass. Iv. 6, Sueton. Odav. 31, Macrob.
Saturn, i. 12. 35). Usener supposes that the action of Maximus, who
was an intimate friend of Augustus, followed immediately on this decree
of the Senate and therefore places his proconsulship in a.u.c. 746, 747.
This indeed is possible; for the prescribed interval of five years (see
above, p. 639) was not rigidly enforced at this time, as we find from
the case of Gallus who was consul a.u.c. 746 and proconsul a.u.c. 748,
749 (see Waddington Pastes p. 94 sq.). But the inference is too hasty.
Waddington (ib. p. 98) has given reasons why it could not well be later
than a.u.c. 749, 750, and no greater precision is attainable. The Nysasan
inscription (see above, p. 665) shows that the new calendar was in full
use four years later (a.u.c. 753).
This view seems to me to be strongly confirmed by another con
sideration which appears to have been overlooked. It has been men
tioned already (p. 663) that the Cyprian calendar is constructed on the
same principle, beginning on the same day Sept. 23. The names of the
months in this calendar (see Ideler 1. p. 427) are curious; (1) 'Ar/>poSi?
crios, (2) AiroyoviKos, (3) Aivikos, (4) 'IouXios, (5) Kaicrapios, (6) 2e/?aoTos,
(7) AvroKparopiKos, (8) Arjpapxe£ovcrios, (9) IIX?70uVaTos, (10) 'Apxiepevs,
(n) 'Eorieus, (12) 'Pco/xaios. Obviously this nomenclature points to the
reign of Augustus, under whom Cyprus became a Roman province, and
whose names, offices, and descent it commemorates; nor can we easily
imagine its being invented at a later date, since it entirely ignores any
subsequent emperor. But indeed we have direct evidence of its early use.
In an inscription in Lebas and Waddington in. 2773, dated a.d. 29, the
birthday of Tiberius (xvi Kal. Dec.) is given as the 24th Apogonicus,
thus showing that this calendar was already in use. Now it is worthy
of notice that this same Paullus Fabius Maximus, to whom we have
ascribed the Asiatic and Ephesian calendars, was also connected
with Cyprus1. The inscription C.I. G. 2629, belonging to Paphos, is
in honour of his wife Marcia, who is described as first cousin of
Augustus (dvevj-ia Kaicrapos ®eov Se/3ao-Toi>). For this connexion with
the emperor by marriage, and for his intimate relations with him, see
Waddington Pastes Asiatiques p. 98 sq.
(iv) March 26.
This is the date given in the Paschal Chronicle (see above, pp. 553*
660), which has irpd £' KaXavScoV 'AirpiXiW (for MapriW). It is
1 Boeckh would make him proconsul, but to this Waddington demurs.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 683
adopted on different grounds by Bucher, Ussher, Pearson, and Hil
genfeld. Bucher (Tract, de Pasch. Judaeor. Cycl. c. 8, p. 417 sq.; see above,
p. 634) accepts this day (March 26) on the authority of the Paschal
Chronicle as his starting point. In the 7th year of M. Aurelius however
a.d. 167, the year supposed to be given by Eusebius, March 26 did not
fall on a Saturday, whereas in a.d. 169 this condition is fulfilled. He
therefore substitutes a.d. 169 for a.d. 167. He further calculates that
in a.d. 169, March 26 coincided with Nisan 15, the First Day of Un
leavened Bread; and in this he finds the explanation of the o-dj3j3aTov
fieya. In like manner Ussher (De Macedonum et Asianorum Anno Solari
c 3, Works vii. p. 368 sq.) adopts a.d. 169 as the year of the martyrdom
and accepts the day as given in the Paschal Chronicle. But at this
point he diverges from Bucher. Declining to discuss Bucher's Jewish
calendar, he finds (see above, p. 634) that according to Quartodeciman
usage March 26 would in a.d. 169 be the Saturday preceding the
Paschal celebration. But the Saturday preceding the Passover was
called 'the great sabbath' by the Jews; and the same name for the day
would be retained by those Christians who followed the Quartodeciman
usage. He further infers from the Acts of Pionius, that the annual
festival of Polycarp was a moveable festival, being always kept on the
Saturday before the Paschal celebration.
Again Pearson (De Ann. Prim. Rom. Episc. c. 18, Minor Works 11.
p. 542 sq.) adopts this same day. Having determined on grounds
which have been mentioned already (p. 636 sq.) that the year of the
martyrdom was a.d. 147, he finds that in this year March 26 was a
Saturday; and he calculates that it was the Saturday preceding the
14th Nisan, or the Paschal celebration. Hence it is called o-dfifiaTov
piya. The opinions of these older critics suggest two remarks.
First; the stress which they laid on the testimony of the Paschal
Chronicle might have seemed justifiable when they wrote, but with the
fuller evidence which we possess the case is altogether different. This
evidence is threefold. (1) It can no longer be contended that the read
ing MapTiW in the Smyrnaean Letter is an arbitrary emendation1. This
reading appears in the best ms, and it moreover explains all the others.
1 Thus Pearson (Minor Works, n. Valesii ex errore manifesto orta est.' In
PP- 545, 546) speaks of the reading Map- like manner Ussher (p. 368 sq.) assumes
rluv adopted by Valesius as ' nova sua the correctness of 'AirpiXtwv as his start -
lectio hactenus inaudita,' and adds 'lectio ing point.

684 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
(2) We have overwhelming testimony that in the earliest ages the day of
Polycarp in the Greek and Eastern Church was February 23; and none
other is mentioned outside the Paschal Chronicle. On this point the
Acts of Pionius and the Syriac Martyrology are two entirely independent
witnesses of the highest value. (3) The reckoning of the Smyrnasan
Letter (Xanthicus 2 = February 23) is confirmed by the calendar in the
Florentine Hemerology, and they are quite independent the one of the
other. Secondly ; though seemingly in the schemes of these critics the day
of the month confirms the date of the year, and conversely, yet this
confirmation is only apparent, not real. The year is indeed ascertained
first, and the day of the month is found afterwards to harmonize with
it. But on examination we find that, on their own principles, there was
no more reason why Ussher should have chosen a.d. 169 or Pearson
a.d. 147 than any of the neighbouring years; but obviously in both
cases the preference was given to the particular year, because the
subsequent investigation respecting the day of the month required it.
Nor do these formidable objections stand alone. To maintain this
day, it is necessary to identify Xanthicus 2 with March 26. But no
calendar known to have been in use in Proconsular Asia admits this
identification. There are indeed good reasons for believing that in
Syria Xanthicus was not the 6th, but the 7th month, counting from the
autumnal equinox1. We have seen already (p. 678) that in different
calendars it occupied very various places. In a calendar which has been
reconstructed by Ussher, and which he ascribes to the Syromacedonians
and Smyrnasans (p. 381), this seventh month Xanthicus begins on March
25. I need not stop to enquire whether he is correct as to the day of
its commencement. It is sufficient to say that there is absolutely no
evidence for dissociating the Smyrnaeans from the surrounding peoples
of Asia Minor and associating them with the Syromacedonians. More
over, it should be observed that the Smyrnaean Letter is addressed to
the Philomelians, and that its circulation in other churches is enjoined ;
so that a Syromacedonian date would be altogether out of place. But
Ussher started from the date given in the Paschal Chronicle, vii Kal.
April., though at the same time adopting Xanthicus 2, of which the
Paschal Chronicle says nothing, and his whole theory is built upon this
sandy foundation. Of the Syromacedonian calendar we may observe
by the way, that it seems to have passed through three stages, the
1 For the different modes of explaining Macedonian calendar of Syria was brought
how this divergence between the Mace- about, see Ideler I. p. 432.
donian calendar of Asia Minor and the

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 685
Macedonian names of the months being retained throughout, except
when they were numbered instead of being named. (1) It was originally
a lunar calendar. Hence Josephus after his wont, translating Jewish
names into their corresponding Gentile equivalents, speaks of Nisan as
Xanthicus, Nisan 14 being Xanthicus 14, and so with the months and
days generally. This adaptation however does not warrant the as
sumption (improbable in itself) that the Syromacedonian lunar months
coincided with the Jewish. (2) A solar calendar was substituted,
beginning at the autumnal equinox. So far it agreed (though differing
somewhat in the lengths of the several months) with the solar calendar
of Macedonia and Asia Minor; but the names of the months in the latter
were one in advance of those in the former. Thus, while Dius was
the first month in the Asiomacedonian year, it was relegated to the
second place, and Hyperberetasus stood first, in the Syromacedonian.
(3) A Julian calendar was introduced, retaining however the Mace
donian names of the months. Hitherto the months in every case had
commenced a few days before the Roman. From this time forward
they corresponded exactly with the Roman. Thus Hyperberetasus is
October, Dius is November, Xanthicus is April, and so forth. This
calendar we find in Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others. Thus Eusebius
(Mart. Palaest. praef.) speaks of Hav0iKos prjv, os Xeyoir' dv 'AirpiXXios Kara
'fiapaiovs; and he more than once (§§ 4, 7) mentions martyrdoms as
happening on the 2nd of Xanthicus, but in this region and at this
epoch it is not, as in Polycarp's age and country, February 23, but
April 2 (jrpci Teo-crdpaiv Ncoyviov 'AirpiXXiW).
Of more recent critics Hilgenfeld alone, so far as I have observed,
adopts the day given by the Paschal Chronicle, vii Kal. April. It is
part of his Quartodeciman theory, which assumes that the Quarto
decimans regarded the 1 5th Nisan as the day of the Crucifixion, thus
confirming the account (as he holds) of the Synoptic Gospels against
the Fourth Evangelist. To this theory I have had occasion to allude
already (pp. 609, 654). Regarding the Letter of the Smyrnasans as a
Quartodeciman document, he supposes that the idea of conformity
to the Lord's Passion, which certainly appears elsewhere in this letter
(see above, p. 594 sq.), is especially enforced in the coincidence of the
time of the martyrdom, so that Polycarp likewise must have suffered
on the 15th Nisan, i.e. on the First Day of Unleavened Bread1. Ac-
1 The coincidence of the day, on Hil- Crucifixion was believed to have taken
genfeld's showing, is not confined to the place (Tertull. adv. fud. 8) 'consulibus
Jewish lunar calendar, but extends like- Rubellio Gemino et Fufio Gemino, mense
wise to the Roman solar calendar. The Martio, temporibus Paschae, die viii Ca-

686 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
cordingly he sees a direct reference to this assumed coincidence in the
words of Polycarp's prayer (§ 14) eiXoyoZ o-e oti Karrj^iwcrds pe Trjs rjpepas
ko.1 copas Tavrrjs (Paschastreit p. 246, Zeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. xxii.
p. 157). For this reason he considers 'the great sabbath' to have
no reference to the day of the week but to designate the 15 th Nisan,
as a great festival of the Jews, and therefore of the Quartodecimans.
This explanation of the term, it will be remembered, was first suggested
by Bucher (see p. 683). Hilgenfeld himself, though his opinion re
specting the year of the martyrdom has undergone a change, has clung
persistently throughout to March 26, as the day on which Polycarp
suffered. (1) In his Paschastreit p. 234 sq. (i860), and in the Zeitschr. f.
Wiss. Theol. iv. pp. 288 sq., 331 (1861), he expounds his earlier view.
Here he adopts a.d. 166 with Masson and Clinton, as the date of the
martyrdom. For the selection of this particular year there is no
adequate ground, as I have already explained (p. 629). But having
adopted it, he calculated that the 15th Nisan might fall as early as
March 2 7 in this year, and as the Jews outside Palestine (owing to the
uncertainty of the calendar) were directed to keep the first and the
last days of the Passover festival twice, he thus arrived at March 26
(Paschastreit p. 243, Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. iv. pp. 303, 33T). There
can be little doubt however, that he was several days out in his com
putation, if at least we reckon by the full moons, and that Nisan 15
must be placed in April in this year. See the calculations of Kunze in
Zeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. iv. pp. 303, 330; of Gensler ib. vii. p. 62 sq.;
and of Minnigerode in Wieseler Christenverfolg. p. 75 (see above, p.
671); and comp. Lipsius in Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 204 sq.
It is unnecessary however to pursue this question further, as Hilgenfeld
himself has since changed his mind respecting the year.
(2) At a later date Hilgenfeld adopted Waddington's chronology
as against Masson's, but with the modification advocated by Lipsius
(see above, p. 652), so that he now places the martyrdom a.d. 156.
His exposition of this later view will be found in Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol.
xvn. p. 324 sq., 1874 (comp. xx. p. 143 sq., 1877; xxii. p. 153 sq., 1879).
In this year 156 he again finds that the 15th Nisan fell on vii Kal.
lendarum Aprilium, die prima azymorum, reckoning it fell on Nisan 15, made it
quo agnum occiderunt ad vesperam' (see coincide with vii Kal. April., or March
also below, II. p. 1011). If, argues Hilgen- 26, the very day of Polycarp's martyr-
feld, the Antiquartodecimans, who placed dom; see Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. IV.
the Crucifixion on Nisan 14, dated it viii p. 307, xvn. p. 330.
Kal. April., the Quartodecimans, in whose

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 687
April., being a Thursday. Here he seems to be less wide of the mark
than in the former case. According to the calculations of Lipsius
(Zeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 204), if we take the eclipse of the moon
on May 6, a.d. 133, as our starting point, we arrive at March 23 for the
full moon of Nisan in the year a.d. 156; while, if we calculate by
Largeteau's tables we obtain as the result the evening of March 24.
This agrees roughly with Salmon's calculation (p. 672) which makes
Nisan 1 coincide with March 10, so that Nisan 14 would be March 23.
This would give March 24 or 25 for Nisan 15; and since the Jews
reckoned commonly, not by the astronomical new moon, but by the first
visible appearance, it might very well, he thinks, have coincided with
March 26 (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvn. p. 330 sq.).
Hilgenfeld's theory, besides its inherent difficulties, is built upon a
mistaken interpretation of the words 1-175 rjpepas ko.1 ivpas ravTrjs in § 14
as its foundation. If they had referred, as he supposes, to the coinci
dence of the day and hour with the time of the Crucifixion, we might
confidently have expected that a fact so remarkable would have been
emphasized in the course of the narrative1. But, though attention is
called to other parallels with the Gospel narrative of the Passion,
nothing is said of this. The true and obvious explanation will be found
in the notes on the passage (11. p. 971). 'This hour', 'that hour', are
expressions in which the narrators delight; and there is no more ground
for seeing a reference to the Crucifixion here than in § 2 eKeii^ Trj copa,
where other martyrs are mentioned, and where any such reference is
impossible. These expressions are not indicative of time at all.
The objections then to March 26, as the day of the martyrdom,
may be summarized as follows.
(1) It involves the adoption of a calendar which is somewhat un
certain in itself, and of which there is no evidence whatever that it existed
at this time and in this locality; (2) It rejects not only the evidence of
all the authorities in the postscript of the Smyrnaean Letter itself, which,
even when corrupt, point to February 23, but the unanimous' usage
of the Eastern Church from the earliest times. (3) It necessitates the
adoption of a year (whether 169 or 166 or 156 or 147) to which there
are various objections on one ground or another. (4) It depends (at
1 As for instance in the Acts of Mar- cula praedicent me Domini mei die fuisse
'tyrdom of SS. Simeon Barsaboe, etc., in interfectum, utque a parentibus filii dis-
Assemani Act. Mart. Orient. 1. p. 31 cant Simeonem Domini sui audientem
'Me indignum ac plane immerentem ex- fuisse, et in eundem quo Deus suus mo-
audi, mi Jesu, ut hac die tua atque pas- dum, die quartodecimo, feria sexta, fuisse
sionis tuae hora ipsa quoque calicem hunc immolatum.'
hauriam. Cupio scilicet ut ventura sae-

688 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
least in the case of Bucher and Hilgenfeld) on an interpretation of the
'great sabbath' which is unsupported by evidence or analogy, and
which seems improbable in itself. To counterbalance all these serious
objections it offers only the testimony of a single document of late
date and (for this purpose) of very inferior authority.
But what account are we to give of the irpioTov \pevBos of this theory;
the reading 'ArrpiXiwv in the Paschal Chronicle? For the following
reasons it cannot have stood in the original text, (i) It is wholly un
confirmed by any other authority. (2) It offers no explanation of the
other variations. While it is easy to explain how the other variations
arose out of MapTiW, whether by. corruption (Mai'coi/) or by deliberate
alteration (AirpiXiwv), no satisfactory genesis of the readings can be
given, if we start from ' 'AirpiXiiov. (3) On the other hand very obvious
reasons will occur, why the compiler of the Paschal Chronicle, having
the text of the Smyrnasan Letter before him, and finding there either
MapTiW or Ma'iW, should alter it into 'AjrpiAiW. For (a) Neither vii
Kal. Mart, nor vii Kal. Mai. would fall within the possible limits of
Easter; whereas both the Paschal interests of the chronicler himself and
the parallelisms to the Lord's Passion in the document before him would
suggest the Easter time as the date of the martyrdom. (/3) He would
naturally interpret the 'great sabbath' according to the technical sense
which it bore in his own day, as the Saturday before Easter Day; and.
this necessitated an alteration of the month, (y) In the age and country
in which he lived, the only calendar retaining the Macedonian names of
the months, with which he was acquainted, would be the Syromacedo'-'
nian; and in this, as we have seen (p. 684), the months were pushed
forward, so that Xanthicus was no longer the sixth, as in the Asiatic
calendar, but the seventh. (8) The arbitrary character of his alterations
is shown in the fact that he has altogether erased the words prjvos UtavBtr
kov Bevrepa, lo-rapevov, perhaps because he could not make this date fit in
with the calendar with which he was acquainted, perhaps because the
mode of expression would be unfamiliar to his readers.
(v) January 26.
This is the day assigned to Polycarp in the Latin calendars, so far
back as we can trace them. We may suspect indeed that in Gaul, so
long as Grasco-Asiatic influences prevailed, the original day, February
23, was retained; but our knowledge here is a blank.
How January 26 came to be observed in the Latin Church will be
seen from a comparison of the notices in the two old Roman Martyr-

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 689
ologies (see above, p. 554) with corresponding notices in the ancient
Syriac Martyrology (see above, p. 544) which is much older than either.
(i) Ancient Syriac Martyrology.
Latter Kanun 27 [Jan. 27] 'In the city of Nicaea, Polycarpus.'
Shebat 23 [Febr. 23] ' In Asia, of the number of the ancient confessors, Poly
carp the bishop, etc'
(ii) Hieronymian Martyrology.
vii Kal. Febr. [Jan. 26] In Nicaea Smyrnae, passio sancti Polycarpi episcopi.
vii Kal. Mart. [Febr. 23] In Asia Polycarpi episcopi cum aliis duodecim martyri
bus. Smyrnae, S. Erotis, Carpori, etc.
(iii) Old Roman Martyrology.
vii Kal. Febr. [Jan. 26] S. Polycarpi, discipuli S. Joannis apostoli, apud Smyrnam
passi.
vii Kal. Mart. [Febr. 23] Romae, Polycarpi presbyteri.
Here the secret is revealed. The last mentioned Polycarp is a local
saint, a Roman presbyter and confessor, a companion of S. Sebastian, who
was martyred under Diocletian (see Bolland Act. Sand. Februarius in. p.
369). He would naturally occupy a large space in the field of view with
Romans in the succeeding centuries; and, finding a Polycarp's festival
in some calendar which fell into their hands, they would not unnaturally
assign the day to him. But when they came afterwards to commemorate
the great Polycarp of Smyrna, his day was preoccupied, and another
time must be found for him. What more natural than that he should
be identified with or substituted for the first person of the name who
met their eye in the calendar? These substitutions and interchanges of
namesakes are a very common feature in calendars, and we shall
. come across instances (see below, 11. p. 418 sq., 428). In this way the
•Polycarp of Nicaea is altogether excluded in the final stage of the Roman
calendar. Who he was, and when he suffered, I am unable to say.
Judging from the place of martyrdom and from the fact that he is not
designated an ' ancient martyr ', we may infer that he suffered under one
of the later heathen emperors, perhaps Diocletian. The displacement
of a day (Jan. 26 for Jan. 27) is frequent in the Hieronymian Mar
tyrology, as indeed elsewhere.
The first of the three Martyrologies therefore exhibits the original
Eastern, the last the final Western arrangement; while the middle one
presents an intermediate stage, a dissolving view where the Polycarp of
Nicasa is fading away and the Polycarp of Smyrna is emerging to take
his place. IG. I. 44

690 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
It has been shown, if I mistake not, that the traditional day of the
martyrdom, February 23, has the highest claims on our acceptance, and
that its authority remains unshaken by any rival theories. But the diffi
culty of the ' great sabbath ' still remains to be explained.
' The great sabbath ' in the Christian Church was the Saturday inter
vening between Good Friday and Easter Day. As the whole week was
called rj peydXrj eftBopds (Chrysost. Op. iv. p. 294), so this Saturday was
to peya crdj3i3aTOV. Thus Chrysostom (Op. v. p. 525) writes, clWep avrrj
KerfraXaiov twv XoutcoV efiBopaBuiv, ovtojs Tavrrjs KecpaXrj to craj3j3aTov to
peya. So again it appears ib. in. p. 518 t<3 peydXu cra/3/3aVco, and in
Pallad. Vit. Chrysost. 9 (ib. XIII. p. 33) iireo-rrj rj tov peydXov 0-aj3j3aT0v
rjpepa iv rj d croiTrjp crravpiaBels icrKvXevcre tov aSrjv. But the expression
does not seem to be found earlier than the age of Chrysostom ; for in
Apost. Const, v. 19 it occurs only in the heading of the chapter, 7repi
rrjs iravwxiBos tov peydXov aa^jidrov, but not in the document itself.
Again in Can. Apost. 66 ei tis KXrjpiKos evpeBrj rrjv KvpiaKrjv rjpepav vrjcrTevoiv
ij to o-dpjiaTov irXr)v tou kvds povov, KaBaipeicrBio, where the day is men
tioned, but not the name, its absence is surely significant. It is also
a noticeable fact that neither in the Apostolic Constitutions (v. 18, 19,
viii. 33) nor in Eusebius (e.g. Vit. Const, iv. 22) nor in the Festal Letters
of Athanasius nor in the spurious Ignatian Epistles (Philipp. 13), where
they have occasion to refer to the day, do we find this designation, which
would have been highly convenient if it had been known to the writers.
There is therefore no evidence of the use of this term till more than
two centuries after Polycarp's death. Nor indeed in Polycarp's age and
country would it be possible ; for according to Quartodeciman usage
there could not be any ' great Saturday.'
The ' great sabbath ' in Jewish nomenclature was different. Here
it signified the sabbath preceding the Passover. See on this subject
Buxtorf Synagog. yud. p. 285, Pearson Minor Works 11. p. 544, and
especially Jost in Steitz J^ahrb. f. Deutsch. Theol. 1 861, p. 122. It
will be seen from these sources of information that, though this designa
tion of the Saturday preceding the Passover is conjectured to have
been much older than it is known to have been, yet the direct evidence
for its use is separated from the age of Polycarp by an interval as wide
as- that which separates the England of Alfred from the England of
Victoria1. Under these circumstances no stress can be laid on the
Jewish use of the term, more especially as it creates new difficulties
when applied to the expression in the Letter of the Smyrnaeans.
1 The earliest example given by Jost made enquiry also of Dr Schiller-Szinessy,
belongs to the eleventh century. I have and he knows no earlier evidence.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 691
But it is important to observe that the words used in the Smyrnsean
Letter are not to peya a-dp'p'aTov, but a-dp'p'aTov peya. So far as I have
observed, in passages where according to the later Christian usage
Easter Eve is intended the definite article is always present, to peya
o-dj3j3aTov, and sometimes is twice repeated, to adjBjiaTov to peya. It is
quite conceivable indeed that, as urged by Keim (p. 104) and Hilgen
feld (Zeitschr. f Wiss. Theol. xxii. p. 157), the expression might ulti
mately assume the character of a proper name, and the definite article
be dispensed with. But no example is produced; and even then I
should have expected the order peya a-dp'p'aTov. When the author of
the Paschal Chronicle (c. A.D. 630) desires to make it signify the
Saturday of Passion week, he deliberately substitutes tc3 peydXw o-afi-
pdrip (see above, pp. 553, 660) for o-ap'p'dTip peydXip of the original
document. On the other hand the old Latin translators of the Letter
of the Smyrnceans (.§§ 8, 21) and of the Ads of Pionius (see below
p. 697) both correctly translate the expression not by ' sabbatum
magnum ' but by ' sabbatum majus,' ' a high sabbath.'
Schiirer therefore (Passastreitigkeiten p. 204 sq., in Zeitschr. f. Hist.
Theol. 1870) is justified in laying stress on the absence of the article in
this case. A ' great ' or a ' high sabbath ' is an expression which ex
plains itself. Such was the sabbath mentioned in Joh. xix. 31 ijv ydp
peydXrj rj rjpepa eKeivov tov o-aj3j3dTov. Such would be any sabbath
which coincided with a festival or other marked day in the Jewish
calendar. There might therefore be several ' great sabbaths ' in the
course of a particular year. Can we determine the sabbath meant in
this instance ?
If Salmon's theory were correct (see above, p. 672 sq.), it would be
the first sabbath in Nisan, the first sabbath in the year. We have been
obliged however to abandon this theory. Volkmar (see Egli in Zeitschr.
f. Wiss. ITieol. xxv. p. 246) would explain it as ' the first sabbath in the
season of the Fast.' It is so called, he supposes, ' having regard to the
peydXrj rjpepa tcov at,vpiov, the 15th Nisan, the first great day on which
there was no more fasting.' This is the only explanation given, and
I confess that I do not understand it. A far more probable solution
was suggested by E. Liveley (+ 1605), Hebrew Professor at Cambridge.
He calculated that, according to the modern Jewish calendar, in a.d. 167
the 15th Adar, or the Feast of Purinr, would be a sabbath and would
fall on February 22 '. But this year for the martyrdom must be rejected,
1 Ussher de Maced. et Asian. Ann. p. daici, anno Mundi 3927, die 15 mensis
367 'Juxta rationes hodierni computi Ju- Adar, hoc est aerae Christianae clxvii
44—2

692 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
and moreover the great sabbath is the day not of his apprehension, but
of his martyrdom, not Feb. 22, but Feb. 23. Still with the proper recti
fication this identification with the Feast of Purim is by far the most
probable explanation of the difficulty ; and, as such, is favourably enter
tained by Zahn (note on Mart. Polyc. 8). Wieseler indeed, though
allowing that the term a-dp'p'aTov peya might well be used of a sabbath
which, coincided with the Feast of Purim, says ' This festival could
hardly fall as early as 23 February, since according to rule Nisan 15
must take place (' Statt haben sollte ') after the vernal equinox.' This
statement is over bold1. A study of the excellent article on the Jewish
calendar in Hamburger's Real-Encyclopddie fiir Bibel u. Talmud 11.
p. 608 sq., will dissipate any such confidence. It is plain that the
present Jewish calendar was not introduced till long after Polycarp's
time; that in his age there was no universally recognized and authori
tative rule; that the calendar varied from place to place, as well as from
time to time ; that these fluctuations and divergences gave infinite
trouble to the leading spirits among the Jews; and that conferences and
journeys were undertaken again and again ineffectually in order to arrive
at uniformity. It was an age of transition. The devastation of Palestine
under Hadrian had made the need of a central authority at once more
necessary and more difficult. The perplexities of the times affected
the calendar. The old mode of regulating the months by the first
appearance of the new moon had proved unsatisfactory. The need of
some fixed rule was felt. As regards Proconsular Asia more especially two
notices are preserved, bearing on this subject. Somewhere about the
middle of the second century the famous R. Meir took up his abode in
Sardis2, where he lived until his death3. He there framed a system of
intercalation (Talm. Babl. Megillah 18 b)4. In the first half of the third
century again two other Rabbis, Chiya and Simon, made a journey

die 22 mensis Februarii, festum Purim cum Jewish calendar frequently fallen many
die Sabbati concurrebat; quem idcirco days before Feb. 23, before the Grego-
magnum Sabbatum fuisse dictum scripsit rian reform of the Julian calendar.
in chronologia nondum edita vir doctissi- 2 It is called 'Asia' (K'DN or SODV);
mus Edouardus Liveleius.' The work see Neubauer Geogr. du Talmud, p. 310.
seems to remain still unpublished (MS 3 See also Hamburger Real-Encycl. .11.
Dubl. Univ. Libr. F. 88, 89). On this p. 7r4 sq., s. v. Mair, R.
learned man and his works see Cooper's 4 The notice illustrates the observance
Athene? Cantabrigienses II. p. 407 sq. of the Feast of Purim in these parts ; for
Wieseler (p. 59) calls him 'LiveP. we are told that R. Meir, not being able
1 According to Jahn's Tafeln (1856) to find there a roll of the Book of Esther,
the 14th Adar has with the existing wrote one from memory.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 693
to this same place ; and they too are reported to have undertaken a
similar reform of the calendar1 (Synhedrin 26 a).
The present Jewish calendar is regulated by a cycle of nineteen
years. There is every reason to believe that it was not framed before
the close of the Talmudic age, and therefore not till many generations
after Polycarp's time; nor indeed would it offer a solution of the problem.
Yet, if at that time any cycle had been introduced, it would most pro
bably be a period of nineteen years. This is the Metonic cycle. It
had long been known in Syria and the adjacent countries. It is the
simplest of application. It has ultimately triumphed over all rivals as
a main element in the regulation of Easter in the Christian Church.
A hypothesis, even though incapable of verification, will serve to show
the possibilities of the case, which are manifold. < Let us suppose then,
that Rabbi Meir, when he migrated to Proconsular Asia owing to the
troubles in Palestine under Hadrian, persuaded the Jews of those
parts to adopt a nineteen years' cycle of his own construction ; that
its intercalary months were so arranged that in the year 155 the 14th or
15th Adar fell on February 23; and that this calendar continued still
in use till after the middle of the third century. We might thus find
an explanation of the fact that this same day of the solar calendar,
which was a 'great sabbath' in a.d. 155 when Polycarp was martyred,
was likewise a 'great sabbath' in a.d. 250 when Pionius was apprehended;
for the interval is an exact multiple of nineteen (19 x 5). The Feast
of Purim would on the assumed hypothesis fall on the same day in these
two years. No commemoration in the Jewish calendar was so likely
to excite the fanaticism of the more bigoted Jews, as we find it
excited in the accounts of the last hours of Polycarp and Pionius.
But the martyrdom of Polycarp not only synchronized with a Jewish
high-day. It occurred likewise during a heathen festival. What was
this festival ?
The three celebrations, of which we hear most at Smyrna at this
epoch (though chiefly in connexion with gymnastic contests), are the
games of the Asiatic Confederation (koivci 'Acrias), the Olympia (OXvp-
iria), and the Hadrianian Olympia ('ASpiava or 'ASpiaveia 'OXvpiria) *.
1 The expression in both cases is "OS?1? |8', 'ASpiavb. '0\bp.iria iv SLiipvy ft, Koiva
TW 'to intercalate a year,' but this is 'Adas iv 2fivpvy (comp. ib. 127, 128),
understood to mean 'to calculate a system dating soon after A.D. 248 ; C.I. G. 5913
of intercalation,' as I learn from Dr Ipvpvav e Koiva Aalas Sis rb Sevrepov <m)-
Schiller-Szinessy. «as robs dvTaytoviards, oiiolws iv Tijaipvi]
" 2 C.I. A. III. 129 'OXvpuria iv Xptpvy 'OXvpiiria Kal 'ASpidvia'OXvpiria. See also

694

EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.

At a later date a festival in honour of Commodus is added (C. I. G.
1720 Kojuo'Seia). Of these three we most naturally turn to the Koiva
'Ao-ias — the great anniversary of Caesar-worship — as the most renowned
(see above p. 451, and below n. p. 988). The presence of both
Proconsul and Asiarch suggests this occasion. The air likewise is
redolent of Caesar (§§ 8, 9, 10). We may observe also that on vii Kal.
Mart., the date of Polycarp's martyrdom, the festival had been going on
for some days (§ 12); and that in an inscription belonging to the
neighbouring city of Ephesus dated a.d. 104 (see above, p. 665) the
preceding day, viii Kal. Mart., is styled 'Augustus' Day' (XejSauTrjy.

ib. 3208 ~Zp.vpvav 'OXvpiria t§ ?/cttj Kai
8eKdrrj...AZp,vpvav Koivbv 'Aalas : comp. ib.
1720, where again these same two festivals
are mentioned together. The Olympia
and Hadrianian Olympia occur together
in Wood's Ephesus Inscr. vi. 20 (p. 70);
the koivov (or Koiva) 'Aalas alone, C.I.G.
247, 2810b Add., 3910, 5804, 5918; the
'OXvp-iria alone, ib. 3201 ; the 'A5p.
'OAu/A7ria, ib. 3148.
Speaking of the honours showered
upon the sophist Polemon by the Smyr
nseans, Philostratus (Vit. Soph. i. 25 § 1)
writes, irpoKaBijaBai ydp twv 'ASpiavwv
' OXvpirlwv 'iSoaav rco avSpl Kal iyybvois,
Kal rrjs lepds rpajpovs iiufiarebeiv' iripire-
rai ydp ris p.i)vl ' AvBeo-rrjpiwvL peraptria
rpii)pT}s is dyopdv, rjv 6 rov Aiovbaov lepevs,
olov KVpepvrjrrjs, evBvvei irelopara iK Ba-
XaTTTjs Xvovaav. This Polemon seems
to have been instrumental in establishing
the Hadrianian Olympia (Boeckh C.I.G.
n. p. 7r3; see above p. 451, note 5).
He is also mentioned by Philostratus in
connexion with the Olympia at Smyrna
(/. c. § 9). Philostratus' account of him
throws considerable light on the con
dition of Smyrna in the age of Polycarp.
The pageant of the trireme formed part
of the Dionysia (Aristid. Op. I. 373 rjpos
wpa irpwr-r] Aiovvviois Tpnjprjs k.t.X.). The
Dionysia therefore took place in Anthe
sterion ; and it is possible that Polycarp
suffered during them. But 'the begin
ning of spring' suggests a somewhat later
day than Feb. 23.

1 The meaning of 2e/3ao-Ti} is difficult
to determine, and the suggestion in the
text can only be taken as tentative.
The following are the occurrences of the
word, (a) In the Ephesian inscription,
with which we are immediately concerned,
it is Anthesterion 2 = viii Kal. Mart.
(j3) An inscription at Trajanopolis given
in Lebas and Waddington no 1676 is
dated Srovs <ne' , p,(Tjvbs) Aai<r[l\ov, He/jacTrj
s'. The Syllan year 215 is a.d. 130, and
therefore in the reign of Hadrian. The
6th Daesius according to the calendar of
Proconsular Asia (see above, p. 662)
would be April 28 ; but we do not know
what calendar is intended. (7) We meet
with ' Sebaste ' again in two Egyptian in
scriptions (C.I. G. 4715, 5866 c. Add.),
and with 'Julia Sebaste' in a third (C. A G.
4957). In 47 r 5 , belonging to the 3 rst year
of Augustus, we have QwvB 2e/3a0Tjj, which
(if ithad stood alone) wouldhave been easily
explicable, since the birthday of Augustus
(Sept. 23) fell on the 26th of the month
Thoth. ButinAdd.5866c,belongingtothe
27th year of the same reign, we read c6a/>-
p.ovB[i] 2e/3ao-Tj;, as if some one particular
day in each month bore this name. In
495 7 the date is given TdXfia abroKpdropos,
(pawcpl a','lovXla Se^ao-ry. If the reckon
ing is according to the fixed Egyptian
calendar, this would be iv Kal. Oct. (Sept.
28). Thisisnot, asBoeckh (ill. p. 45 r), fol
lowing Letronne, supposes, the birthday
of Livia, whose title was Julia Augusta.
Her birthday fell towards the end of

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 695
But if there is any connexion between these two facts which I have
thus put in juxtaposition, both the Olympia and the Hadrianian
Olympia are excluded, as not yet existing in a.d. 104; the former
having been instituted, as the inscriptions suggest, at a more recent date
and probably by Hadrian's influence (see above, p. 617 sq.), the latter
having been founded, as the name betokens, to commemorate this
emperor either by himself or by his successor. We thus fall back once
more upon the Koiva 'Acrias. It should be added also that in the
'Asiatic' calendar the month Xanthicus is designated ' Hierosebastus '
(see above, p. 662), thus pointing to some imperial commemoration at
this season. All this however is merely tentative. We need further
epigraphic aid which the discoveries of future years may afford, before
we can advance beyond the region of conjecture.
On the Date of Pionius1 Martyrdom.
It may be convenient, before entering on this investigation, to
premise that the two years with which we are especially concerned are
designated by the following consulships.
a.d. 250 (Imp. Caesar C. Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius Augustus II.
(  Vettius Gratus.
A.D. 251 jimp. Caesar C. Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius Augustus III.
I Q. Herennius Etruscus Messius Decius Caesar.
See Klein Fasti Consulares p. 105. The latter year is sometimes
designated ' duobus Deciis,' the emperor and his son being colleagues
in office. I have explained . already (p. 624) the relation in which these Acts
of Pionius stood to those of Polycarp in the copy used by Eusebius.
The volume comprised (1) The Letter of the Smyrnceans, containing the
January (see C. I. L. VI. 2024), though I gustus. This is plausible in itself; but
do not see why Henzen places it definite- it does not explain all the facts.
ly on iii Kal. Feb. (Jan. 30). It should be mentioned that Unger
Usener (see above, p. 661), finding the (Fleckeisen's Neue yahrbiicher 1884, p.
letters SEBAS opposite the first day in 569) believes that Sept. 23, as the birth-
several months in the Lycian calendar of day of Augustus, was according to the
the Leyden Hemerology, infers that the old Roman calendar before the Julian re-
first of each month in the calendar of Pro- form. This however is a matter of no
consular Asia (corresponding always to ix moment for our present purpose, since
Kal. of the Julian calendar) was called confessedly after the introduction of the
aepourrrj, because it was the monthly Julian calendar it was always celebrated
commemoration of the birthday of Au- on Sept. 23 of this latter.

696 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
narrative of Polycarp's martyrdom; (2) The Ads of Pionius and others
who were martyred with him ; (3) The Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and
Agathonice (see above, p. 542 sq.). Eusebius ascribed all the three to
the time of M. Aurelius. In the case of the first he was not far wrong,
though we have seen reasons for assigning it to the previous reign.
The third seems certainly to belong to the epoch of an associated
sovereignty, and may have been correctly ascribed by him to the age of
M. Aurelius, who during a great part of his reign had a colleague in the
empire, first his ' brother ' Verus and then his son Commodus (see
above, p. 625 sq.). In the second case alone Eusebius seems to have
been wide of the mark. All the extant recensions of the Acts of Pionius
place his martyrdom a century later, in the reign of Decius. Yet, even
so, the mistake of Eusebius is explicable. First; these Acts at the
opening speak of the celebration of Polycarp's day and might suggest
to a careless reader the impression that they were contemporaneous.
Secondly; as they were interposed between two sets of Acts both
belonging to the age of the Antonines, the first impulse would be to
assign them to the same age.
The Acts of Pionius, as hitherto published, appear only in Latin,
but in two different recensions. (A) An old Latin version of Greek
Acts, first published in full by Ruinart Ad. Sine. Mart. p. 188 sq.
(ed. Ratisbon.) from two Colbertine and two other mss. Bolland (Act.
Sand. Febr. 1) had already given fragments of this recension from a
ms of the monastery of S. Maximin at Treves. One of the Colbertine
mss is stated by Ruinart to be nearly eight hundred years old ('ad annos
800 accedit'). I have myself looked at the British Museum ms Harl.
2800, which contains these Acts (fol. 246 b); but its text is corrupt and
of no value. (B) A modern Latin version made from 'the Metaphrast,'
and published under Febr. 1 by Lipomannus (a. d. 155 i sq.) and Surius
(a.d. 1570). The greater part is given likewise by Baronius Ann.
Eccles. s. a. 254. It is reprinted in Bolland Ad. Sand. Februa
rys 1. p. 37 sq. By the kindness of Dr O. von Gebhardt, who has
transcribed the unpublished Greek Acts from a ms in the Library of
S. Mark, Venice, Graec. ccclix, with a view to publication, I am enabled
to give some extracts. So far as I can judge from these extracts, this
seems to be the same recension from which the Latin version in Surius,
Bolland, and the others is made.
Of the comparative merits of these two recensions, which I shall call
A and B respectively, it would be more easy to judge if we possessed
the originals. On the whole A seems to preserve the more ancient
form. The chief distinguishing characteristic of B is the insertion of

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 697
some explanatory details which are wanting in A. Thus in § 3 B gives
a notice about the movements of the crowd, which implies some local
knowledge (' cum in forum venissent et in porticu ad orientem sita ad
portam duplicem constitissent, impletum est totum forum et superiores
porticus, etc.'). So again in § 9, where we are told that Sabina had
been schooled by Pionius to give her name as Theodota ' ne in manus
dominae impiae posset incidere,' the allusion is unexplained in A (see
above, p. 623); but B inserts an explanation of which I give the ori
ginal from the Venice MS: irpos to prj iprrecreiv avrrjv iK tou dvoparos
irdXiv eis rds x«Pas rrjs dvopov UoXirTrjs Trjs yevopevrjs avrrjs Sea-jroiV^s"
avtrj yap eni Kaipiov TopBiavov, f}ovXopevrj perayayelv Trjs irio-Tecos T17V
2a/JiVav, TreSijo-cwa e£copicrev avrrjv iv opecriv oirov ei^e Ta imrrjBeia XdBpa
irapa tcov dSeXtpcoV perd 8e TauVa orrovSr/ eyeveTO cor/re avrrjv iXevBepai-
Brjvai Kal IIoXitttjs koi tcov Beo-pav k.t.X. It will be seen from these
examples that the insertions of the recension B resemble in character
the additions of Codex Bezae in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps also
they may be explained in the same way, as additions made to the
original Acts of Pionius by some one who, if not an eye-witness, yet
lived while the tradition was still fresh. But I would wish to speak
with reserve on this point, as our published data are at present insuffi
cient to justify a confident opinion. On the whole, as a recension,
A seems to be more ancient than B, and the Latin appears to have
been for the most part a very close translation from the original.
The notices then respecting the dates are as follows.
(1) The lime of the apprehension at the opening in § 2.
(A) 'Secundo itaque die sexti mensis, qui dies est quarto Idus Martias, die sab-
bati majore, natale Polycarpi martyris celebrantes genuinum, Pionium, Sabinam,
etc.. ..vis persecutionis invenit.'
In the two Colbert mss ' sexti ' is omitted , probably from the inability of the scribe
to understand how the Ides of March could synchronize with the 6th month.
(B) 'Vigesima tertia mensis Februarii die, cum sabbatum magnum instaret,
natali scilicet beati martyris Polycarpi, vigente Decii imperatoris persecutione, Pionius
presbyter et Sabina verae pietatis studiosa etc.comprehensi sunt.'
prpibs ?KToy Sevrlpa iviarapjivov o-afSfjdrov pieydXov iv Ty yeveBXla ijp-ipa tov pMKapiov
paprvpos UoXvKdpirov, Svros tov Stwypiov tov Karb, Aixiov, avveXr)aj6riaav Uibvios irpeafib-
repos Kal Zajiiva 6pu>Xoyi}Tpla k.t.X.
(2) The time of the martyrdom at the close in § 23.
(A) 'Acta sunt haec sub proconsule Julio Proclo et Quintiliano, consule Im-
peratore Gaio Mense Quinto, Trajano Decio et Vizeto Grato, et ut Romani dicunt iv
Idus Martii, et ut Asiani dicunt mense sexto, die sabbati, hora decima. Sic autem
facta sunt ut nos scripsimus, imperante Domino nostro Jesu Christo, cui est honor et
gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen. '

698 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
So it is read in the Colbert mss. For 'Julio  ut nos scripsimus' the MS S.
Maximin. has 'Julio Proculo et Quintiliano C. Messio Quinto Trajano Decio, Vicio
Grato, ut Romani dicunt' etc. (the rest as in the Colbert mss) ; the MS of de Noailles
'Julio Proculo et Quintiliano, Gaio Messio, Quinto Trajano Decio Vitiotrato, quarto
Idus Martii, die sabbati, hora decima : sunt autem facta ut scripsimus ' ; Harl. 2800
' Julio Proculo et Decio imperatore quarta Idus Martii, sexta die mensis, sabbato et
hora decima' (omitting 'sic autem. ..scripsimus').
(B) ' Haec acta sunt Julio Asiae proconsule, Proclo et Quintiliano magistratum
gerentibus, consule tertium Messio Quinto Trajano et Deltio Gratio secundum, Tra
jano Decio Augusto, ante iv Idus Martias more Romanorum, Asiae autem more septi-
mi mensis undecimo, die sabbati, hora decima ; ut nos autem loquimur, regnante
Domino nostro Jesu Christo etc'
Taura iirpaxBy iirl avBvirdrov ttjs 'Aalas 'lovXiov, XlpbKXov Kal KvvriXXiavov oTraTeucV-
twv, abroKpdropos rb rplrov l\Lealov Kbvrov Tpa'Cavov Kal AeXrlov Tparov Vpaiavov AeKlov
Xefiao-Tov Kal AeXHov Tparov rb 8ebrepov, irpo reaadpwv ISwv M.aprlwv Kara, *\?wpxxlovs,
Kara Si ' Acriav obs p,ijvbs ^ktov ivveaKaiSeKarrj, rjpepa aafifi&TW, wpa SeKaTT], Kara Si
r)pds paviXevovros rov Kvpiov i)p.wv 'Irjaov Hpiarov, q) 1) 56£a els robs alwvas twv alwvav.
ap-qv. To these passages in the Acts should be added the notice in the Chron. Pasch.
pp. 503, 504 (ed. Bonn.), which I will call C.
(C) 'IvS. 18' . a', brr. Aejcfoo Kalaapos Kal Aerfou vlov abrov.
Kai iv AZpvpvrj Tr)s'Ao-las Uiovios abv flXXois rroXXots ipaprbprjcrev, dvr)p Xbyios Kal rwv
iv p.aBr)paaiv rov Xpto-rtavwv Xbyov SiairpeirbvTWv yvwpi£6pevos, iirl TlpoKXov Kv'ivriXXi-
avov avBvirdrov Trjs 'Aalas irpb 6" ISwv Maprlwv, 0 ion Kara 'Aaiavobs p.rpil iKTip i(3', ca(3-
pdrov wpa SeKary.
With these data, we have to consider first the year and then the day
of the martyrdom.
(1) As regards the year, there can be no doubt that A assigns it to
a.d. 250. The words should doubtless be read 'Sub proconsule Julio
Proclo Quintiliano, coss. Imperatore Gaio Messio Quinto Trajano
Decio et Vettio Grato.' On the other hand C places it under a.d. 251,
but C has tumbled about the consuls for these years in hopeless confu
sion. It gives the names in the following order : (i) Decius and
Gratianus, i.e. Gratus (a.d. 250); (ii) Gallus and Volusianus (a.d. 252);
(iii) Volusianus and Maximus (a.d. 253); (iv) Decius and Decius (a.d.
251); (v) Valerianus and Gallienus (a.d. 254). Its authority there
fore is valueless. As regards B, Ussher (de Maced. et Asian. Ann. p.
372 sq.) considers that it originally gave the consuls of a.d. 251 in the
text; that some scribe annotated in the margin those of a.d. 250 'ex
fastis consularibus, qui hoc in loco sunt turbatissimi ' ; and that thence
the note crept partially into the text and produced the confusion which
we find. It should be observed that Ussher was only acquainted wi,th
B and C. Had he known A, he could not have maintained this view.
If there be any interpolation from the margin such as he supposes, it

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 699
must have been the converse. The consuls of a.d. 250 must have
stood in the text originally, and those of a.d. 25r have been super
posed. But I do not see anything of the kind. The to TpiVov is a
mistaken interpretation of T, i.e. Paiou, the praenomen of Decius, which
accordingly has disappeared in B, and to Bevrepov belongs properly to
the senior consul, the emperor himself; but as he was already provided
with a number to TpiVov in the way which I have explained, it was
necessary to transfer to Bevrepov to his junior colleague. The younger
Decius however, the son Herennius Etruscus, was never consul more
than once. The rest of the confusion is explained by a careless repeti
tion of names. The year of the martyrdom therefore is a.d. 250. This
year moreover, as I have shown (see above, p. 693), offers an explana
tion of the ' great sabbath ', which it is impossible to explain if the year
251 be taken.
(2) When we come to consider the day, we must keep apart two
distinct dates; (a) The day of the apprehension, and (/3) The day of the
martyrdom. (a) As regards the day of the apprehension, C affords no aid. But
comparing A and B together, we can be at no loss as to the original.
It Stood prjvos Iktov Bevrepa ivurrapivov o-a/3j3dTov peydXov, iv rj) yeveB-
Xi<o rjpepa. tov p.aKapiov paprvpos UoXvKapirov k.t.X.; or perhaps we should
read SevTepa. IcrTapevov, o-ajSpdrio peydXui k.t.X., which may be compared
with the date given in the account of Polycarp's martyrdom UavBucov
oeurepa IcrTapevov  trafipdrw peydXoi. The explanatory Roman date found
only in the Latin of Al, 'qui dies est quarto Idus Martias' [March 12],
is obviously an interpolation from the end of the Acts where it gives
the day of the martyrdom. The day of the apprehension then was
Febr. 23. The genuinum natale of the Latin is probably a transla
tion of the simple yeviBXios rjpepa of the Greek. The Roman
emperors had two birthdays, the 'imperii natalis' and the 'lucis
natalis,' the day of their accession and the day of their natural birth,
the latter being called also 'genuinus' or 'genethliacus' (see Gothofred
Cod. Theod. 1. p. 143, 11. p. 156). As applied to a martyr, his 'genuinus
natalis' is the day of his martyrdom, which was his birth into the
heavenly light. The word therefore does not contain any suggestion of
a previous error in the time of keeping Polycarp's festival, as we might
suppose at first sight.
In the year a.d. 250 the second of the sixth month (Xanthicus),
February 23, was a Saturday, as it was in a.d. 155, the year of Polycarp's
martyrdom. In A the expression o-dj3j3aTov peya is correctly translated
' sabbatum maj us,' not ' magnum', as I have already pointed out. The

700 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
translator did not confuse it with ' the great sabbath ' of later Christian
nomenclature. Probably, as on the actual day of Polycarp's martyr
dom, so also on this commemoration the Feast of Purim fell on this
day, and hence the name. ¦ Reasons have been given above (p. 692 sq.)
for the surmise that a nineteen years' cycle prevailed in Asia Minor
at this time; so that the Jewish festivals would recur on exactly the
same days of the year in a.d. 250 as in a.d. 155. This, so far as
it goes, is a confirmation not only of the veracity of the accounts both
of Polycarp and of Pionius, but also of the particular years which we
have assigned on other grounds to the two martyrdoms'.
(/3) The day of the martyrdom is given in all our authorities as
iv Id. Mart. (i.e. March 12). Moreover, as we have already seen, this
date has from this passage crept into the opening of the narrative like
wise. The evidence therefore in its favour is very considerable. This
point then we must regard as settled. A period of seventeen days
would thus have elapsed between the capture and the martyrdom. This
is an interval long enough, and not too long, for the incidents as given
in the Acts. In the corresponding ' Asiatic ' date there are great dis
crepancies. In the Greek of B it is given as eVi/eaKaiSeKaVr/, the 19th.
A glance at the calendar given above (p. 663) will show that this is
correct; for ivld. Mart, there corresponds to Xanthicus 19. Moreover
the date in the corresponding Latin of B, 'undecimo,' is explicable.
Some letters have dropped out either in the Greek (eV|VeaKai]S€Ko:T)7,
and so evSeKdrrj) or in the Latin (' unde[vi]c[es]imo, and so ' undecimo ').
In A the number of the day is altogether omitted, probably because
the translator or the scribe could not reconcile it with any calendar
with which he was acquainted. In C we have the substitution i/}\ This
may be an error of transcription ; but I am disposed to think that it
is a deliberate substitution in accordance with the Syromacedonian
calendar of the fourth and later centuries (see above, p. 685), where the
Syromacedonian months ran pari passu with the Julian. In the Menaea
the day of Pionius is March 1 1. This may be an accidental displace
ment of one day (which is not unfrequent), or it may have arisen out of
the false reading evBeKarrj already mentioned. As regards the number
of the month, A and C agree with the Greek of B in €ktcj>, as indeed the
corresponding Latin date requires. The Latin of B alone reads the
1 Following his theory (see above, p. and on this day therefore he places the
683) that Polycarp's day was a moveable apprehension of Pionius. But to do this
feast, and adopting the year 251, Ussher he is obliged to reject both the Asiatic
(p. 372) finds that the Saturday before and the Roman dating and retains only
the Passover in this year was March 22', the o-dpfHarov piya.

DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM. 701
7th, 'septimo.' I suppose that this is an error of some Latin scribe,
vii for vi. Noris (De Ann. Maced. p. 31) says ' Unius literae variatione,
firrcp for Iktco, mensis sextus in septimum... mutatus fuit.' It is barely
possible perhaps that the Latin translator might have supposed that
em-os was a good Greek word (for efiBopos), but he has done nothing to
deserve this imputation of ignorance. Another possible explanation
would be that Xanthicus was the 7th month in the calendar (see
above, p. 685) of some Greek scribe, who altered it accordingly.
But what are we to say of o-a/3/3aTco? March 12 was not a Satur
day either in a.d. 250 or in a.d. 251. The Saturdays in a.d. 250
were Feb. 23 (vii Kal. Mart.), March 2 (vi Non. Mart.), March 9 (vii Id.
Mart.), March 16 (xvii Kal. Apr.). No explanation therefore is possible,
based on an erroneous transcription of the Roman date. It remains
that o-ap'p'dTo) must be an interpolation here. This is also Noris's view
(p. 31)1. Just as we saw that the Roman date, iv Id. Mart., was inter
polated in the earlier part of the narrative from the later, so conversely
the 'sabbath' is interpolated in the later part from the earlier. Every
thing in the narrative points to a sabbath as the day of the appre
hension, but nothing there suggests a sabbath as the day of the actual
martyrdom. We may therefore with some confidence restore the chronological
notice at the close of the Acts of Pionius as follows;
Taura irrpdxBrj iirl dvBvwdTov \rijs 'Acrias] 'IouXiou IIpoKXo-u Ko'ivTiXXia-
vov, viraTevovTOjV [auTOKparopos] Taiou Mecrcriou KoiVtou Tpa'iavov AeKiov
[SeySaoTOu] to Bevrepov Kal Overriov Tparov, irpd Tecrcrapcov eiScoV Mapricov
KaTa 'Tcopaiovs, Kara Be 'Acriavois prjvos eKrov evveaKaiSeKaTrj rjpepa, copa
SeKaTjj, Kara Be rjpds j3acriXevovTOs tov TUvpiov rjpiov 'Irjcrov Xpiorov k.t.X.
'These things happened when Julius Proculus Quintilianus was proconsul [of
Asia], in the consulship of [Imperator] Gaius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius [Au
gustus] for the second time and Vettius Gratus, according to Roman reckoning on the
4th before the Ides of March, according to Asiatic reckoning on the 19th day of the
sixth month, at the tenth hour, but according to the reckoning of us (Christians) in
the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc'
Aube" (L'E'glise et I'itat p. 142, 1885) writes; 'It is certain that the
Greek Acts which Eusebius had before his eyes did not contain either
the name of the proconsul who judged Pionius or the name of the
emperor Trajanus Decius, both of them given in the Latin works.' I do
not feel so sure on this point. As regards the proconsul's name, I have
1 Hesays'utrobique', 'in both places'; day of the apprehension, a sabbath is
but in the earlier passage, where it is the altogether in its place, as we have seen.

702 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
already given reasons why it might have been read by Eusebius without
suggesting a date (p. 620). The case of the emperor's name is different.
Clearly it cannot have stood in the forefront (§ 2), as it does in B, tou
Suoypov tov Kara AeKiov. But its absence in A shows that the mention of
the name here in B is a later addition. If however it occurred only in
the chronological note at the end, it might possibly have escaped his
notice, more especially if avroKparopos and 25e/3ao-rou were wanting in
his copy, as they are in some of ours. Zahn apparently considers that
Eusebius was correct in ascribing the martyrdom of Pionius to the age
of Polycarp and not to that of Decius (see Harnack Zeitschr. f. Kirchen-
gesch. 11. p. 81). He therefore looks upon the present Acts of Pionius
as interpolated since the time of Eusebius (Ign. et Polyc. Epist. pp. 1,
164, 165). But the characteristics of the age of Decius (the prominence
of the sects for instance) seem to me to be woven into the very texture
of these Acts; and I cannot conceive any scheme of interpolation
which would bring them into harmony with the times of M. Aurelius
and yet preserve anything worth preserving. I am constrained there
fore to hold Eusebius guilty of an error in this case.
The Western Churches keep the day of Pionius on Febr. ist, and
this is found as early as the Old Roman Martyrology (see above, p. 554).
But the Hieronymian Martyrology preserves traces of the correct day.
Under iv Id. Mart, we read 'Smyrnae Pionis Metrodi' [I. Pionii, Metro-
dori]; though under Kal. Feb. we find the name 'Poenis' [PioniiJ twice,
and in conjunction with a Polycarpus (see above, p. 554). There
seems therefore to be a confusion of two persons bearing the name;
and Feb. ist would belong originally not to the Smyrnaean martyr, but
to his namesake.

7©3

IMPERIAL FASTI.
a.d. 117. Accession of Hadrian (August 11). His name becomes
Imp. Caesar Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus.
a.d. 136. L. Ceionius Commodus Verus adopted Caesar (before
August 29). His name becomes L. Aelius Caesar.
A.D. 138. L. Aelius Caesar dies (January 1). T. Aurelius Fulvus
Boionius Arrius Antoninus adopted Caesar (February 25).
His name becomes T. Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus.
He himself adopts M. Annius Verus and L. Ceionius
Commodus (the son of the above-mentioned). They
become M. Aelius Aurelius Verus and L. Aelius Aurelius
Commodus.
Accession of T. Antoninus on the death of Hadrian
(July 10). His imperial name is Imp. Caesar T. Aelius
Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius.
A.D. 147. M. Aurelius receives the tribunician power (before March
17)-
a.d. 161. Accession of M. Aurelius on the death of Antoninus
Pius (March 7). His imperial title is Imp. Caesar M.
Aurelius Antoninus Augustus.
L. Aelius is associated in the empire, and becomes Imp.
Caesar L. Aurelius Verus Augustus.
a.d. 166. L. Aelius Aurelius Commodus, the son of Marcus, is made
Caesar (Oct. 12).
a.d. 169. Death of L. Verus (January). M. Aurelius is now sole
emperor.

704 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
a.d. 176. L. Aurelius Commodus is associated with his father in the
empire at the end of this year or the beginning of the
next. His name is Imp. Caesar L. Aurelius Commodus
Augustus.
a.d. 180. Death of M. Aurelius (March 17), when Commodus
becomes sole emperor. His name is changed into Imp.
Caesar M. Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Pius Felix
Augustus ; but the change of the praenomen from Lucius
to Marcus is not constant.

s J *- ^
Sim, ° B

INDEX.

IG. I.

45

INDEX.

Abeddadan ; confused with Sheba in the
Apostolical constitutions, and in the
Long Recension, 252
Abercius (S.), Life of; authorities for,
477; its contents, 477; epitaph em
bedded in, 477, its confusion between
'Hierapolis' and 'Hieropolis,' 478;
the epitaph itself discovered, 479 sq. ;
text, translation, and notes, 481 sq. ; its
allegorical character, 482; the erasure
in it, 483 ; the foundation for the story
in the Life, 482 sq. ; date of the Life,
483; chronological errors of the writer,
484.
Abercius, bishop of Hieropolis ; his iden
tification with Avircius Marcellus, 478,
482; his visit to Rome, and Meso
potamia, 477, 482; writings ascribed
to, 485 ; see Avircius Marcellus
Abercius, two of the name in the Life of
S. Abercius, 478
Abircius, recently discovered inscriptions
containing the name, 485
Abridgments, phenomena of, 312
Acacius of Caesarea, considered by Zahn
to be the author of the Long Recen
sion, 254
Acta Pilati; not quoted as genuine by
Tertullian, 55 ; nor by Justin Martyr,
55; subsequent to and resultant from
their statements, 55
Acts of Leucius, the name Burrhus in,
Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius; Ar
menian, 89; Greek, 54; Syriac, 99 sq.
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas ; date of,
135; coincidences with the Ignatian
Epistles in, 135, 335
Acts of Pionius ; see Pionius, Acts of
Acts of Sharbil ; see Sharbil, Acts of
Acts of Thekla; date and character, 607;
resemblances to the Letter of the Smyr
nseans, 607
Acts of Titus; description of, 56; ascribed
to Zenas, 56; their account of Pliny's
conversion, 56

Addai, Doctrine of, plagiarised in the
Long Recension, 249
Ado of Vienne; his date, 118, 559;
quotes the Ignatian Epistles in the Latin
Version of the Long Recension, 118,
214; sources of his account of Ignatius,
221; of his information generally, 554,
559 ; on the martyrdom of S. Caecilia,
504 sq.
jElius Verus ; see L. Verus, the Elder
Africa, martyrdoms in, 506 sq., 508 sq.
African proconsulate ; see Proconsulate
Agape, its relation to the Eucharist, 52,
386 sq.
Agapius the martyr, Eusebius' account
of, 597
Agathonice ; mention by Eusebius of her
martyrdom, 542, 624; represented as
sister of Papylus, 626 ; date of her mar
tyrdom, 625 sq., 696; see Papylus,
Pergamene Martyrs
Agathopus, Rhaius, deacon of Syria ; fol
lows the route of Ignatius, 36, 354 sq.;
at Troas brings good news from Anti
och, 36, 354 sq.; possibly the corre
spondent of Valentinus, 375
Alee; meets Ignatius at Smyrna, 35, 352
sq.; the name Smyrnaean, 353; coinci
dence in the Martyrdom of Polycarp,
353, 608; sister of Nicetas and aunt. of
Herodes, 35, 353, 437; not the wife of
Polycarp, 424
Aldus Manutius; publishes the corre
spondence of Pliny, 54 ; establishes its
authenticity, 54 sq.
Alexander, bishop of Rome, Acts of;
their worthlessness, 489 sq.
Alexander, Hieropolitan inscription on
the tomb of, 478; its relation to the
epitaph of Abercius, 478 sq.
Alexander, husband and son of S. Feli
citas, 495 sq. ; inscription on the son's
tomb discovered, 496; the basilica of
S. Felicitas, once the husband's house,
497
Alexander of Abonoteichos, 450
45—2

708

INDEX.

Alexander of Jerusalem; plagiarised in
the Ignatian Epistle to the Antiochenes
through Eusebius, 249
Alexander, physician from Phrygia and
martyr, 430
Alexander Severus; see Severus, Alex
ander
Allatius' professed transcript of a Vatican
MS. exposed, 1 1 1 sq.
Amisa, correspondence between Pliny and
Trajan respecting, 20
Amr of Tirhani mentions the vision of
Ignatius, 31
Anachronisms alleged against the Igna
tian Epistles, 351, 371 sq., 397 sq.,
407
Anacolutha in the Ignatian Epistles; a
proof of their hurried character, 406 ;
analogous to the Pauline Epistles, 406
Anastasia the Deaconess, Letter to; not
from Ignatius, but from Severus of
Antioch, 183 sq.; Merx's error regard
ing, 184
Anastasius, persons bearing the name,
196
Anastasius Bibliothecarius; date of, 27;
first mentions the legend of the Gco-
tpopos, 27
Anastasius I of Antioch; quotes the
Ignatian Epistles, 196; is quoted by
Gregory the Great, 117 sq., 196
Anastasius of Sinai, quotes the spurious
Ignatian epistles, 203
Anazarbus ; mentioned in the Long Re
cension, 248; argument therefrom as
to date, 248 ; as to place of writing, 26 1
Anazarbus, Marinus of, 248, 261
Andreas of Crete, quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 203
Andrew, the Apostle, at Ephesus, 422
Anencletus of Rome, his place in the
episcopal succession, 249
Angelology of Ignatius examined, 391 ;
a characteristic of his age, 391 ; analogy
in the case of Hooker, 391 ; passage in
the Curetonian Epistles, 307
Anglo-Latin Version of the Ignatian E-
pistles ; Ussher's discovery of, 76 ;
probability of Grossteste's authorship
considered, 76 sq. ; not known out of
England, 77; value of, 78; Greek MS
used by the author, 78; relation of its
text to the extant Greek, 79; mss of,
80 sq. ; the lost Mountague MS, 82 ; its
readings preserved on the margin of
Ussher's transcript, 83
Anicetus, bishop of Rome; his meeting
with Polycarp, 433 sq. ; date of his
episcopate, 659; Lipsius' argument
founded thereon, 654; Keim's argu
ment, 659

Anthologia Palatina; epigrams relating
to Polycarp and Nicolas of Myra in,
560
Antioch; 'Great Church' of, 46; archi
tectural splendour of, 47 ; Paul and
Barnabas at, 402 sq. ; visited by Trajan,
62 ; alleged persecutions at, 63 sq. ; ac
cording to Malalas the scene of the
martyrdom of Ignatius, 63, 64; cha
racter of the populace at, 403; Poly
carp's proposed visit to, 428, 574 sq.
Antioch, Council of, 246
Antiochene Bishops, chronological order
of early, 29
Antiochenes, Ignatian Epistle to the,
plagiarism in, 249
Antiochus the Great ; his wholesale trans
portation of Jews, 452
Antiochus the Monk; coincidences with
and quotations from the Ignatian Epi
stles in, 197 sq. ; his authority for the
story of S. John and the young robber,
4^5
Antinomianism; its rise in the early
Church, 570 sq. ; testimony of the
Epistle of Polycarp to, 570
Antinous, reference in the Sibylline oracles
to the deification of, 528
Antiphanes, Theogonia of, 373
Antiphonal singing; vision of Ignatius
respecting, 30 sq., 219 sq. ; in Greek
chorus, 31; in Jewish worship, 31; in
Christian worship in the time of Pliny,
31, 51; Theodoret on the origin of
Christian, 31
Antonai and Adonai, 528
Antonines ; deification and titles of the,
444 ; pagan revival in the time of the,
448 sq.
Antoninus Caracalla; confused by Renan
with Antoninus Pius, 342 sq.
Antoninus (M.) ; see Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus Pius; his name before his
elevation, 523, 703 ; his adoption and
accession, 703; not the persecutor
Arrius Antoninus, 443, 523; compared
to Numa, 440; his clemency and in
dulgence, 442; his attitude towards
Christianity, 442 sq.; Christian apo
logists on the character of, 443;
martyrdoms during the reign of, 443
sq., 492 sq.; how far responsible for
them, .443 ; letters to Greek cities, 443 ;
his alleged letter to the Commune
Asiae, 465 sq. ; discrepancy in its title,
467, 469 ; its genuineness considered,
467 sq. ; history of its two forms, 467;
cultus of Antoninus, 444 ; divine titles
assigned to, 444 ; physical calamities
during the reign of, 445; bad condition
of the Christians under, 444 sq., 493 >'

INDEX.

709

his proconsulate as T. Aurelius Fulvus,
. 433; its date, 523; his visit to Syria
and Asia Minor, 433, 645 sq. ; his war
with Vologesus, 644 sq.
Antonius Melissa; quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 215 sq. ; his date, 216; his
relation to John Damascene, 217
Apaturion, the month, 669
Aphrodisian Calendar; see Calendar
Apocalypse; its date, 446, 453; supposed
reference to Polycarp in, 447 sq.; cir
cumstances of the Smyrnaean Church
as recorded in, 447 sq., 453
Apollinarianism; its general position, 254,
258; its subdivisions, 258 sq. ; its rela
tion to Arianism, 259; the position of
the Long Recension as regards, 258 sq.
Apollinaris, Claudius ; his probable inter
course with Polycarp, 428 ; his account
of the Thundering Legion discussed,
473. 475 «1-
Apollonius, presbyter of Magnesia ; meets
Ignatius at Smyrna, 34, 352 ; the name,
352
Apollonius of Tyana, on the death of
Domitian, 439
Apostolic Father ; Ignatius' claim to the
title, 28 sq., 390; false assumption
therefrom, 391 sq., 394 sq.
Apostolical Constitutions ; coincidences
in the earlier books with the Epistles
of Ignatius, 136, 336 ; coincidences
with the Long Recension, 236, 250;
inference of Vedelius, 228, 250 ; of
Ussher, 250; of Pearson, 250 sq. ; dis
covery of a Syriac Version in a shorter
form, 251; its relation to the Greek,
137, 251 ; priority of Apostolic Con
stitutions to the Long Recension, 251
sq. ; obligations of the Long Recension
extend to all eight books, 253 ; relation
of the first six to the last two books,
253'> date discussed, 253, 336; on the
episcopate of Ignatius, 29 ; on the
treatment of Christian prisoners, 345 ;
on the succession of bishops at Smyrna,
447; quote the Epistle of Polycarp,
54i
Apuleius; his birthplace, 516; possible
allusion to Christianity in, 516
Aquinas, Thomas, on the prayer of Gregory
the Great, 6
Arabic fragments of Ignatian literature,
262, 312
Archaisms in the language of Ignatius,
407
Archimartyr and protomartyr, 507
Arianism of the author of the Long Re
cension examined, 254 sq.
Aristides, MMws, the rhetorician; his
credulity, 451, 452; his dreams, 644;

his character generally, 451; perhaps
acquainted with Polycarp, 451 ; alludes
to the Christians, 517 ; his Sacred Dis
courses, 635; alludes to Quadratus,
635. 643; importance of the chronology
of his life, 635 ; views of Masson, 630
sq. ; of Letronne, 638; of Borghesi,
638; of Waddington, 639 sq.; read
justments of Waddington's system, 650
sq. ; illness of Aristides, its character
and duration, 637, 648, 651 sq.; his
transactions with officials, 641, 651 sq. ;
dates in his life, 653; calendar used
by, 669, 677 sq.
Aristides the Apologist, on the martyr
dom of S. Dionysius the Areopagite,
489
Aristion at Ephesus, 422, 447; see
Ariston
Ariston ; two persons of the name, bishops
of Smyrna, 447, 517; argument there
from, 447
Arrius Antoninus ; his proconsulship and
persecution of the Christians, 523 sq. ;
saying of his recorded by Tertullian,
523; his identity discussed, 523 sq. ;
not Antoninus Pius, 443, 523 ; date of
his proconsulship, 524
Artemidorus of Daldis, 450
Arutus, Aratus, Aristus, Erastus confused,
544
Asia Minor ; the headquarters of Chris
tendom on the fall of Jerusalem, 422 ;
the scene of the Paschal controversy,
368 ; of Montanism, 369 ; of various
heresies, 370 sq. ; imperial visits to,
432 sq. ; the centre of superstitious
rites in the time of the Antonines, 450;
date of the plague in, 635 sq., 642, 648,
656
Asia, Asiatic ; meaning of, 664, 673
Asiarchs ; synonymous with High Priests,
612, 649; duration of the office, 649;
see Philip the Trallian
Asiatic Calendar; see Calendars
Asiatic Proconsulate ; see Proconsulate
Armenian Acts of Martyrdom, 89; criti
cism on Zahn's account of, 89
Armenian Version; history of, 84 sq.;
mss of, 85; date of, 85, 242, 245 sq.,
313 ; a translation from the Syriac, 86
sq., 237, 242, 281; the position of the
Additional Epistles in the mss, 241 ;
the position of the Epistle to the Philip
pians, 242 sq. ; the order of the Epi
stles, 85, 412 sq. ; its importance in
determining the date of the Long Re
cension, 245 sq. ; and of the Short
Recension, 313
Assemani, discovers the Syriac Acts of
Ignatius, 100, 268

7io

INDEX.

Athanasius (S.) ; quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 141 ; his treatise De Synodis
Arimini et Seleuciae, 141 ; its date, 141
Athenagoras; date of his Supplicatio, 134,
510, 521 ; shows a coincidence with the
Ignatian epistles, 134; his testimony to
the existence of persecutions, 510, 521
Attalus of Pergamus, martyr, 430
Attalus of Smyrna, 35, 354; the name,
354
Atticus, Symeon accused before, 2 1 , 59, 60
Aube ; on the character of Trajan, 3 ; on
the correspondence of Pliny, 54 sq. ; on
the rescript to Fundanus, 462 ; on the
First Apology of Justin Martyr, 462 ; on
the Urban in the story of S. Caecilia,
506 ; on the Acts of Pionius in the
hands of Eusebius, 701 sq.
Augustine (S.) ; his correspondence with
Maximus of Madaura, 506 sq.
Augustus, the emperor; called Caesar
simply, 679 sq. ; his birthday, 695 ; a
monthly celebration, 681, 695
Aurelius M. ; see Marcus Aurelius
Avircius Marcellus ; his identification with
Abercius, 478, 482; strengthened by
the discoveries of Ramsay, 478, 482 ;
treatise addressed to, 482 ; date and
circumstances of the treatise, 482 sq. ;
date of, 483 ; see Abercius
dyivvrrros and ayiviyros, 255 sq., 258
dp.i)v r) x<V'Si 196, 266
dl-io- compounds of, used by Ignatius, 395
diroKpvajos, meaning and use of the word,
, 337 sq-
apxiepevs applied to the Son, 256
dpxiarpaTiyyos applied to the Son, 256
Babai; sister of Sharbil, martyred, 67
Babylas, bishop of Antioch ; story ex
amined, 40 sq. ; development of the
story, 41 ; authorities for the story, 42;
repels Philip, 40 ; martyred under De
cius, 41 ; date and nature of his martyr
dom, 41 ; translation of his bones to
Daphne, 41 ; riot attending their re
moval by Julian, 43; successive resting
places of, 44 sq. ; honours paid to, 40 ;
church erected in honour of, 45; mis
statements by Gibbon about, 43, 45 ; by
Miiller, 45 ; by Stephens, 45 ; perhaps
confused with another Babylas, 41
Barcochba, rebellion of, 453
Barnabas, Epistle of, blended with the
Epistle of Polycarp in the mss, 104
Baronius, on a probably imaginary MS of
Ignatius, 124
Barsamya, bishop of Edessa; converts
Sharbil, 67 ; tried and acquitted, 68

Barsamya, Acts of; on the persecution of
Trajan, 67 sq. ; history and spurious
ness of, 69
Basil (S.) of Caesarea; quotes the Igna
tian Epistles, 142; the author of the
Long Recension probably acquainted
with his works, 249 sq.
Basilideans, their cowardice under per
secution, 604
Basilides; character of his docetism,
365 sq. ; his date, 370; not alluded to
in Ignatian Epistles, 370; inference
therefrom, 370
Bassus, presbyter of Magnesia, 34, 352 j
meets Ignatius at Smyrna, 352 ; the
name, 352
Baur; on coincidences in Lucian with
Ignatian Epistles, 331; his attitude to
wards the Curetonian Letters, 270; on
the date of the Vossian Letters, 270;
on the place of writing of the Vossian
Letters, 385
Benignus (S.); patron saint of Dijon, 431;
story of his connexion with Polycarp,
431 ; the legend of the Gallic Terge
mini, 431; his martyrdom, 431,500;
his day, 431
Bentley ; accepts the Vossian letters, 317 ;
story to the contrary explained, 317
Bernard (S.); quoted as an authority for
the correspondence of Ignatius with S.
John and the Virgin, 224 sq.; the true
reading of the passage, 225 ; in reality
refers to the Letter to Mary of Casso
bola, 225; perhaps alludes to an ex
tant Clairvaux MS, 225.
Bernays' essay on Lucian, 331 sq.
Bishops; ordained by S. John, 424 sq.;
instances of youthful, 425; their suc
cession at Smyrna, 447 sq. ; see Episco
pacy
Bithynian persecution; its severity, 17;
yet no account preserved by Christian
writers, 18; see Pliny
Bochart, on the word XebirapSos, 397
Borghesi; on the interval between the
consulate and proconsulate, 638; his
criticisms on Masson's chronology of
Aristides, 638; error ofi respecting
Salvius, 638 ; infers a Parthian war of
Antoninus Pius, 646
Blondel; attacks Ussher, 318; nature of
his attack, 394; answered by Ham
mond, 318; anachronisms imputed to
Ignatius by, 371 sq.; on the age of
Polycarp, 42 1
Brome; see Crome
Bryennios ; his edition of the Epistles of
S. Clement, no; his collation for the
present work, no
Bucherius; on the year of Polycarp's

INDEX.

711

martyrdom, 634 sq. ; on the day of
Polycarp's martyrdom, 683
Bucolus, bishop of Smyrna, 4l7sq., 447;
story of his connexion with Polycarp,
417 sq.j of his death, 418; of his
burial place, 454; may have been or
dained by S. John, 425
Bull accepts Vossian letters, 316
Bunsen ; his criticism of Petermann con
sidered, 98 sq.; on the authorship of
the Apostolical Constitutions, 251;
supports the -Curetonian theory, 320;
criticism on, 349
Bunyan, his captivity and that of Igna
tius compared, 347 sq.
Burgundian origin of mss of the Long
Recension, 119, 261
Burrhus, deacon of Ephesus, 34, 352 ;
meets Ignatius at Smyrna, 34; ac
companies him to Troas, 36, 352;
the amanuensis of letters, 352, 356;
leaves him, 356; coincidence of the
name in the apocryphal acts of S.
John, 352
Byzantium ; espouses the cause of Niger,
510; its punishment by Severus, 510;
no persecution under M. Aurelius at,
510, sq. ; Tertullian's evidence, 511,
523
jSoerfXccrcra in the epitaph of Abercius
• applied to the Roman Church, 482
fsioBdvaros, 489
Caecilia (S.); alleged history of her life
and martyrdom, 300 sq. ; her Acts un
authentic, 501 ; discovery and removal
of her body by Paschal I, 502 ; its ex
humation by Sfondrati, 503; De Rossi's
discoveries in the Cemetery of S- Xys
tus, 503; his inferences therefrom, 503
sq.; date of martyrdom considered, 504
sq. ; day of the martyrdom, 506
Caecilius Capella; commands the garri
son at Byzantium, 510; his saying
about the Christians, 510 sq., 523
Caesar, alone, of Augustus, 679 sq.
Caesarius, the month, 669
CalamEeon, the month, 668 sq.
Calendars, seventeen compared in the
Florentine and Leyden Hemerologies,
661 (1) ' Asiatic' and ' Ephesian ' Calen
dars, 66r, 667; a modification of the
Julian, 661 sq. ; their peculiarities, 662
sq., 665 sq., 679 ; confirmed by Galen
and by inscriptions, 663 sq. ; reason of
the name 'Ephesian', 669 sq. ; date of
introduction, 678 sq. ; see Months
(2) Aphrodisian Calendar, 680

(3) Athenian Calendar, 667, 678
(4) Cyzicene Calendar, 607; names
of the months discussed, 668
(5) Cyprian Calendar, date and cha
racter, 682; connexion with 'Asiatic'
and 'Ephesian', 663, 682
(6) Delian Calendar, 667
(7) Ephesian Calendar proper, as
learnt from inscriptions, etc. , 609
(8) Jewish Calendar ; its fluctuations,
692 sq.; nineteen years' cycle, 693
(9) Julian Calendar, its peculiarities,
663, 666 ; date of introduction, 679
(10) Macedonian Calendar, 664, 667,
669, 676
(11) Rhodian Calendar, 678
(12) Smyrnaean Calendar, 667; au
thorities for, 669 ; not Syromacedonian,
684 (13) Syro-Macedonian Calendar; its
three stages, 684
(14) Other Calendars, 663, 678
Wieseler's theory of a lunar calendar
at Smyrna in Polycarp's age, 670 sq. ;
Salmon's, 672 sq. ; reasons against these
views, 673 sq.; introduction of solar
calendar under Augustus, 678 sq.;
probably by Paullus Fabius Maximus,
680 sq.
Callisto, the story of Polycarp's adoption
by, 417 sq.
Callistus, Cemetery of, 502 sq.
Calvin, on the genuineness of the Ignatian
epistles, 227
Camerius the deacon saved by Poly
carp, 419
Canon, testimony of Ignatius to the, 388
sq. ; compared with that of Polycarp,
580; of Justin Martyr, 388; of Irenseus,
388
Capitolinus; on the tribunicia potestas
of M. Aurelius, 642 ; on expeditions of
Antoninus Pius, 645, 647 ; on an Egyp
tian rebellion quelled by him, 646
Caracalla; date of his birth, 498; his
joint rule with Severus, 498 ; see An
toninus Caracalla
Carmen; a hymn, 51; any set form of
words, 5r
Carpus and Papylus ; Acts of Martyrdom,
543, 624 sq. ; see Papylus, Pergamene
Martyrs
Cassobola, Mary of, 224 sq., 236; called
'Christifera', 224; her alleged letter to
Ignatius not in some mss of Long Re
cension, in; not at first published in
the Latin version of the Long Recen
sion, 102, 124; omitted also at first
from the Greek printed text, 102
Cassobola, Mary of, alleged correspon
dence of Ignatius with ; contained in the

712

INDEX.

Long Recension, 70; added to the Epi
stles of the Middle Recension, 70;
referred to by S. Bernard, 225 ; more
¦ than one letter to Mary spoken of, 225 ;
origin of this error, 225 ; by the same
hand as the Long Recension, 234 sq. ;
(i) internal evidence for this, 234 sq.;
(ii) external evidence, 237 ; position in
MSS and versions, 237; fallacious ar
guments therefrom, of Pearson and
Cureton, 238 sq. ; explanation of its
position, 240 sq.
Catalogues, Syriac, containing Ignatius,
267
' Catholic Church '; passages where the
expression occurs, 398 ; two meanings of
the expression, 399 sq. , 605; its use in
the Ignatian Epistles, 398; in the Letter
of the Smyrnaeans, 605 sq.
Celibacy in the Pionian Life of Polycarp,
4?3
Celsus; his date, 514; not to be identified
with the friend of Lucian, 514; a Pla
tonic eclectic, 5 14; character of his
book against the Christians, 513 sq.
Cemeteries in Rome, 496, 502 sq., 504
Ceraunius, archbishop of Paris, date of,
431. 555
Cerdon; teaches at Rome, 435; date of
his arrival in Rome, 435
Cerinthus; character of the docetism of,
366 sq.; not the type attacked in the
Ignatian Epistles, 366 ; but in the
Epistles of S.John, 367 sq. ; Irenseus
on his meeting with S. John, 434
Christ, the reign of, an early mode of
speaking, 619 sq.
' Christian '; Lipsius on the history of the
name, 400, 403 sq. ; testimony of Latin
historians, 401 ; of a Pompeian graffito,
401 sq. ; of Christian canonical writings,
402 sq. ; associated in its origin with
Antioch,402sq.; its termination Asiatic,
403 ; the name not at first used by the
Christians, 403 ; adoption by the Chris
tians themselves, 404 ; new derivatives
coined, 404
Christian era, practice of dating from the,
619
Christian writers, on the relations of the
Church and the Empire under Hadrian,
Pius and Marcus, 518 sq.
Christianity ; recognised as a new religion
by Tacitus, Suetonius, Sulpicius Severus,
10; a religio illicita, II sq., 440; yet
not always persecuted, 1 5 sq. ; reason of
this, 16 sq. ; its relation to other pro
hibited religions, 1 7 ; to lawful religions,
20; first recognised by Roman law as a
burial club, 20 ; persecuted by Trajan
as a guild, 18, 20 ; its aggressive

character, 21 ; its resemblance to Cyni
cism, 331 sq.; see Christians
Christians; why at first confused with
Jews, 9 ; the distinction when recognised,
9 ; their position under Nero, 2 sq., 7,
11; under Domitian, 7, 11 sq., 35osq.;
under Trajan 13 sq., 50 sq., 357, 440;
their numbers, 55; their hours of
service, 51 sq.; charges of obstinacy
brought against, 50; of profligacy, 52
sq. ; under Hadrian, 440 sq., 462 sq.,
486 sq. ; under Antoninus Pius, 442 sq.,
492 sq. ; mode of procedure against,
493 ; under Marcus Aurelius, 445 sq..,
493 sq., 510 sq.; under Commodus,
357, 483, 509 sq. ; under Septimius
Severus, 482 ; under Alexander Severus,
441 ; under Decius, 622 sq.
'Christifera'; applied to Mary of Casso
bola, 224; confusion resulting from
this application, 119, 224
Christology, generally, 254; of the Igna
tian Epistle to the Philippians, 244 ; of
the interpolated Epistle to the Romans,
265 ; of the Long Recension generally,
254 sq. ; contrasted with the teaching
in the genuine epistles, 254; of the
Epistle of Polycarp, 577; this last con
trasted with that of the genuine Igna
tian Epistles, 579 sq.; see Docetism ¦
Christopher (S.); history of, 27; legend
of, 27 ; analogy of the legend to that of
the Theophoros, 27
Chronicon Paschale ; its date, 66 ; its.
sources, 66; its errors, 66; its account
of the persecution of Trajan, 65 sq. ;
its testimony to Polycarp's ordination
by S. John considered, 425 ; quotes the
Long Recension, 201 sq. ; its account
of Polycarp's visit to Rome, 552; and-
martyrdom, 552 sq.; passage emended
in, 553 ; sources of its information here,
632; explanation of the year given for
the martyrdom, 633; its error as to the
month of the martyrdom, 660, 688
Church; its prominence in the Ignatian
Episties, 579 sq.; not so in the Epistle
of Polycarp, 580
Churton, on the authorship of the Latin
Version of the Middle Recension, 76
Cittinus, proper name, 509
Clairvaux ms, no. 1 19, perhaps alluded to
by S. Bernard, 225
Claude Joly; history and date of, 107;
MS belonging to him, 107, 108
Claudian, on the miracle of the Thunder
ing Legion, 472
Clemens (Flavius), 12, 356 sq.
Clement, Epistle of; coincidences with,
in the Ignatian Epistles, 357, 358, 388;
in the Letter of the Smyrnseans, 610

INDEX.

7r3

sq. ; silent about episcopacy in the Roman
Church, 384; compounds used in, 395
Clement of Alexandria; his testimony to
episcopacy, 379 sq.; his coincidences
with the Ignatian Epistles, 135 ; his ac
count of S. John's life at Ephesus, 424 ;
his anonymous instructor, 428; his
views on martyrdom, 604, 605
Clement of Rome ; his personal character
contrasted with that of Ignatius, t sq. ;
his formula of quotation, 577
'Clementine Homilies', character of Simon
Magus in the, 334
Clergy, lower orders of the ; list given in
the Long Recension, 246 sq. ; by Cor
nelius of Rome, 246; by Council of
Antioch, 246 ; by Council of Laodicea,
247 ; the argument derived therefrom
as to the date of the Long Recension,
246 sq.
Coloe, inscriptions at, 675
Commodus ; state of the Christians under,
357, 483, 509 sq. ; influence of Marcia
upon, 357, 510; his appointment of
consules suffecti, 640; made Csesar,
703; his joint sovereignty with M.
Aurelius, 625, 645 sq., 696, 704; acces
sion, 704 ; adopts the name ' Pius ',
645 ; change of prsenomen, 704 ; games
at Smyrna in honour of, 694
Commune Asiae; its games, at Smyrna,
693 sq. ; elsewhere, 679 ; its influence
on the reform of the calendar, 679 ; see
Asiarchs
Compounds used in the Ignatian Epistles,
395 sq.; in the Epistle of Clement,
395; in Xenophon, 396
Copiatae, 247, 252
Copto-Thebaic version of Ignatian Epi
stles, 101 sq.
Cornelianus; mentioned in the Life of
S. Abercius, 477 ; persons of the name,
484
Cornelius of Rome, on the lower orders
of the clergy, 246
Correspondence with S. John and the
Virgin, 223 sq. ; see Mary the Virgin,
Spurious Ignatian Epistles
Cotelier; MSS employed by, 107, 108,
1 120; on a catalogue of Beauvais, 224
Crescens ; bearer of the Epistle of Poly
carp, 584; his connexion with Philippi,
584; the name, 584
Crescens; his martyrdom in Chronicon
Paschale, 65
Crocus, delegate from Ephesus meets
Ignatius, 34, 352
Crome, Walter ; donor of the Caiensis MS,
80; his name wrongly given by Ussher,
82
Cronion, the month, 668

Cross of Christ; its prominence in the
Ignatian Epistles, as contrasted with
the Epistle of Polycarp, 579
Cureton; discovers and publishes two
mss of Syriac version of three Igna
tian Epistles, Short Recension, 72, 268;
his theory, 268; attacked by Words
worth, 269; replies in his Vindiciae
Ignatianae, 269 ; discovers a third Ms,
72, 269 ; publishes his Corpus Igna-
tianum, 269; his supporters and op
ponents, 269 sq. ; two classes of the
latter, 270; his method discussed, 271
sq. ; recent opinion unfavourable to
his view, 272 sq.; his theory fully dis
cussed, 273 sq. ; his fallacious reason
ing from the comparative date of MSS,
277 sq. ; publishes fragments of a
Syriac Version of the Middle Recen
sion, 89; mistaken as to its character,
73, 92 sq. ; on the evidence for the
spurious epistles, 238; on the testi
mony of Eusebius, 238 sq. ; on the
position of the additional epistles in
mss, 240; on the authorship of the
Ignatian Epistle to the Philippians,
242 ; on alleged extensive forgeries of
Ignatian literature, 262; minor criti
cism on, 80
Curetonian Letters; see Short Recension,
Ignatian Epistles- of the
Cynicism, attacked by Lucian, 331; by
Aristides, 517; its resemblance to
Christianity, 331 sq., 517
Cyprian (S.); his captivity compared
with that of Ignatius, 345 ; state of
episcopacy in the time of, 381; his
martyrdom shows coincidences with
the passion of Christ, 596 sq. ; with
the martyrdom of Polycarp, 600
Cyprian Calendar ; see Calendars
Cyril of Jerusalem ; coincidence with the
Ignatian Epistles in, 345
Cyrillonas; his date, 159; his metrical
hymns, 159; coincidence with the
Ignatian Epistles in, 159
Cyzicene Calendar; see Calendars
KaBoXiK-r) iKKXijala (r)), 398 sq.; see Catholic
Church
koBoXik6s, two meanings of the word,
399 sq-,
Karixet Xoyos, 58
KepavvofSoXos, 473
Kepawocpopos, 474
Kwiriarai, 247, 252
XVpai, 332. 385
Xpiaripviropoi, 250
Xpio-Tiaviap.6s, 400 sq.
Xpiariavbs, 400 sq. ; see Christian
XpiCTorpbpos, 224

7i4-

INDEX.

Daille; attacks the Vossian Letters, 266,
318; character of his attack, 318 sq.,
394; answered by Pearson, 266, 320;
on the testimony of Irenaeus to the
Ignatian Epistles, 324 sq. ; on the
silence of Irenaeus, 328 sq. ; on the
Stichometria of Nicephorus, 337 sq. ;
on the mention of Onesimus, 351 ; on
supposed allusions to Valentinus, 371 ;
on the word Sige, 371 sq. ; on the
establishment of episcopacy, 376 sq.,
382; on the style of the Ignatian
Epistles, 394 sq. ; on the word Xebirap-
80s, 398; minor criticisms upon, 388,
389, 394 sq.
Damas, bishop of Magnesia; meets Igna
tius, 34, 351, 352; the name, 352
Damasus, inscriptions discovered of, 496
sq.
Dante, on the prayer of Gregory the
Great, 6
Daphne; position of, 41; immoral sur
roundings of, 42 ; translation of bones
of Babylas to, 41 ; effect of the transla
tion, 42 ; visit of Julian to, 42 ; Baby
las' bones removed from, 43; riot at,
43 ; fire at, 43 sq.
Daphnus, of Smyrna; meets Ignatius, 35,
354 ; the name, 354 ; story of his con
nexion with Polycarp, 419
De la Berge, criticisms on, 56, 58
De Larroque replies to Pearson, 321
De Rossi ; discoveries of, 488, 496 sq.,
503 ; on the date of the burial chamber
of Januarius, 497, 499; on the story of
S. Caecilia, 503 sq.; on the two Urbans,
5°5
De Thou, identification of mss bearing
the name of, 108, 120
Deaconesses; in the time of Pliny, 53;
their name, 53; as doorkeepers, 252
Deacons; in the genuine Ignatian Epi
stles, 382 sq.; in the Epistle of Poly
carp, 578
Decius, the emperor ; Pionius' martyrdom
under, 622, 625, 696 sq.; Polycarp's
martyrdom placed in the Menaea under,
561; date of the consulships of, 695,
698; Pergamene martyrdoms assigned
to, 625
Decius, the younger, 695, 699
Delian Calendar; see Calendars
Denzinger on the mutual relation of the
Syriac Versions of Ignatius, 97 sq.; his
attitude towards the Curetonian Letters,
270
Dierauer on the character of Trajan, 7
Didascalia (alleged) of Clement, Ignatius,
and Poiycarp, 250 sq., 337 sq.,
457
Didrachma for temple service; diverted

to the Capitoline Jupiter, 1 1 ; exacted
rigorously by Domitian, 1 1 sq.
Diognetus, Epistle to; on the persecu
tion of the Church, 517 sq.
Dion Cassius; on the death of Flavius
Clemens, 12 sq.; confuses Jews and
Christians, 13; his story about Apollo
nius of Tyana, 439 ; on the miracle of
the Thundering Legion, 472
Dionysius the Areopagite, alleged martyr
dom under Hadrian, 489; mention of
him by Dionysius of Corinth, 555;
alleged writings of; quote Ignatius, 169;
Latin version made by Grossteste's
orders, 77; conjoined with the Ignatian
Epistles of the Long Recension in the
Latin edition of Stapulensis, 102; in
the Vatican MS of the Greek, 104 ; in
the attack of Daille, 318; his so-called
Epistle to Polycarp, 548
Docetism; conflict of Ignatius with, 39,
359 sq.; its attraction to the Oriental
mind, 364 sq.; its relation to Judaisers,
364; three types of, according to Ire
naeus, 365 ; a fourth type, 365 ; these
types examined, 366 sq. ; its existence in
the time of Ignatius, 367 ; form attacked
by Ignatius, 366; form assailed in S.
John's epistles, 367; this form com
pared with that attacked by Ignatius,
368; and by Polycarp, 368, 569 sq.; ar
gument for date derived therefrom,
307, 368; the strongest forms the
earliest, 368 ; see Gnostic yudaism
Domitian; exacts the didrachma from
the Jews, 11 sq. ; distinction between
Jew and Christian in his reign, 12 sq.;
the case of Flavius Clemens, 12 sq.;
story in Dion Cassius in connexion
with his death, 439
Domitilla Flavia, niece of Domitian, a
Christian, 12 sq., 356 sq.
Doulcet, on the Acts of Symphorosa, 487 ;
on those of Felicitas, 497 sq.
Dove at the martyrdom of Polycarp,
591, 598; the passage an interpolation,
591, 627 sq.; its origin, 627 sq.; sup
posed coincidence with Lucian to be
abandoned, 590 sq.
Dressel ; his edition of the Ignatian Epi
stles, 74; on the mutual relation of the
Greek MSS, 74 sq.; criticisms on, 104,
111
Drosine martyred under Trajan, 64
Ducere (ad supplicium), 50
Duchesne on the epitaph of S. Abercius,
479, 482 ; on the date of treatise ad
dressed to Avircius Marcellus, 482
SeKdri) varipa, 662
SexBels, passive, 508

INDEX.

715.

SdKUv, date of the form, 485
Soxri, 387
Spa/covres, 471
Ebed Jesu, Catalogue of, 267 sq.
Edicts against the Christians ; perhaps
none before the rescript of Trajan, 11 ;
see Christianity, Christians
Egnatius, see Ignatius
Eleutherus, the first recorded archdeacon,
435 ; afterwards bishop of Rome, 435
'English Reviewer' attacks Cureton's
theory, 269; his argument as regards
motive of abridgment refuted by Cure-
ton, 310 sq.
Ephesian Calendar; see Calendars
Ephesians, a second letter of Ignatius
promised to the, 405 sq.
Ephesus; not visited by Ignatius, 350;
delegates from, 34, 351 sq.; after the
fall of Jerusalem the headquarters of
Christendom, 422, 424; apostles and
others at, 422 ; S. John at, 422, 424
sq. ; imperial visits to, 432 sq.
Ephraem of Antioch, refers to Ignatius,
194
Ephrem Syrus; coincidences with the
Ignatian Epistles, 142, 313; their use
in determining date of the Syriac Ver
sion, 313; date of his death, 142, 313
Epictetus; his friendship with Hadrian
and with Rusticus, 512; his relations
with M. Aurelius, 512; his reference
to the Christians, 512
Episcopacy ; the Ignatian Epistles a cen
tre of controversy upon, 227 sq. ; Igna
tius' conception of, 375 sq.; his testi
mony to its extension, 376; its establish
ment and development, 377; evidence
for, found in Irenaeus, 377 sq. ; in
Polycrates, 379 ; in Clement of Alex
andria, 379; in the Muratorian canon,
380; in the references to Polycarp,
380 ; its area considered, 380 sq. ; the
' conception of it in the Ignatian
Epistles not sacerdotal, 381 sq.; the
centre of order, 382, not autocratic,
382 ; not diocesan, 383 ; not established
early in the church of Rome, 381, 383
sq. ; its presence in the Curetonian
letters, 307 sq. ; no direct allusion in
the Epistle of Polycarp to, 577, 578
Epitropus; his wife perhaps identical
with Gavia, 35, 353; the name con-
sidered, 353 sq.
Ethiopic fragments of Ignatian litera-
. , ture, 262
Euarestus ; amanuensis of the Letter of
the Smyrnaeans, 608 ; the name, 609
Eucharist; its relation to the Agape, 52,
386 sq. ; by Pliny confused with bap

tism, 52; administered to the newly
baptized, 52 ; hour of celebration of, 52
Eucharistic teaching in the Curetonian
Letters, 307
Eulogius; mentioned in the Long Recen
sion, 248 ; persons of the name, 248
Eumenia, inscriptions at, 677
Euodius, bishop of Antioch ; his place in
the list of bishops, 29 ; Eusebius on,
29; Apostolical Constitutions on, 29;
the traditional originator of the word
'Christian', 402.
Euplus, delegate from Ephesus, 34 sq.,
353 sq-
Eusebius of Caesarea; on the character
of Trajan, 3; his account of martyr
doms under Trajan, 58 sq. ; on the
episcopate of Euodius, 29 ; on the con
nexion of Ignatius with S. John, 29,
137; on the date of Ignatius' episco
pate, 137; on the date of Ignatius'
martyrdom, 137 ; his account of it,
138 sq. ; prominence given to it by, 40;
quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 137 sq.,
336 ; Cureton on his testimony to them,
238 sq.; his formula of quotati'on, 59;
his use of X670S ixei, 238; of cpepopivn
iirio-roXrj, 238 sq. ; had the genuine Ig
natian Epistles before him, 276, 278;
perhaps derived his copy from Origen,
276, 336; obligation of the author of
the Long Recension to him, 236, 249 ;
his account of Polycarp, 541 ; quotes
Irenaeus, 538, 542, 543; quotes the
Letter of the Smyrnaeans, 542, 591 sq. ;
but abridges it, 620 ; quotes the Epistle
of Polycarp, 140; value of his evi
dence for the Epistle of Polycarp,
565; for the Acts of Pionius, 623 sq.;
the volume of Martyrdoms in his
hands, 624 sq., 632, 695 sq., 701 sq.;
his error as to the date of Pionius'
martyrdom, 624 sq., 696, 701 ; on the
date of the martyrdom of Polycarp,
541, 629 sq. ; associates it with the
persecutions in Gaul, 541, 629; his
evidence considered at length, 629 sq. ;
on the date of martyrdoms of Carpus
and Papylus, 696; his ignorance of
Latin and Latin Fathers, 61 ; used a
Greek translation of Tertullian, 57,
61 ; his ignorance of dates, 620 sq.,
702 ; especially of imperial annals, 631 ;
his vague use of the name 'Antoninus',
631, 633 ; relation of his Ecclesiastical
History to his Collection of Ancient
Martyrdoms, 592, 624; to his Chroni
con, 631 sq. ; editions of his Chronicon,
J41, 545, 632; the Armenian Version,
3 sq., 632 ; habit of grouping events in
this work, 629 sq. ; see yerome

716

INDEX.

Eutecnus, of Smyrna, meets Ignatius,
35
Eutychides of Sicyon ; his statue of the
Fortune of Antioch, 47 sq.
Euxenianus, alleged letter of M. Aurelius
to, 476; found in the Life of Abercius,
477; its contents, 477; Prof. Ramsay's
view of the date considered, 484
Evagrius mentions Ignatius, 195
iiropKiartjs, 246
Faber Stapulensis ; edits the Latin Version
of the Long Recension, 102 ; omits the
Epistle of Mary to Ignatius, 102, 124;
Funk on the MSS used by, 124
Farrar. on the word Christian, 403
Fasts in the Early Church, 247 sq.
Faustina, the elder ; her deification, 444
Faustina, the younger; date of her marri
age with M. Aurelius discussed, 641,
655; introduced into the story of S.
Abercius, 477
Faustus (Q. Anicius) ; interval between
his consulship and his proconsulate, 640
Felicitas and her seven sons ; story of
their martyrdom under M. Aurelius,
495 sq. ; spuriousness of the Acts, 495 ;
similarity to the story of Symphorosa,
488, 495 ; evidence of the Liberian
catalogue, 496; of inscriptions, 496 sq. ;
of Gregory the Great, 497 ; brothers in
suffering only, 497 sq. ; day of their
martyrdom an imperial anniversary,
498 ; year of their martyrdom, 498 sq.
Fell's researches after the Syriac Version,
268
Festivals in the Early Church, 247
Flavius Clemens; see Clemens
Florinus, pupil of Polycarp, 429; date,
432 ; his position at court, 429, 433 ;
perhaps in the suite of the pro-consul
T. Aurelius Fulvus (Antoninus Pius),
433 ; may have accompanied Polycarp
to Rome, 435
Florinus, the Epistle to, text, 538 sq.;
translation, 429; date, 429; compared
with other works of Irenaeus, 429, 564;
circumstances of writing, 429; quoted
by Eusebius, 543
Florus-Bede, Martyrology of; its author
ship, 558; mentions Polycarp and
others, 558
Forum Romanum, traces of Trajan's
clemency in, 4
Francis (S.) of Assisi, tendency shown
by the story of his stigmata, 597
Friedlander on the character of Trajan, 7
Fronto, delegate from Ephesus to Ig
natius, 34
Fronto of Cirta, his intimacy with Marcus

Aurelius, 445, 510, 513; with Arrius
Antoninus, 524 ; his libels on the
Christians, 52, 445, 513; his appoint:
ment to the proconsulship of Asia, 640,
647; date of his death, 529; relation
of the Apology of Minucius Felix to,
519; his language respecting the two
emperors, 657
Fronto, proconsuls (elect) of Asia of the
name, 640
Fulminata, fulminatrix legio, 474 sq.
Fulvus (T. Aurelius), see Antoninus Pius
Fundanus ; see Minucius Fundanus
Funk ; on the Latin version of the Long
Recension, 124 ; on the date of the
Long Recension, 260 ; on the scriptural
quotations in the Epistles of Ignatius
and Polycarp, 580

Gaius mentioned in the postscript of the
Letter of the Smyrnaeans, 62 1
Gaius the orthodox interlocutor in the
Dialogue with Proclus, 627; his pos
sible identity with Hippolytus, 627;
his name inserted in the postscript by
the false Pionius, 627
Galen ; early use of the word ' leopard ',
398; his notice of the Christians, 515;
date of the treatise in which it occurs,
515; an alleged quotation in Abulfeda
from, 515 sq. ; his evidence for a solar
calendar in Asia, 664 sq. ; passage
emended by Ussher, 664; further emen
dation, 673 ; claimed in support of a
lunar reckoning, 673
Gallican Martyrs; history of the docu
ment relating to the, 499 ; date of their
martyrdom, 499 ; character of the per
secution, 499 sq. ; bold conduct of, 393 ;
coincidences with the martyrdom of
Polycarp, 589 sq., 595, 599; with the
Passion of Christ, 595 ; Eusebius on,
500; Gregory of Tours on, 500, 551
Gallican Churches, Letter of the; see
Vienne and Lyons, Letter of the Churches
of
Gaul; introduction of the Gospel into,
381; episcopacy in, 381; called Gala
tia, 381
Gavia, perhaps the same as the wife of
Epitropus, 35, 354
Gebhardt ; on the chronology of Aristides,
654; criticisms on, 653; obligations to,
696
Gelasius, bishop of Rome, quotes the Ig
natian Epistles, 168 ; his ' Liber adv.
Eutychem et Nestorium,' 168
Genuine Ignatian Epistles; see Middle
Recension
Genuinum natale, 699

INDEX.

717

Geography of Asia Minor illustrating the
journey of Ignatius, 348 sq.
Georgius Hamartolus ; mentions Ignatius,
214; places Polycarp's martyrdom under
Antoninus Pius, 557, 633; Cedrenus
and other plagiarists of, 557 ; includ
ing Pearson's anonymous chronicler,
557
Germanicus ; his boldness in martyrdom.
393- 436
Gesner; date of his edition of the Ig
natian Epistles, 109; MS employed by.
109
Gibbon ; his account of the Babylas Riots
criticised, 43 sq., 45
Gieseler, on the character of Trajan, 7
Gladiatorial shows; magnificence of Tra
jan's, 341 sq. ; supplied from the pro
vinces, 342; rescript of Severus and
Caracalla respecting, 342 sq.
Gnostic Judaism attacked by Ignatius,
359 sq. ; his language respecting it,
showing (a) the Gnostic element,
359, (b) the Judaic element, 360; yet
the heresy one and the same, 361 sq. ;
literature regarding, 363; its relation
to the Colossian heresy, 363, 364; to
the heresy in the Pastorad Epistles,
362, 364; in all three a Judaic side,
and a Gnostic side, 364 ; its relation to
the Docetism attacked in S. John's
Epistles, 367 sq. ; see Docetism
Good Shepherd, referred to in the epi
taph of Abercius, 481, 482
Gordian; his son slain by Philip, 40;
the martyrdom of Polycarp placed by
Socrates under, 546, 633 sq. ; men
tioned in the Acts of Pionius, 634, 697
Gorres; on the character of Trajan, 7;
on the evidence of Hilary of Poitiers,
15 sq.; supposes an anachronism in the
Letter of the Smyrnaeans, 487, 619
Graffito at Pompeii containing the word
'Christian', 401
Granianus (Q. Licinius Silvanus); date
of his proconsulate, 463; miscalled
Serenius, 463, 464
'Great Sabbath'; in the Letter of the
Smyrnaeans, the day of Polycarp's mar
tyrdom, 611, 660; according to Zahn,
of his apprehension, 612; explanation
of Bucher, 683; of Ussher, 683; of
Hilgenfeld, 609, 654, 685 sq.; the words
/ condemned by Lipsius as spurious,
654 sq.; interpreted by Wieseler as a
Christian observance, 67 1 ; its relation
to the 23rd February in A.D. 155, 643;
and in a.d. 250, 699 sq.; meaning of
the term in the Christian Church, 690 ;
in Jewish nomenclature, 690 sq.; in
the Letter of the Smyrna;ans, ' a great

sabbath', 691; perhaps the Feast of
Purim, 691, 700
Greek cities, meaning of, 664, 673
Gregory Barhebraeus ; mentions Ignatius'
vision of angels, 31, 220; quotes the
Ignatian Epistles, 220
Gregory of Tours mentions Ignatius,
195 ; on the Gallican martyrs, 500,
551 ; describes a miracle on Polycarp's
festival, 455 sq., 552; mentions Poly
carp, 551; passage criticised and ex
plained, 55 r ; comparative dates and
value of his works, 551
Gregory the Great; biographers of, 4;
prays for the soul of Trajan, 3 sq. ; wide
currency of the story, 6 sq. ; his alleged
acquaintance with the Long Recension,
117 sq., 196; his evidence as to the
story of S. Felicitas, 497 ; his gifts to
Queen Theodolind, 491, 497
Grossteste, bishop of Lincoln ; according
to Ussher author of the Latin Version
of the Middle Recension, 76.; pro
bability considered, 76 sq., 261 ; his
Greek scholarship, 77 ; his translations
from the Greek, 77 ; bequeaths his
books to the Franciscans at Oxford,
77. 261
Grotius on the Vossian Letters, 316
Guilds; Trajan's aversion to, 18 sq., 53;
his letter on the firemen at Nicomedia,
19; on the convivial club at Amisa,
19 sq. ; persecutes Christianity as a
guild, 19 sq.
yevvrjTbs and yevrrrbs ; how employed
by the author of the Long Recension,
255 ; date at which the distinction be
came recognised, 256
Hadrian ; his character, 440 sq. ; its
sceptical side, 440; its superstitious
side, 440 sq. ; its strong contrasts,
441; his love of peace, 441 ; his rela
tions to Christianity, 440 sq., 460 sq. ;
story of Christian temples built by
him, 441 ; his letter to Servianus, 441,
464; apologetic literature addressed
to him, 441 sq. ; character and effect
of his rescript to Minucius Fundanus,
442, 460 sq. ; alleged persecutions under,
442, 491; the error traced to Jerome,
492, 524 sq. ; and circulated only in
the West, 525; acts and notices of
martyrdoms under, 486 sq.; only one
authenticated martyrdom under, 442,
492; perhaps the effect of his dis
ordered intellect, 442, 492; murders
Servianus, 442 ; date of his visits to
Asia Minor, 432, 617 sq. ; to Athens,

7i8

.INDEX.

617; his donations to Smyrna, 451
sq. ; his treatment of the Jews, 453;
honours paid to him at Tralles, 617;
his title 'Olympius', 444, 452, 618;
other titles of, 444 ; notices of his reign
grouped by Eusebius, 630
Hall, bishop of Norwich; his defence of
episcopacy, 229; his quotations from
Ignatius, 229; his testimony to Us
sher's services, 316
Halloix; on the age of Polycarp, 421;
draws attention to the Life of S. Aber
cius, 478; criticisms on, 226, 425
Hammond ; his defence of episcopacy
and of the Vossian letters, 318
Harnack; on the relation of the Eucha
rist and the Agape, 52
Heathen writers, notices of the Christians
in, 9 sq., 512 sq.
Hefele on the motive of the abridgment
into the Curetonian letters, 311
Hegesippus ; the authority for the martyr
dom of Symeon, 21; his account, 58
sq. ; his list of the seven sects, 58;
his life at Rome, 435
Heliodorus ; prefect of Egypt, 638 ; his
date, 624 sq., 655
Herennius Etruscus ; see Decius the
Younger
Hermas; his servile origin, 435; brother
to Pius, 435; see Shepherd of Hermas
Herminianus (CI. L.), the persecutor;
his death, 523; his date, 523
Herodes; Polycarp brought before, 35,
353, 437 sq., 612; son of Nicetes and
nephew of Alee, 353; coincidence
in the name, 594, 597 sq.
Hetaeriae; see Guilds
Hierapolis and Hieropolis ; their respec
tive situations, 478 ; confused in the
Life of S. Abercius, 479; and else
where, 478
Hilary of Poitiers; on a persecution
under Vespasian, 15 sq.
Hilgenfeld; his argument from the silence
of Irenaeus, 564 ; his theory of an in
terpolation in the Letter of the Smyr
naeans, 589, 609 sq.; on the Quarto
decimans, 609, 654, 685 ; on the chro
nology of Aristides, 653; on the day
of Polycarp's martyrdom, 685 sq. ; see
also Great Sabbath
Hippolytus, bishop of Portus; on the
Valentinian system, 373; pupil of
Irenaeus at Rome, 435, 627; perhaps
the Gaius of the Dialogue with Proclus,
627
Honorius of Augustodunum, omits men
tion of the Epistle to Polycarp, 232
Hooker, angelology of, 391
Hooper, bishop of Gloucester ; coinci

dence in his martyrdom with that of
Polycarp, 599
Hus ; his captivity and that of Ignatius,
346
Hymns, early Christian, 51
Idatius, on the date of Polycarp's martyr
dom, 633
Ignatian Epistles; three forms, 70; nota
tion of authorities adopted for, 71 ; (1)
Short Form, Syriac mss, 72 sq.; (2)
Middle Form, (i) Greek mss, 73; (ii)
Latin Version, its history, 76 sq. ; its
character, 78; its mss, 80 sq. ; (iii)
Armenian Version, its date and charac
ter, 84 sq., 313; a translation from the
Syriac, 86 sq. ; Acts of Martyrdom
translated from the Greek, 89; (iv)
Syriac Version, a series of fragments,
89 sq., 313 ; its mss, 89; form parts of
one translation, 92 ; the original of the
Armenian Version above, 92 sq. ; the
Syiac Version of the Short Form an
abridgment from this, 94 sq. ; Acts of
Martyrdom, its mss, 99 sq. ; a separate
translation, 100 sq.; (v) Copto-Thebaic
Version, 101 sq.; (3) Long Form, (i)
Greek mss, 102 sq. ; their respective
value, 117; (ii) Latin Version, 117 sq.;
its date, 117; by whom first quoted,
117 sq. ; its MSS, 118 sq.; their mutual
relation, 124 sq. ; small value of this
version, 125 sq. ; Merx's theory of three
Syriac Versions of, 192 sq.; ecclesiasti
cal use of, 103, 339; see also Short
Recension, Middle Recension, Long Re
cension, Spurious Ignatian Epistles
Ignatius (S.) ; characteristics of his age, 1 ;
compared with Clement of Rome, 1 sq. ;
his name 'Ignatius', 22; its history, 22 j
its orthography, 22; its derivation, 25;
other names of, 24 sq. ; legend of the
Theophoros examined, 27 ; legend of his
heart, 2 7 sq. ; his origin, birth and educa
tion, 28 ; his claim to the title of Apo
stolic Father, 28 sq.; his connexion with
S. Peter, 29, 195 ; with S. Paul, 29 ; with
S. John, 29, 137; his place among the
Antiochene bishops, 29 ; date of his
episcopate, 30; Eusebius on this, 137;
date of his martyrdom, 30; Eusebius
on this, 137; tradition of his vision of
angels, 30 sq. ; of his interview with
Trajan, 31 sq. ; his condemnation, 32,
356; his journey to Rome, 32,308; his
torical probability of the journey, 341
sq.; historical parallels to his treatment,
344 sq. ; his companions, 37, 575 ; not
a Roman citizen, 33; his route dis
cussed, 33 sq., 348 sq. ; his meeting
with Polycarp, 34 ; his connexion with

INDEX.

719

Polycarp, 426 sq., 572 sq.; his commis
sion to Polycarp, 427 sq., 574 sq.;
meets other delegates, 34 sq.; writes
four epistles from Smyrna, 35; their
character, 35; journey to Troas, 36,
354 sq. ; meets Philo and Rhaius
Agathopus at Troas, 36; writes three
epistles from Troas, 36; their character,
36; character of his letters generally,
347; continues his journey, 37, 358 sq.;
his martyrdom, 37, 38; day of his mar
tyrdom, 46, 358 sq. ; perhaps the anni
versary of the adoption of Trajan, 359 ;
influence of his martyrdom on the
Church, 38; on his writings, 38; his
value (1) as a theologian, 39 sq. ; his
conflict with Docetism, 39, 359 sq. ;
(2) as an expounder of ecclesiastical
order, 39; his advocacy of the three
fold ministry, 39 sq. ; his fame tempo
rarily eclipsed by Babylas, 40 sq.;
first translation of his reliques, 45;
his grave, 46; his commemoration
the occasion of Chrysostom's pane
gyric, 46 sq. ; second translation of
his reliques, 47 sq. ; the 'Church of
Ignatius,' 48; homilies delivered there
by Severus of Antioch, 48; honours
paid to him, 48 ; days assigned to him
in the Greek cadendar, 46, 48; his
popularity in the East, 48 ; among the
Monophysites, 48 sq. ; translations of
his Epistles, 48 ; gives his name to the
Jacobite patriarchs of Antioch, 49 ; his
position in the West, 49 ; references to
him in Ecclesiastical writers, 63, 66,
128 sq. ; angelology of, 391 ; self depre
ciation of, 391 sq. ; compared with S.
Paul, 392 ; his eagerness for martyrdom,
38, 392 sq.
Ignatius, Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom
of, 348; mention Polycarp, 550
Ignatius, Roman Acts of Martyrdom of,
3, 326; quote the Epistle of Polycarp,
55i
Ignatius, Jacobite patriarch of Antioch ;
the name, 49 ; catalogue of his books,
267
Irenseus (S.); date of his birth, 432; of
his work on Heresies, 135, 324; of
his connexion with Polycarp, 432;
with Florinus, 429, 432 ; quotes from
the Ignatian Epistles, 135, 274; shows
also coincidences, 135; Iris testimony
considered, 324 sq. ; Dailies objections
to it answered, 324 sq. ; its bearing on
the Curetonian theory, 274; indirect
references to Ignatian Epistles by, 326;
Daille's argument from the silence of,
328 sq. ; his testimony to episcopacy,
377 sq. ; formula of quotation used by,

325 ; his relation to the Canon and
that of Ignatius, 388 sq. ; his account
of Papias, 426; of Polycarp, 434, 457,
537 sq., 542 ; his connexion with Poly
carp, 428 sq.; his testimony to the
Epistle of Polycarp, 537, 539, 564 sq. ;
his supposed testimony to other Epi
stles of Polycarp considered, 429, 457,
564 sq. ; his letter to Victor of Rome
on the Paschal controversy, 434; on
the incident of Polycarp and Marcion,
434; his residence at Rome, 435; his
lectures and pupils there, 435, 627;
intimation to him there of the death of
Polycarp, 439; his indirect testimony
to the Letter of the Smyrnseans, 589 ;
see also Florinus, The Epistle to
Isa ibn Zorha; history and date of, 219;
a quotation ascribed by Pearson to
him really from Severus of Ashmunin,
219
IX0T2, in the genuine epitaph of Aber
cius, 481
Jacob of Edessa ; his date, 25 ; trans
lates the works of Severus, 25 ; an
autograph MS probably extant, 91, 185 ;
his answers to the questions of Addai,
90, 92
James the Just, parallelism in his martyr
dom to the sufferings of Christ, 596
Januarius (S.) ; story of the martyrdom
and burial of, 495 sq. ; discovery of
the tomb of, 496 sq.
Jerome (S.) ; quotes the Ignatian Epistles,
147 sq., 324 sq. ; but had no personal
acquaintance with them, 148; takes
the quotations from Eusebius and
Origen, 148; misleads Ussher, 148,
232; his true position pointed out by
Pearson, 232 ; misunderstood by Daille,
324 sq.; mentions Polycarp, 544 sq.;
date of several works of, 545 ; wrongly
ascribes a persecution to Hadrian, 491
sq., 524 sq.; mistaken as to the mar
tyrdom of Publius, bishop of Athens,
490, 492, 524 sq. ; his confusion of two
persons named Quadratus, 524 sq. ; on
the public reading of the Epistle of
Polycarp, 565 ; his edition of Eusebius'
Chronicon, 541, 632; his date for
Polycarp's martyrdom, 632; his com
mon practice, 632 ; his errors, 632
Jerusalem, effect of its capture upon
Christianity, 422
Jews; at first confused with Christians,
9; by Gallio, 9; by Suetonius, 9;
distinction recognized before the Nero
nian persecution, 9 ; testimony of Taci
tus, 9 sq.; of Suetonius, 10; ofSulpicius

720

INDEX.

Severus, 10 ; their policy to emphasize
this distinction, 9 ; their position under
Nero, 10 sq. ; their position under
Domitian, 1 1 sq. ; history of the capi
tation fee, n sq. ; testimony of Sueto
nius to this, 12; Dion Cassius does not
identify them with Christians, 12 sq.;
calumniate Christians, 53, 452; perse
cutions due to, 11, 58; their relations
to Christians at the time of Hadrian,
453; their treatment by Hadrian, 453;
their influence in Smyrna, 452 sq. ;
their activity at the martyrdom of
Polycarp, 438, 453, 589, 693; at the
martyrdom of Pionius, 453 sq., 693
John (S.) ; his age and death in the Chro
nicon Paschale, 65, 649 ; why not men
tioned in the Ignatian Epistle to the
Ephesians, 390; his stay at Ephesus,
370, 390, 422, 424 sq. ; Clement of
Alexandria on, 380, 424 sq. ; his con
nexion with Polycarp, 424 sq., 649;
form of Docetism assailed by, 367 sq.
John Damascene; on the prayer of Gre
gory the Great, 5 sq. ; quotes the Igna
tian Epistles, 204 sq. ; but not the
Epistle to the Romans, 411; his In
Fide Dormientium, 5; his Parallela
Sacra, 210; chronology of his life,
210
John Malalas ; see Malalas
John of Antioch, mentions Ignatius,
164
John of Apamea; his date discussed,
146; list of his works given by Ebed
jesu, 146; identified with John the
Monk, 146; see y ohn the Monk
John of Basingstoke; archdeacon of
Chester, 77; his labours under Gross
teste, 77
John of Lycopolis; his date, 145; not the
same as John the Monk, 145
John of Salisbury ; his panegyric on Tra
jan, 6
John the Deacon, the biographer of Gre
gory the Great, 4 sq.
John the Elder; at Ephesus, 422; ac
cording to Eusebius, the master of
Papias, 426
John the Monk; quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 142 sq., 313; his writings,
145; his letters to Eutropius and Euse
bius, 142, 145; his Life by Palladius,
bishop of Helenopolis, 145; same as
John the Monk of Thebais, 145 ; same
as John of Apamea, 146 ; but distinct
from John of Lycopolis, 145; used
the Syriac Version, 313 ; his date, 313
John Tyssington ; see Tyssington
Joseph the Hymnographer ; his hymn on
Ignatius, 212; account of, 212

Josephus, respecting Poppsea, n
Jovius the Monk, quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 194
Judaism ; see Gnostic yudaism
Julia Gordus, inscriptions at, 675
Julian, the Emperor ; removes the bones
of Babylas from Daphne, 42 ; riots of
the Christians against, 43 ; tortures the
Christians, 43
Julian the Count ; uncle of the Emperor
Julian, 43; by Gibbon confused with
the Emperor, 43
Julianus, Claudius, proconsul of Asia;
date of his proconsulate, 641 sq., 655 ;
inscription relating to, 641 ; his trans
actions with Aristides, 641, 651 sq.
Julianus (P. Salvius), mentioned by Ari
stides, 038 ; date of his consulship, 638 ;
Borghesi's mistake as to his identity,
638
Julianus (P. Salvius), city prefect, 499;
date of his prefecture, 499
July Martyrs ; see Felicitas
Justin Martyr ; in proconsular Asia, 428 ;
scene of his Dialogue with Trypho,
428; its date, 518; his probable inter
course with Polycarp, 428; at Rome,
435 ; date of his First Apology, 462 ;
its bearing on the genuineness of the re
script to Fundanus, 461 sq. ; Rufinus'
Latin text of the rescript derived from,
463 ; his account of the martyrdom of
Ptolemseus and others in his Second
Apology, 492 sq., 518; genuineness of
his Acts of Martyrdom, 493 sq.; date
of his martyrdom, 494; grouped in
Eusebius with other martyrdoms, 631 ;
his companions in martyrdom, 494
Keil, edition of Pliny's letters by, 54
Keim ; on the character of Trajan, 7 ; on
the rescript to Fundanus, 462 sq. ; on
the Letter of the Smyrnseans, 588,
593 sq., 596 sq. ; on the 'postmark' of
the Letter, 600 sq. ; minor criticisms
on, 600 sq., 602 sq., 604 sq., 607; on
the date of the Octavius of Minucius
Felix, 519; on the chronology of Ari
stides, 658 sq.
Kimmel, on the original of the rescript
to Fundanus, 463 sq.
Kings, Christian habit of prayer for, 576
sq.
Langen, on the In Fide Dormentium of
John Damascene, 5
Latin words; used by Ignatius, 396; by
other Greek writers, 396 ; in the Igna
tian Epistles either military or legal
terms, 396

INDEX.

721

'Laus Heronis,' mss containing the, 118,
120, 121, 122
Legions; named from emblems, 474;
more than one called by the same
number, 475 sq.; stations of the twelfth
legion, 475 ; see Thundering Legion
Leontius, bishop of Antioch ; his date,
40; on Babylas and the emperor Philip,
40, 41
Leontius of Byzantium, mentions Igna
tius, 197
Letronne, on the chronology of Ari
stides, 638
Leucius ; apocryphal Acts of S. John by,
352; coincidence of the name Burrhus
in these Acts, 352
Liberian Catalogue; date and character
of, 496 ; references to, 486, 496, 496 sq.
Lipsius (R. A.); at first supports the
Curetonian theory, 269; recants, 272
sq.; on the word ' Christian,' 400, 404;
on the Letter of the Smyrnseans, 588
sq., 594; on a passage in the Letter,
600 sq. ; on the date of Telesphorus,
486 ; on the chronology of Aristides,
653 sq.; on the mention of the ' great
sabbath,' 654; on the date of the birth
of Irenaeus, 432 ; on the Letter to Flori
nus, 429
Long Recension, Ignatian Epistles of
the; Versions and mss of, 102 sq. ; (see
Ignatian Epistles) ; history of the printed
text, 226 ; doubts and controversies
respecting, 226 sq.; suspicions before
Ussher's time, 226 sq. ; for critical rea
sons, 226; for controversial reasons,
227; supporters and objectors, 227 sq.;
accepted by the Anglican divines, 228
sq. ; finally discredited by the discovery
of Ussher, 231 sq.; and of Voss, 233;
subsequent champions of, 234 ; inter
polations and spurious epistles by one
hand, 234 sq. ; (i) internal evidence
for this, 234 sq.; (ii) external evidence,
237 sq. ; the date and purpose of
the Recension investigated, 245 sq.;
(i) external evidence for the date, 245 ;
(ii) internal evidence for the date, 246
sq.; derived from (a) the ecclesiastical
status, 246 sq. ; (b) the names of per
sons and places, 248; (c) the plagiar
isms, 249 sq. ; especially from the Apo
stolical Constitutions, 250 sq.; (d) the
doctrinal teaching, 254 sq. ; Arianism
of the writer considered, 255 sq.;
Apollinarianism of the writer consi
dered, 258 sq.; conclusion as to date,
260 ; country of, 261 ; in Greek Church
did not displace the Middle Recension,
261 ; in the Latin Church its influence
more important, 261 ; but still local,
IG. I.

261 ; the spurious epistles appended
to the Middle Recension, 261 sq. ;
references to Polycarp in the, 544 ; see
also Spurious Ignatian Epistles
Lucian; his life and journeys, 331; date
of his 'Peregrinus Proteus', 133;
extracts from, 129 sq. ; its purpose,
331 sq.; character of his 'Peregrinus
Proteus' historical, 331; with acces
sories, 331 ; attacks Cynicism and
Christianity, 331 ; mainly the former,
332; his use of technical Christian
terms, 332 ; yet with confusion of
men and things, 334 ; coincidences
with the history of Ignatius and Poly
carp in, 129 sq., 331 sq., 344, 537,
590 sq.; the coincidences acknowledged
by Renan and Baur, 334 ; their bear
ing on the Curetonian theory, 274 ;
presents a parallel to the treatment of
Ignatius by his guard, 344 sq.; testifies
to the Christian contempt of death,
393; probably not an apostate from
Christianity, 333 ; alludes elsewhere to
Christianity, 516; date of his 'Alex
ander', 516; his friend Celsus, 514
Lucilla ; betrothed to L. Verus, 477, 484;
story of her cure by S. Abercius, 477
Lydias, her relations with S. Paul, 424
XeoirapSos ; use of the word in the Igna
tian Epistles, 397 ; alleged anachronism
involved in, 397 ; history of the word,
397 sq.; Daille's account of it, 398
Xbyos exei, Xbyos Karexei, 58, 238
Macarius Magnes ; his date, 545 ; his con
nexion with the Oak Synod, 546 ;
editio princeps of his works, 546;
mentions Polycarp, 545 sq.
Maccabees, Fourth Book of; its date,
487; story of martyrdom in, 487;
repetitions of the story, 487 sq.
Macedonia; fellow martyr with Pionius,
and a Montanist, 622; see Pionius
Macedonian Calendar; see Calendars
Madaurian martyrs; their names, 506;
authority for their martyrdom, 507;
date, 507, 516
Mseonia, inscriptions at, 675
Magistriani, 484
Magnesia, not visited by Ignatius, 350;
delegates from, 352 sq.
Magnesians, Ignatian Epistle to the; its
relation to the Epistle of Mary to
Ignatius, 236
Malalas, John; his character of Trajan,
3 ; his account of Trajan's persecutions
at Antioch, 62 sq. ; spurious letter of
Tiberianus given by, 63 ; value of his
testimony estimated, 64, 195; on the
46

722

INDEX.

consecration of Ignatius by S. Peter,
195; on an Egyptian expedition of
Antoninus Pius, 646
Manuscripts of Ignatian Epistles ; see
Ignatian Epistles
Marcellina ; teaches at Rome, 436 ; cha
racter of her heresy, 436
Marcellus of Ancyra, aimed at by the
author of the Long Recension, 255
Marcia influences Commodus in favour
>S'of the Christians, 357. 510
Marcianus; bearer of the Letter of the
Smyrnaeans, 439; perhaps the corre
spondent of Irenseus, 439, 608
Marcion ; Docetism of, 366 sq. 569 sq. ;
its distinctive features, 569; its con
nexion with Polycarp and the scene
of Ignatius' labours, 370; yet not al
luded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 370;
inference from this, 371; not alluded
to in the Epistle of Polycarp, 568 sq. ;
his high moral character, 570; teaches
at Rome, 436; meets Polycarp, 434,
568, 571 sq.
Marcus Aurelius; his attitude towards
Christianity, 445 sq., 510 sq. ; refer
ence to Christians in his Meditations,
441, 517; persecutions under, 446;
their extent and severity, 44OJ 510 sq.;
acts and notices of martyrdom under,
493 sq. ; character of his Stoicism, 449 ;
Christian writers on the character of, 8,
446, 511; his religious comprehensive
ness, 449 sq..; profusion of his sacri
fices, 440, 450; his active promotion of
Ceesar worship, 450; of superstitious
rites, 450 sq. ; his alleged letter on
the Thundering Legion, 469 sq. ; to
Euxenianus, 476 sq. ; his decree against
superstitious rites, 486; date of his
adoption, 703 ; of his marriage, 64 1,
655 ; of his tribunician power, 576,
642, 703 ; of his expedition against the
Quadi, 472; of his title Armeniacus,
467 ; of his joint sovereignty with L.
Verus, 498, 576, 703; with Commodus,
625 sq., 645, 696, 704; of his death,
704; called 'Antoninus' in Eusebius,
631, 633; called 'Pius'by Commodus,
645 ; how distinguished from Antoninus
Pius, 646
Marinus, bishop of Anazarbus ; mentioned
in the Long Recension, 248 ; a name
sake martyred under Diocletian, 248
Mark (S.); account of his martyrdom in
the Chronicon Paschale, 65
Martyrdom, eagerness for; in the Igna
tian Epistles, 38 sq., 392 sq. ; reasons
for the display in the Epistle to the
Romans, 393 ; other instances of, 393 ;
discouraged by the Church, 393,603 sq.;

testimony of the Letter of the Smyr
naeans discussed, 601 sq.
Martyrdom of Ignatius; see Ignatius,
Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius
Martyrdoms, notices of ; under Nero, 1 1 ;
under Domitian, 11 sq., 356 sq.; under
Trajan, 50 sq. ; under Hadrian, 486 sq.;
under Antoninus Pius, 492 sq., 643;
under Marcus Aurelius, 493 sq. ; under
Septimius Severus, 482 sq. ; under De
cius, 622 sq., 695 sq. ; see Christianity,
Christians, Persecutions
Martyrologies; Hieronymian, date and
sources, 553 sq., 688; old Roman,
date and imitators, 554; old Syriac,
date, 141, 544; of Ado, 554, 559
Martyrs, rise of the veneration for, 601
sq.
Mary of Cassobola ; see Cassobola, Mary
°f
Mary Stuart; analogy of her captivity
with that of Ignatius, 347
Mary, the Virgin ; Ignatian correspond
ence with S. John and the result of a
mistake, 224; original language of,
224 ; S. Bernard wrongly quoted as an
authority for, 224 sq.
Masson ; on the chronology of Aristides,
636 sq. ; opposed by Letronne and
Borghesi, 638; his theory overthrown
by Waddington, 639 sq. ; respective
starting points of Masson and Wad
dington, 641 ; criticisms on his system,
639 sq., 643, 648, 649, 651 ; discovers
a Hemerology, 661
Maximilla, date of the death of, 482
Maximus (Paullus Fabius); date of his
proconsulate, 680; his connexion with
Augustus, 682 ; introduces the solar
calendar into proconsular Asia, 680
sq. ; and in Cyprus, 682
Maximus of Madaura; his correspondence
with S. Augustine, 506 sq.
Maximus the Confessor; mentions Igna
tius and quotes the Ignatian Epistles,
202 sq. ; date of his death, 202 ; Poly
carp mentioned, 555
Meir, Rabbi; his date, 692; resides at
Sardis, 692 ; frames a system of inter
calation, 692; may have introduced
a Jewish calendar of Metonic cycle,
693
Melito; his date, 133; on the character
of Trajan, 2 sq. ; on persecutions, 16,
510, 520; his evidence as regards per
secutions defective, 16; shows coinci
dences with the Ignatian Epistles, 133 ;
his probable intercourse with Polycarp,
428; his visit to the East, 428; per
haps martyred under M. Aurelius, 446,
494 ; his evidence to the alleged Letter

INDEX.

723

. of Antoninus Pius considered, 467 sq. ;
date of his apology, 5 1 o
Menaea ; sources of its information gene
rally, 221; for Dec. 20, its account of
Ignatius, 211, 221; for Feb. 13, its
account of Polycarp, 561 ; places his
martyrdom under Decius, 561, 634
Merx; his Meletemata Ignatiana, 98 sq.,
270; maintains the priority of the
Vossian letters, 270 ; convinces Lipsius,
273; his mistake as to the Letter to
Anastasia, 184; his theory of three
Syrian Versions of the Ignatian Epi
stles, 192 sq.
Metrodorus ; fellow martyr with Pionius,
622; a Marcionist, 622; mentioned by
Eusebius, 542, 624 ; see Pionius
Michael Syncellus; mentions Ignatius and
quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 212; men
tions Polycarp, 556
Middle Recension, Seven Ignatian Epi
stles of the; mss and Versions, 73 sq.
(see Ignatian Epistles) ; the discovery by
Ussher and Voss, 73 sq., 231 sq.; the
controversy, 233 sq.; its progress, 315
sq. ; its recent history, 268 sq. ; testi
mony to the text as compared with that
of the classics, 315; weight of the
authorities who support, 316; genuine
ness vindicated (1) External Evidence,
321 sq. ; testimony of (i) the Epistle of
Polycarp, 322 sq. , 572 sq. ; (ii) Irenseus,
' 324 sq. ; (iii) the Letter of the Smyr
naeans, 329 sq. ; (iv) the Letter of the
Gallican Churches, 330; (v) Lucian,
331 sq. ; (vi)- Theophilus of Antioch,
335; (vii) Origen, 335 sq. ; (viii) Euse
bius of Caesarea, 336; (ix) Nicephorus
of Constantinople not adverse, 336 sq. ;
(2) Internal Evidence, (i) Historical
and Geographical Circumstances, 341
sq. ; (a) the journey to Rome, 341 sq. ;
(b) the attendant circumstances, 343
sq. ; (c) the route, 348 sq.; (d) the per
sonal relations, 351 sq. ; (e) the Roman
Church, 356 sq. ; (ii) Theological Po
lemics; (a) positive side, Docetism and
Judaism, 359 sq. ; (b) negative side,
silence about the Quartodecimans, the
Montanists, Basilides, Marcion, Va
lentinus, 368 sq. ; supposed reference
to Valentinus explained, 371 sq. ;
Christology of, 254, 579; (iii) Eccle
siastical Conditions, (a) episcopacy,
375 sq., 578; (b) widows, 385; (c)
uturgy. 385 sq. ; (iv) Literary Obliga
tions, 387 sq. ; (v) Personality of the
Writer, 391 sq. ; (vi) Style and Charac
ter of the Letters, 394 sq. ; (a) com
pounds, 395, 581; (b) Latinisms, 396;
(c) reiterations, 396 sq.; (d) supposed

anachronisms ('leopard', 'catholic',
'Christian'), 397 sq. ; characteristic ex
pressions, 581 sq. ; (e) indications of
genuineness (allusiveness, impulsive
ness, anacolutha, archaisms), 404 sq. ;
the case summed up, 407 sq. ; 'the
Sylloge Polycarpiana', 409 sq. ; gene
ral contrast of tnese Epistles with the
Epistle of Polycarp, 577 sq. ; scriptu
ral quotations in, 580; original charac
ter of, 581
Miggen, proper name, 507
Milton attacks Ussher, 231; and the Ig
natian Epistles, 231
Ministrae, 53
Minucius Felix ; writes as an African for
Africa, 520; relation of his Octavius to
Tertullian's Apologeticum, 518 sq. ;
its date, 519 sq. ; its reference to Fronto,
5 19 ; his style no evidence of late date,
520; his name, 520
Minucius Fundanus; date and name, 463 ;
Hadrian's rescript to, 442, 460 sq. ; its
character, 442, 462; its effect, 442;
one of many similar rescripts, 442 ;
text, 460 sq. ; Rufinus' Latin the origi
nal, 461, 463 sq. ; genuineness, 461
sq.
Miracles recorded at great religious crises,
598 sq.
Mithraic worship in the time of the Anto
nines, 450
Modestinus; his date, 342 ; his work ' On
Punishments ', 342 ; edicts quoted from,
342 ; Renan mistaken about, 342
Moesinger, criticisms on, 101
Mommsen, on the date of M. Aurelius'
marriage, 641 ; an emendation of, 467
Monophysites, their veneration for Igna
tius, 48 sq., 169; reasons for this, 254;
expressions of theirs anticipated in the
Middle Recension, 254, 579 ; the author
of the Long Recension unacquainted
with, 254; the Short Recension not
the work of, 310 sq.
Montanism ; Ignatius' interest in the scene
of the heresy, 369 ; yet not alluded to
in the Ignatian Epistles, 369; argu
ment therefrom for date of the Epistles,
369
Montanist fellow martyrs with Pionius,
622; Quintus the Phrygian not one,
659
Montanist treatise addressed to Avircius
Marcellus, 482 ; its date discussed, 482
sq.
Months; Epheso- Asiatic, their relation
to the Julian, 661 ; their names, 662,
667; beginning of the months, 661,
665; origin of the names, 662; their
distinctive character, 662 sq.; (i) the
46-2

724

INDEX.

last day of the month, 662 ; (ii) the
mode of reckoning, 662 sq. ; backward
reckoning of last decade of, in solar ca
lendars, 674 sq. ; transference of names
of, from lunar to solar calendars, 675
sq. ; numbering and naming of, 678;
see Calendars
Mountague, bishop of Norwich, 82; his
Origines Ecclesiasticae, 82, 230; his
Latin MS known to Ussher and now
lost, 82 sq. ; how this MS became
known to Ussher, 230
Muratorian Canon; allusions to, 422,
424, 435 ; testimony to episcopacy in,
380 ; passage explained in, 424
Wlayviraievs (form), 280
p.aBi\rebeiv, 423
Names ; instances of alternative, 26 ;
reasons for assuming them, 26 sq.
Namphamo, the martyr; spelling of his
name, 507; account and date of his
martyrdom, 507
Nartzallus, proper name, 509
Neocaesareon, the month, 668, 669
Nero ; his character as given by Melito,
2 ; by Tertullian, 2 sq. ; his persecution
differently estimated, 2, 7 ; relation of
Jews and Christians in the reign of,
9 sq.; Tacitus on the persecution of,
9 sq. ; Sulpicius Severus on the perse
cution of, 9 sq.
Newman (Card.) ; his views on the Igna
tian Controversy, 373, 376 sq.
Nicephorus Callistus; on the legend of
the Qeocpbpos, 27; on Ignatius' vision of
angels, 31
Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople;
his date, 337; mentions Ignatius, and
t quotes the Long Recension, 213, 338 ;
' places the Ignatian Epistles among
apocryphal writings, 2 1 3, 336 sq.; Pear
son's theory to explain this, 251, 337;
his use of the word 'apocryphal', 338
sq., 566; date of his Stichometria, 340;
on the Epistle to Polycarp, 232, 566
Nicetes, the persecutor, 35, 353; his con
duct to Polycarp, 437 sq. ; father of
Herodes, and brother of Alee, 35, 353,
437
Nicolas of Lincoln; his literary labours
under Grossteste, 77
Nicolas of Myra, epigram iu the Antho
logia Palatina on, 560
Nisibis, scansion of, 481
Notation of the authorities for the text of
the Ignatian Epistles; used by Zahn,
71 ; adopted in this book, 71
Novi homines, 4
Numerianus the emperor ; date of, 41;

possible confusion with Numerius the
general, 41
Numerius, persecuting general under De
cius, 41
Nurono; Syriac name of Ignatius, 24 sq.,
77; its meaning, 24; where first applied
to Ignatius, 24; based on a mistaken
derivation, 25
Nysa, inscription at, 665
veoprjvla, vovpnjvla, 674
Olympiads of Tralles, 616 sq.; mode of
calculating them, 618
Olympian festivals; at Athens, 617; in
Asiatic cities, 618 ; at Smyrna, 693 sq. ;
date of establishment there, 695 ; Ha
drianea at Smyrna, 693 sq. ; date of
establishment, 695
Olympius, a title of Hadrian, 444, 452,
618; its origin, 618
Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus; meets
with Ignatius, 34, 351; his character,
34 ; frequency of the name, 351 sq. ;
Daille's confusion of the name, 351
Origen; quotes the Ignatian Epistles,
136, 274 sq. ; shows knowledge of the
Vossian Letters, 276, 335 ; his evidence
does not support the Curetonian theory,
276; probably Eusebius derived his
copy from him, 276, 336; plagiarised <
in the Long Recension, 249; Latin
Versions of, 136; on Celsus, 514
Orosius, his account of Christian apolo
gists, 525 sq.
Otrous; its situation, 478, 482; Zoticus
of, 482
Overbeck, 487, 525 sq.
bp.oXoyovp.ivri and <t>epop.ivr] iTiaToXr), 238
bpoobaios, term avoided by the author of
the Long Recension, 256 sq.
bp.0Tip.0s, used doctrinally in the Long
Recension, 257
Paceus ; publishes the Greek Epistles of
the Long Recension, 102; Greek MS
employed by, 102; omits the Epistle of
Mary of Cassobola, 102
Paganism, revival of; in the time of the
Antonines, 449 sq. ; supported by the
Emperors, 449; especially by M. Au
relius, 449 sq. ; superstitious accretions
of, 450 sq.
Pamphilus; his library a link between
Origen and Eusebius, 276; his cap
tivity compared with that of Ignatius,
346
Panemus, the month, 668
Papias, bishop of . Hierapolis ; his tutor
John, 426; his connexion with Poly-

INDEX.

725

carp discussed, 426; confused with
Papylus, 553
Papirius, bishop of Smyrna ; his identity,
448; perhaps martyred under M. Au
relius, 446, 494
Papylus; confused with Papias, 553;
Eusebius' date for his martyrdom, 542
sq., 624; discovery of his Acts, 625;
correction of Eusebius' date therefrom,
625 sq. ; day of his festival, 625 ; general
confusion of the name, 625 ; see Per
gamene Martyrs
Parabolani, 247
Parallela; Sacra, of John Damascene,
204, 210, 411; Rupefucaldina, 205,
210, 411, 412; Vaticana, 204 sq., 411,
4'3
Parthian wars ; see Vologesus
Paschal Controversy; see Quartodeciman
Controversy
Paschal I; removes the reliques of S.
Caecilia, 502 ; circumstances attending
the removal, 502 sq.
Passion of Christ ; prominence given to it
in the Epistles of Ignatius, 579 ; other
wise in the Epistle of Polycarp, 579;
parallelisms in the martyrdom of Poly
carp, 594 sq. ; and in the sufferings of
saints generally, 596 sq.
Paul (S. ); analogy of his history with
that of Ignatius, 28, 392 ; of his cap
tivity, 345 ; of his style, 396 sq., 406 ;
why specially mentioned by Ignatius in
the Epistle to the Romans, 357; to the
Ephesians, 390 ; coordinated with S.
Peter in the genuine Ignatian Epistles,
235i 357; in the Long Recension, 235;
allusion in the Ignatian Epistles to
the Epistles of, 389; condition of his
Epistles in the time of Ignatius, 389;
Renan on the wife of, 424
Paul of Callinicus ; his date, 25; probable
translator of Severus of Antioch, 25, 91,
Paul of Samosata and the epitaph of
Abercius, 483
Paul the Deacon, biographer of Gregory
the Great, 4 sq.
Paulicians, 483
Paullus (Sergius) ; proconsul of Asia, under
M. Aurelius, 494 ; his name, 494 ; date
of his proconsulate, 494
Pearson ; on the date of the Latin Version
of the Middle Recension, 78 ; on a Greek
MS with seven epistles only, 1 15 sq. ; vin
dicates the Epistle to Polycarp against
Ussher, 232; holds the distinct author
ship of the Additional Epistles, 238;
on Didascaliae of Clement, Ignatius,
Polycarp, 250 sq., 337 sq., 457; his
Vindiciae against Daille, 320 sq. ; Por-

son's opinion of the work, 321; de
Larroque's reply to Pearson, 321; on
the mention of Sige by Ignatius, 320,
371 sq. ; mistakes of, 115; on the chro
nology of Aristides, 636 ; on the year
of Polycarp's martyrdom, 636 sq. ; on
the day of Polycarp's martyrdom, 683
Peregrinus Proteus; his name, 331; his
character, 450; scene of his a'ctivity,
450 ; a product of his age, 450 ; not
known to have been a Christian, 332 ;
date of his death, 133, 331; Lucian's
account of his self-immolation, 129 sq. ;
see also Lucian
Pergamene martyrs (Carpus, Papylus, and
Agathonice) ; Eusebius on the date
of their martyrdom, 542 sq., 624; their
genuine Acts lately discovered, 625;
day of their martyrdom, 625; year of
their martyrdom discussed, 625 sq.,
606 ; see also Agathonice, Carpus,
Papylus
Perkin Warbeck, analogy of his captivity
to that of Ignatius, 344
Perpetua, Acts of; coincidences with
Ignatian Epistles in, 135, 335
Perpetua (S.) ; analogy of her captivity
with that of Ignatius, 345
Persecutions; under Nero, 2 sq., 7,9sq. ;
under Domitian, 7, 1 1 sq. ; under Tra
jan, 13 sq., 18, 50; how far the work
of the emperor, 18; defective evidence
concerning, 15 sq.; no Christian record
of Bithynian, 18; frequent under good
emperors, 1 7 ; alleged exaggerations of
Christian writers considered, 17; see
also Antoninus Pius, Christians, Mar
tyrdoms, Hadrian, etc.
Petavius, the Jesuit; recognises interpo
lations in the Long Recension, 227
Peter (S.); his connexion with the
Roman Church, 357; appealed to by
Clement of Rome, 357; by Ignatius
in his Epistle to the Romans, 357; his
First Epistle frequently quoted in the
Epistle of Polycarp, 5S0
Peter of Alexandria quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 137, 336
Petermann ; his edition of the Armenian
Version of the Middle Recension, 84
sq. ; on the date of this version, 85 ;
on the original of this version, 86 sq. ;
Bunsen's criticism rejected, 98 sq. ; on
the original of the Armenian Acts of
Martyrdom, 89 ; on the priority of the
Middle Recension, 270
Phlegon of Tralles, 450
Philadelphia, visited by Ignatius, 349 sq. ;
inscriptions at, 676
Philadelphian Church; its treatment of
Ignatius, 34, 350; and of his compan-

726

INDEX.

ions, 36, 355, 392; Ignatius' language
to the, 392, 405 ; centre of Montanism,
369
Philip, the Apostle; his connexion with
Hierapolis, 422; his daughters, 422
Philip, the Emperor; repelled by Baby
las, 40; authorities for the story, 40;
his crime according to Leontius, 40;
confused with the emperor Decius, 41
Philip, the Trallian ; his munificence and
renown, 436; president of the games
at which Polycarp was martyred, 436;
the titles 'Asiarch' and 'Chief Priest',
612, 649 ; inscriptions recently dis
covered mentioning, 613 sq. , 649 sq. ;
his full name, 615; his honours, 615
sq. ; date of his Asiarchate, 6r6 sq. ,
649 sq. ; his son of the same name,
615; his son's honours, 616
Philippi, visit of Ignatius to, 36; anti
quity of the church at, 446, 584
Philippians, Ignatian Epistle to the; see
Spurious and Interpolated Ignatian
Epistles
Philippians, Letter of, to Polycarp, 37,
427. 573! repty °f Polycarp to, 37,
428; see Polycarp, Epistle of
Philo, deacon of Cilicia; companion of
Agathopus, 354; follows the route of
Ignatius, 36, 354 sq. ; his reception at
Philadelphia, 350, 355 ; brings to Igna
tius at Troas good news from Antioch,
354 sq-
Philomelians, Letter to the; see Smyr
nceans, Letter of the
Philostorgius; on the story of Babylas,
41 ; errors in his account, 41
Philoxenus of Hierapolis; date of his
episcopate, 169; mentions Ignatius,
169, and Polycarp, 548
Phlegon ; secretary of the Emperor Ha
drian, 513; his notice of the eclipse at
the crucifixion, 512 sq. ; date of his
Chronica, 513
Photinus; name confused with Pothinus
by Gregory of Tours, 551 ; alluded to
by the author of the Long Recension,
255
Photius refers to Polycarp, 556 sq.
Phrygia, names of the provinces of, 483
Pionian Life of Polycarp; epitome of,
417 sq. ; its unauthentic character, 419,
626 ; its story criticised, 423 sq. ; in
troduces the miraculous, 626; appeals
to imaginary documents, 626; cha
racter of its evidence for the Epistle of
Polycarp, 544, 565; incorporates the
Letter of the Smyrnseans, 592, 626;
its author the writer of the postscript
in the Letter of the Smyrnseans, 626
sq. ; not the martyr Pionius, 622 sq.,

672; invents the pedigree of the trans
mission, 627 ; and is responsible for
insertions in the Letter of the Smyr
naeans, 627 sq.
Pionius, Acts of; refer to the day of Poly
carp's martyrdom, 540 ; bear testimony
to the Letter of the Smyrnaeans, 591,
670; their genuineness, (i) Internal evi
dence, 622 sq. ; (ii) External evidence,
Eusebius, 623 sq.; the extant Acts, 622
sq., 696 sq. ; MSS of, 696; showing two
recensions, 696 ; the recensions com
pared, 696 sq.; the notices of dates in
them, 697 sq.; the text of these notices
restored, 701 ; the document in Euse
bius' hands, 624 sq., 695 sq., 701 sq.
Pionius, the martyr; circumstances of
his martyrdom, 453 sq., 622 ; activity
of the Jews at it, 453 sq.; his fellow
martyrs, 622 sq., 697 ; supposed to
have revived the festival of Polycarp,
455) 672 ; and instituted the public
reading of his epistle, 565 ; error of
Eusebius as to the time of his martyr
dom, 624, 696 ; origin of the error,
625, 634, 696; date of his martyrdom
discussed, 695 sq. ; (i) the year of mar
tyrdom, 455, 541, 697 sq. ; (ii) the day
(a) of the apprehension, 699 sq. ; (b) of
the martyrdom, 455, 700 sq. ; the day
kept by the Western Churches, 702 ;
confusion of the name, 702
Pliny ; date of his praetorship, 50 ; of his
pro-praetorship, 56 ; his title, 56 ; his
policy in Bithynia, 14 ; his correspond
ence with Trajan, 13 sq., 20, 50 sq., 60;
Tertullian's account of it, 57 sq. ; his
letter on the firemen at Nicomedia, 19;
passage emended, 19 ; his letter on the
Amisenes, 20; his letter relating to the
Christians, 20 ; text and notes, 50 sq.;
his account of Christian services, 51 sq.,
386 ; his use of the word 'sacramentum',
52 ; genuineness of his correspondence
vindicated, 54 sq.; its date, 56 ; claimed
as a Christian, and a martyr, 56 ; on
Trajan's gladiatorial shows, 341 sq. ; on
the revival of pagan religion, 449 ; his
own munificence in temple building,
449
Pollio, Vitrasius ; mentioned in the Letter
of M. Aurelius, 471 ; his history, 472
Polybius, bishop of Tralles, meets Ig
natius, 35,351
Polycarp, Roman presbyter and confessor;
martyred under Diocletian, 689; his
day, 689
Polycarp (S.), bishop of Smyrna; the
Pionian legend concerning, 417 sq. ;
story of his ordination, 418 sq.; sup
posed miracles of, 419; his name, its

INDEX.

72?

history and associations, 420 sq. ; the
date of his birth, 421, 567, 649 sq. ; de
pends on his age at the time of his
martyrdom, 421, 649; contemporary
events, 422; born of Christian parent
age, 423; his birthplace, 423; a man
of substance, 423; question of his celi
bacy, 423 sq.; his relations with S.
John, 424 sq., 649; his ordination by
S. John, 425 sq., 649; his age at the
time, 425 sq. ; his connexion with
Clement improbable, 426; with Pa
pias, 426; with Ignatius, 34, 426 sq.,
572 sq. ; his commission from Ignatius,
36, 427 sq., 574 sq.; his letter to the
Philippians (see Polycarp, Epistle of) ;
his age and prominence when he wrote
it, 566 sq. ; his modesty, 567 ; his
allusions to S. Paul, 567 sq. ; men
tions Ignatius and the Ignatian Epi
stles, 127 sq. ; ignorant of his fate, 128;
his proposed visit to Antioch, 428, 574
sq. ; his connexion with a younger
generation, especially with Irenaeus,
428 sq. ; with Florinus, 429 ; with
Pothinus, 430; with Benignus and
others, 431; his old age, 432 sq. ; his visit
to Rome and its cause, 433 sq., 539,
659; meets Anicetus, 433 sq., 539, 659 ;
his sternness towards heretics, 434 ; his
meeting with Marcion, 434, 571 sq. ;
its date, 572 ; supposed allusions to
Marcion in his epistle, 568 sq. ; the
Roman Church at this time, 435 sq. ;
his apprehension, 436 sq. ; his martyr
dom, 438 sq. ; activity of the Jews,
438, 453 ; alleged incident of the dove
considered, 590 sq., 598, 627 sq. ; co
incidences with our Lord's passion,
594 sq. ; supernatural occurrences, 598
sq. ; date of his martyrdom considered at
length ; (1) The year of martyrdom, 629
sq. ; old accepted date, its supporters,
and critics, 629 sq. ; Waddington's con
clusion, 643; tests, 647 sq.; modifica
tions, 650 sq. ; and alternative adjust
ments, 653 sq.; Waddington's chro
nology confirmed, 655 ; refutation of
objectors, 658 sq. ; (2) The day of mar
tyrdom ; date, 660 ; reading of the Mos
cow MS, 660, 683 ; different days adopted
(i) Feb. 23, 661 sq. ; (ii) April 6,
Wieseler's view refuted, 670 sq. ; (iii)
March 23, Salmon's view, 672 sq. ; (iv)
March 26, the date in the Chronicon
Paschale, 682 sq. ; (v) January 16, the
day in the Latin Church, 688 sq. ; con
clusion, 690; the 'great sabbath' ex
plained, 690 sq. ; the heathen festival
which synchronized, 693 sq. ; his pre
decessors and successors at Smyrna,

447 sq. ; the message in the Apocalypse
not addressed to, 447 sq. ; the general
religious fervour of his time, 448 sq. ;
fate of his reliques, 454; festival on the
day of his martyrdom, 4:4 sq. ; the day,
in the Eastern Church, 455 ; in the West
ern Church, 455 ; story of Gregory of
Tours, 455 sq., 552; no local tradition
of sites relating to, 456; writings as
cribed to, 457; contemporary venera
tion of, 457 sq. ; importance of his con
servative unoriginative mind, 458; his
significance to the later Church, as 'the
Elder', 458 sq. ; his function, a de
positary of tradition, 458; habitual ex
pressions of, 572 ; his testimony to
episcopacy, 380
Polycarp, Epistle of; date, 127, 567;
circumstances of writing, 37, 322 ; its
testimony to the Ignatian Epistles, 127
sq-> 275, 322 sq., 573 sq. ; Mss and ver
sions,1 530 sq. ; its original connexion
with the Ignatian Epistles, 409 sq., 428,
530; its- present connexion in mss, 530;
probably circulated also independently,
531 ; first direct notice of it as separate
from the Ignatian Epistles, 531 ; the
archetype ms and the two classes of its
descendants, 531 sq. ; character of the
Latin version, 534 sq. ; no Syriac version
of, 535; quotations from and references
to, 536 sq. ; its genuineness, when and by
whom first questioned, 562 ; Daille's
position, 562; Ritschl's theory of in
terpolations, 563 ; supporters of Ritschl,
563 sq.; the Epistle rejected by Schweg-
ler, 564; twofold investigation neces
sary: (1) External Evidence (Irenaeus,
Eusebius, the Pionian Life, Jerome,
Syriac writers), 564 sq. ; (2) Inter
nal Evidence, (i) the position of Poly
carp, 566 sq.; (ii) references to S.
Paul, 567 sq. ; (iii) supposed allusion to
Marcion, involving two points, the
character of the heresy attacked and
the reiteration of a phrase, 568 sq. ; (iv)
reference to Ignatius, involving two
points of objection, irreconcilability of
statements, and suspiciousness of the
references themselves, 562, 572 sq. ; (v)
prayer for Kings, 576; arguments for
its genuineness, 577 ; connexion with
the supposed Ignatian forgery excluded
by manifold contrasts, 577 sq. ; its views
on ecclesiastical order, 578; its Christo
logy and doctrinal statements, 579 sq.;
frequency of its scriptural quotation,
580; according to Jerome, public y
read, 565 ; its style and character, 580
sq.; individual expressions in, 581 sq.;
other considerations affecting the re-

728

INDEX.

lation to the Ignatian Epistles, 582 sq.;
passages imitating the Ignatian Epistles,
583 ; indirect tests of its authenticity
in references to external incidents, 584;
Ritschl's theory of interpolation con
sidered, 584 sq. ; see Sylloge Polycar
piana
Polycarp, Ignatian Epistle to; time and
place of writing, 36, 355; presupposes
the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 355;
rejected by Ussher, 232, 409; vindi
cated by Pearson, 232 ; the evidence
of Honorius of Augustodunum, 232 ;
Ussher's view refuted, 301 ; mutilated
at the end in the Latin Version, 124,
312; interpolations comparatively few
in the Long Recension, 263
Polycarp, Martyrdom of ; see Smyrnaeans,
Letter of the
Polycarp, individuals of the name, 421,
634, 689
Polycarp of Nicaea, 689 ; time of his
martyrdom, 689 ; his day, 689
Polycrates of Ephesus, his testimony to
episcopacy, 379 ; refers to Polycarp,
494, 540 ; Keim's argument therefrom,
659 sq. ; confused with Polycarp by
Sozomen, 547 ; his probable intercourse
with Polycarp, 428 ; his indirect testi
mony to the Letter of the Smyrnseans,
589 .
Pompeianus (Ti. Claudius), commander
in chief for M. Aurelius in the German
wars, 472
Poppaea ; her influence with Nero, 1 1 ;
her relations with the Jews, 1 1 ; her
acquaintance with Josephus, 11
Porson, on Pearson's 'Vindiciae ', 321
Pothinus, bishop of Lyons ; his migra
tion from Asia Minor considered, 430 ;
his intercourse with Polycarp, 430;
his age at martyrdom, 430 ; confusion
of the name, 551
Praetextatus, Cemetery of, 503, 504, 505
Prefects of the City, 506
Presbyters ; their position in the Ignatian
Epistles, 382 sq. ; in the Epistle of Poly
carp, 578, 583 ; see Episcopacy
Priscinus, M. Peducaeus Stloga ; date of
his consulship, 648 ; inscription relating
date of his proconsulate, 648 ; confused
with a namesake, 648
Prisoners, Christian ; their treatment, 343
sq.; solicitude of Christians for, 345
sq.; shown in the Apostolic Constitu
tions, 345 ; in the Acts of Perpetua,
345 ; in the correspondence of Cyprian,
345 ; in the history of Pamphilus, 346
Probst, criticisms on, 52
Proconsulate (Asiatic and African), inter
val after the consulate; Borghesi on,

638; Waddington on, 639 sq.; affected
by consules suffecti, 639 ;' by the exten
sion of the proconsulate, 639 ; instances
and evidence of inscriptions, 639 sq.; too
long an interval in Masson's chronology,
638, 643 ; list of holders in second cen
tury, 640 ; month of entrance into office,
641 ; bearing of this fact on the date
of the martyrdom of Polycarp, 641,
651 sq.
Proculus (L. Neratius), an inscription re
lating to, mentions a Parthian expedi
tion of Antoninus Pius, 645, 647
Protestants, their attitude in the contro
versy about the Ignatian Epistles, 227
sq.; the Magdeburg centuriators, 227;
Calvin, 228; Scultetus, 228 ; Saumaise,
228
Pseudoprochorus mentions Polycarp, 560
Ptolemseus ; account of his martyrdom in
Justin Martyr, 492 ; value of the ac
count, 493
Publius, bishop of Athens ; martyred
under Antoninus Pius, 443, 492 ; ac
cording to Jerome, under Hadrian,
490, 492, 524 sq.
irais, age implied by this and similar
words, 432
irepti)Kwv, irepdwv, 653
irXrjpwpa, 374
IloXiKaprros (name), 420
irporipa, 662
irporpiaKas, 662
irpwroTOKOs tov Sarara, 571 sq.
cpepopevq and 6pu>XoyovpJvri iirurToXij in
Eusebius, 239
¦rpopos, use by Ignatius of compounds of,
394
\j/ev8eirlypaq>os and air&Kpvrpos, 357 sq.
Quadragesimal Fast, 247
Quadratus, L. Statius, proconsul of Asia,
mentioned in the Letter of the Smyrnae
ans, 618 ; confused with M. Ummidius
Quadratus, 634 ; mentioned in the Dis
courses of Aristides, 635 sq., 643, 644;
date of his consulship, 636, 643 ; Vale
sius on the date of his proconsulate, 635
sq.; view of Masson, 636 sq.; of Wad
dington, 643 sq.; Waddington's view
confirmed, 647 sq. ; yet may have to
be modified, 650 sq. ; Wieseler's theory
of two of the name, 656
Quadratus, M. Ummidius ; his name,
634, 659 ; date of his consulship, 634 ;
by Bucherius and Ussher confused with
Statius Quadratus, 634; by Pearson
considered the Quadratus of Aristides,

INDEX.

729

636; Keim supposes a confusion to
the postscript of the Letter of the
Smyrnaeans, 659
Quadratus the Apologist; by Jerome
confused with Quadratus bishop of
Athens, 524 sq.; origin of this con
fusion, 524
Quadratus, bishop of Athens, 524
Quartodeciman Controversy ; Ignatius'
interest in its scene, 368 ; yet not al
luded to in the genuine Epistles, 368
sq.; hinted at in the Long Recension,
248, 368; argument therefrom, 360;
Polycarp's visit to Rome in connexion
with, 433 sq., 659; letter of Irenaeus
to Victor upon the, 434; Hilgenfeld
on the relation of the Letter of the
Smyrnaeans to, 609, 654, 685 ; on the
day of the Paschal commemoration in,
609; view of Wieseler, 671 sq.
Quintus the Phrygian; his conduct in
time of persecution, 603 sq. ; not a
Montanist, 659
Quirinus, a martyr mentioned in the
Acts of Alexander, 489 ; his daughter
Balbina, 490 ; discovery of the tomb
of a, 490
Quotations, Scriptural ; usage of Ignatius
in the matter of, 388 sq. ; compared
with that of Irenseus, 389 sq. ; of Poly
carp, 580; formula of quotation used
by Clement of Rome, 577; by Ignatius,
388; by Polycarp, 577; by Irenseus,
325; by Eusebius, 59
Quotations from traditional sources, in
the Ignatian Epistles, 388 sq.

Ramsay (Prof. W. M.) ; his discoveries
illustrating the life of S. Abercius, 478
sq. ; the Aslarchate of Philip the Trallian,
613 sq.; the 'Asiatic' solar calendar,
666 ; on the date of the Life of S. Aber
cius, 483; of the alleged Letter to
Euxenianus, 484
Reiteration, a characteristic of Ignatius
and S. Paul, 396 sq.
Renan; on the character of Trajan, 7;
accepts the genuineness of the corre
spondence of Pliny, 55 ; of the Ignatian
Epistles accepts only the Epistle to the
Romans, 301, 328, 413 sq., 587; de
clares against the Curetonian theory,
273; recognises the coincidences in
Lucian with the Ignatian Epistles, 334,
587 ; accepts the story of Ignatius'
martyrdom, 341, 589; his concessions
generally, 587 ; perplexities of his point
of view, 585 sq. ; on a quotation from
Modestinus, 342 sq- ; on the wife of
S. Paul, 424 ; on the character of

Polycarp, 427 ; on the age of Polycarp,
432 ; on Irenseus' visit to Rome, 435
Renaudot ; his date, 268 ; his discoveries
respecting a Syriac Version of the Ig
natian Epistles, 268
Resurrection, why denied by early Gnos
tics, 571
Rhaius Agathopus; see Agathopus
Ritschl's theory of an interpolated Epistle
of Polycarp, 563 ; its supporters, 563
sq.; the theory considered at length,
584 sq.
Roman Church; Greek and Oriental in
its origin, 520; its early importance,
520; its condition in the time of Igna
tius, 356 sq. ; its exceptional influence
at that time, 356 sq., 383; reason for
this, 356; evidence of the catacombs,
357; episcopacy not yet matured in
tne> 383 sq- ; its condition at the time
of Polycarp's visit, 435 sq.; described
in the epitaph of Abercius, 482
Roman citizenship in the case of con
demned criminals, 33
Roman emperors ; 444 ; apotheosis of,
444; effect of this on the condition of
Christians, 444
Roman Martyrologies ; see Martyrologies
Romans, Epistle to the (Short Form) ;
fragment from the Trallian Epistle of
the Middle Form incorporated in the,
268; its original position discussed,
305 sq., 309
Romans, Epistle to the (Middle Form) ;
its distinctive character, 35, 411; its
influence, 38; a martyrs' manual, 38,
409; its position in Greek and Latin
Mss of the Middle Form, 222, 241,
263; Zahn's theory therefrom, 411 ; the
only dated epistle, 358; separate circu
lation of, 409; Zahn on this, 410 sq.;
yet certainly in the Sylloge Polycar
piana, 409 sq. ; a priori probability and
distinct evidence of this, 409 sq.; by
what fathers quoted, 410; explanation
of this, 410 sq. ; recognised ais alone
genuine by Renan, 301, 413 sq. ; his
reasons, 413 sq.
Romans, Epistle to the (Long Form) ;
Zahn's theory as to the interpolations
in, 263 sq., 4ti ; comparison with
the Epistle to Polycarp (Long Recen
sion), 263; character of the interpola
tions: (i) scriptural, 263 sq. ; (ii) literary,
264; (iii) doctrinal, 265
Rothe, on the relation of the Eucharist
and Agape, 52
Route of Ignatius, 348 sq.
Rufinus ; date of his translation of Euse
bius, 160, 545 ; mentions Ignatius, and
quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 136, 160

73o

INDEX.

sq. ; mentions Polycarp, 545 ; gives the
original Latin text of the rescript to
Fundanus, 461, 463; whence derived,
463 ; his practice in similar cases, 463
Rufinus, the friend of Aristides, 658 ; his
full name, 658; Wieseler on, 658
Rufus; companion of Ignatius, perhaps
a fellow prisoner, 37, 575
Ruinart publishes the Greek Acts of
Martyrdom of Ignatius, 233
Rusticus (Q. Junius) ; his intimate rela
tions with M. Aurelius, 445, 510; with
Epictetus. 512; as city praetor con
demns Justin Martyr, 445, 494; date of
his praetorship, 494; his successor in
the office, 499
Sabellianism and the author of the Long
Recension, 254 sq.
Sabina; fellow martyr with Pionius, 622 ;
her name 'Theodota', 623, 697 ; a slave,
623 ; see Pionius
Sacramentalism of the Ignatian Epistles,
579 ; absent in the Epistle of Polycarp,
579
Sacramentum ; its two senses in Christian
writers, 51; its application to the
Christian sacraments, 51 sq. ; Pliny's
confused use of the word, 52
Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, martyred
under M. Aurelius, 446, 494
Salmon (Dr), on the day of martyrdom
of Polycarp, 455, 672 sq.
Saturninus ; character of the Docetism of,
366 sq. ; a native of Antioch, 367; and
contemporary of Ignatius, 367
Saturninus, Vigellius; date of his procon
sulate, 507, 508, 523 ; martyrdoms due
to, 507, 509; Tertullian on, 523
Saumaise ; denies the genuineness of the
Ignatian Epistles, 228; yet assigns to
them a very early date, 228; attacks
the Vossian letters, 317 sq.
Savonarola ; coincidence in his martyr
dom with that of Polycarp, 599
Scillitan Martyrs; genuineness of their
newly discovered Greek Acts, 508 ;
speak of the reign of Christ, 619, 620;
four recensions of the Latin Acts, 508 ;
date of their martyrdom, 507, 508 sq. ;
their name, 509 ; their number, 509 ;
their martyrdom, 509 ; their festivals,
5°9
Scultetus ; his position in the Ignatian
controversy, 228
Sebaste, inscriptions at, 677
Sebastus, the month, 669
Secundus ; see Pliny
Secundus, a martyr, 56 ; perhaps a freed-
man of Pliny, 56 ; confused with Pliny,
56

Serennius ; see Granianus
Servianus; date of his consulship, 465;
circumstances of his murder, 442 ; Ha
drian's letter to, 440 sq., 464 sq.; its
text, 464 ; its genuineness, 465 ; its
character, 441
Services, Pliny's account of Christian, 51
sq. ; prayer for the emperors in, 576
sq.
Seven Sects mentioned by Hegesippus,
¦ 58 ; their names, 58 ; their Judaic
character, 58; their malignity against
the Christians, 58
Severus, Alexander, his reverence for
Christ, 441 ; alleged persecution under,
501 sq.
Severus, Monophysite bishop of Antioch;
his history and date, 169; called 'the
patriarch', 48 ; delivers yearly homilies
upon S. Basil and S. Gregory, 48; his
65th Epithronian Oration, 24 ; his
translators, Paul of Callinicus and
Jacob of Edessa, 25, 91, 185; his
veneration for Ignatius, 48 ; the origina
tor of the name Nurono, 24, 177 sq. ;
quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 169 sq. ;
his adv. Joannem Grammaticum, 174;
his Homiliae Cathedrales, 48, 180; the
Epistolae Severi et Juliani, 180 sq. ;
his Refutationes Capitulorum Juliani,
r 8 1 sq. ; his Contra Codicillos Alexandri, .
182 sq. ; his Hymnus in Ignatium, text
and translation, 184 sq. ; importance of
his testimony to Ignatius, 240 ; quotes
from the Epistle of Polycarp, 548 sq.
565
Severus of Ashmunin ; his date discussed,
218; his writings, 218; quotes the Ig
natian Epistles, 217 sq.; the quotation
ascribed by Pearson to Ibn Zorha,
219
Severus, Septimius; dates in the reign
of, 482 sq., 498; condition of Chris
tians under, 483
Severus, Sulpicius ; on the Neronian per
secution, 10; on the character of Trajan,
3; on a supposed persecution under
Hadrian, 491, 525; misled by Jerome,
491
Severus, proconsul of Asia; Aristides
account of his proconsulate, 635 ; of
his own transactions with him, 652 ;
Valesius on the date of his proconsulate,
635; view of Masson, 637; of Wad
dington, 642 sq. ; Wieseler's theory
regarding him, 658
Sharbil ; his conversion, 67 ; his tortures
and death, 67
Sharbil, Acts of; on the character of
Trajan, 3, 66 sq.; their history, 69;
their spuriousness, 69

INDEX.

il

Shepherd of Hennas; its testimony to
persecutions, 492, 5 1 S ; silent upon
episcopacy in the Roman Church, 384 ;
bearing on the reign of Antoninus Pius,
462, 493; its date, 492 ; see Hermas
Short Recension, Three Ignatian Epistles
of the; meaning of the term, 70 ; Syriac
MSS of, 71 sq. (see Ignatijn Epistles) ;
Cureton'stheoryexaminedat length. 273
sq. ; criticisms upon his argument from
(t) External Evidence, (i) Quotations,
273 sq.; Antenicene quotations from
these epistles alone, 274 sq. ; but allu
sions to ether epistles. 274 sq. ; the
quotations examined, 276; no quotation
for eight centuries from the Short as
distinguished from the Middle Recen
sion, 277; (ii) Documents, 277 sq. ;
Cureton's fallacious reasoning from the
comparative date of MS5, 277; head
ings of epistles in Medicean MS, 279;
inference therefrom of no weight, 2 So;
(iii) Historical relations of the two re
censions, 2 So sq.; difficulties of an
abridgment theory. 2 s 1 ; criticism upon
Cureton's arguments from (2) Internal
Evidence; (i) diction and style, 2S2
sq.; (ii) connexion of thought, 301 sq.;
(iii) topics, (a) theological, 306 sq. ;
(*) ecclesiastical, 307 sq. ; (c) personal,
308 sq. ; summary of arguments against
Cureton, 309 sq. ; motive of the abridg- ¦
ment, 310 sq. ; not doctrinal, 310 sq. ;
but moral and devotional, 311; capri
cious curtailments, 312; date of the
abridgment, 312 sq. ; see also Ignatian
Epistles
Sibylline Oracles: references to empe
rors in the, 526 sq. ; passages explained,
5 26 sq. ; date and character of books,
; 26 sq. ; inference therefrom of Daille
and Blondel, 320, 371 sq.
Sige; referred to in the Ignatian Epi
stles, Pearson on, 320, 371 sq. ; Bull on,
373 sq. ; the Valentinian doctrine as
regards, 371 sq.; history of the word,
373J light thrown by the treatise of
Hippolytns, 373 ; the idea derived from
Simon Magus, 373 ; true reading of the
passage in Ignatius, 374
SilantLs, the martyr, 497. 498
Simon Magus ; his character as given in
the Clementine Homilies, 334; Doce
tism of, Zi^'^ I^ llse cf the word Sige,
.373
Simon the Canansean, account of his
crucifixion in the Chronicon Paschale,
65
Smyrna; importance of. 673; evangeli
sation of, 446, ;S4 ; the early church
and its rulers, 447 sq. : the message in

the Apocalypse to, 447 sq. ; Ignatius'
route to, 348 sq. ; visit to, 351; depu
tations met at, 351 sq.; earthquakes ac,
445, 456; her part in the pagan re
vival, 45 1 ; her prominence in Caesar
worship, 4 j 1 sq. ; privileges granted
by Hadrian to, 45 1 ; foreign and local
rites at, 452 ; Jews at, 452 sq.; reckon
ing of time at, 4=5, 667 sq.,673; games
of the Commune Asiae at, 436, 693;
other games celebrated at, 693 sq.;
Christians martyred at, 436; martyr
dom of Polycarp at, 437 sq. ; sects in
the Church of, 6c6
Smyrnaean Calendar; see Calendars
Smyrnseans, Letter of the; source of ex
tant MSS of, =92; its date, 129, 536,
593 sq. ; its amanuensis, 608 ; its bearer,
439 ; circumstances under which writ
ten, 439, 503, 601 ; its account of
the martyrdom of Polycarp, 436 sq.,
536; witnesses to the Christian con
tempt of death, 393; on the day of
martyrdom of Polycarp, 611 sq., 660
sq. ; recent attacks on its genuineness,
;SS sq.: shows an acquaintance with
the Ignatian Epistles, 129; vadue of
its evidence, 329 ; consists of two
parts, differing in form and authority,
;SS; (1) The Main Document, 588;
(i) External testimony to it, Irenseus,
589; Polycrates, 589; coincidences in
the Letter of tie Gallican Churches,
589, 607 ; in Lucian, 590 sq. ; Acts of
Pionius, 591 ; Ensebius' Chronicon,
591 : quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History, J42, 592 ; included in his
Collection of Martyrdoms, 592; in
the Pionian Life of Polycarp, 592 ;
(ii) Internal testimony considered, 593
sq. ; claims to be written by eye
witnesses, 593 sq.; objections to this
claim considered, (a) parallelism to our
Lord's history, 594 sq. ; (a) the mira
culous element, 598 sq.; [c) the pro
phetic insight attributed to Polycarp,
599 sq. ; (d) Keim's 'postmark', 600
sq. ; (e) the high estimate of martyrs
and martyrdom, 601 sq. ; (f) the ex
pression 'Catholic Church', 39S. 400,
404, 60; sq.; (g) supposed literary
plagiarisms in, 607 ; verisimilitude of
the document, 607 sq.; Hilgenfeld' s
theory of an interpolation discussed,
609 sq. ; (2) The Supplementary Para
graphs, 610 sq. ; (i) The Chronological
Appendix ; its parallelism to Clement's
Epistle, 610 sq. ; dates and persons,
especially Philip the Trallian, 612 sq. ;
supposed anachronism of the 'reign of
Christ", 619 sq. ; silence of Ensebius,

732

INDEX.

620 sq. ; (ii) The Commendatory Post
script, 621; (iii) The History of the
Transmission, 621 sq.
Socrates the historian, mentions Igna
tius, 164 ; and Polycarp, 545 ; places the
martyrdom of Polycarp under Gordian,
546, 633 sq. ; possible explanations of
this, 634
Solomon of Bassora, mentions the legend
of the Oeocpbpos, 27, 219; of Ignatius'
vision of angels, 31, 219; quotes the
Ignatian Epistles, 219
Sophia (S.) and her three daughters ; their
supposed martyrdom under Hadrian,
490; to be interpreted allegorically,
491
Sozomen ; mentions Polycarp, 547 ; con
founds him with Polycrates, 547
Spurious and interpolated Ignatian Epi
stles ; references to Polycarp in, 544 ;
referred to by Stephanus Gobarus,
!95, 245; quoted by Anastasius of
Antioch, 196, 240, 245 ; in the Chroni
con Paschale, 201; by Maximus the
Confessor, 202 ; by John of Damascus,
204 sq.; by Theodore of Studium,2ii ;
by Nicephorus of Constantinople, 213;
referred to by Georgius Hamartolus,
214; quoted by Ado of Vienne, 214;
by Antonius Melissa, 215 sq.; table of
contents of different recensions, 222 ;
(A) The Correspondence with S. John
and the Virgin, 223 sq. ; the result of a
mistake, 224 ; original language of, 224;
S. Bernard quoted as an authority for,
224 sq.; (B) The Long Recension, 227;
see Long Recension, Ignatian Epistles
of the; (i)_ the five additional Epistles,
their connexion with the Long Recen
sion, 234 sq. ; shown by (i) Internal
evidence, 234 sq.; (a) Biblical quota
tions, 235, (b) doctrinal features, (c)
plagiarisms, 236; (d) style, 236; (ii)
External evidence, 237 sq. ; position in
MSS and attached versions, 237; as
attached to the Middle Form, 237 sq. ;
fallacious arguments therefrom, 238;
of Pearson, 238; of Cureton, 238 sq. ;
this attachment not known to Eu
sebius, etc., 238; first quotation from,
196, 240, 245; history of their con
nexion and explanation of their posi
tion, 240 sq.; summary, 24 1; refer
ences to Polycarp in, 544; (2) The
Epistle to the Philippians, written by
the author of the other additional
Epistles, (i) External evidence for
this, 241 sq. ; its omission in Greek
and Latin MSS of the Middle Form
explained, 241 sq. ; its position in the
Armenian Version, 242; the earliest

quoted of the spurious Epistles, 243;
(ii) Internal evidence, 243 sq.; (C) sup
posed quotations in Arabic and Aethi-
opic from unknown Ignatian Epistles
explained, 262
Statio militaris, 57
Statius Quadratus ; see Quadratus
Stephanus Gobarus ; mentions Ignatius,
195 ; the earliest reference to the spu
rious Ignatian Epistles in, 195; his
date, 195
Stoicism, its religious character, 449 ; in
the person of M. Aurelius, 449 sq.
Strataeas, brother of Timothy ; his le
gendary connexion with Smyrna, 447
Stratonicus, Stratonicea, 663
Suetonius ; on the Christian religion, 9 sq. ;
confuses Jews and Christians, 9 ; on
the position of Jews under Domitian,
12
Sulpicius Severus ; see Severus, Sulpicius
' Supernatural Religion ', criticisms on
the author of, 99, 271, 273, 566
Superstitious rites in the time of the An
tonines, 450 sq.
Sylloge Polycarpiana, 128, 323, 409 sq.;
the name, 409 ; views as to its con
tents (Pearson, Ussher, Zahn), 409; con
tained the Seven Vossian Epistles, 409 ;
including the Epistle to the Romans,
410 sq. ; order of the epistles in, 412 sq.
Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem; his parent
age, 21, 60; his martyrdom under -
Trajan, 18, 21 sq.; how far Trajan re
sponsible for it, 18, 21 ; his age at the
time of martyrdom, 21, 60 ; charges
made against him, 2 1 sq. ; his accusers,
58, 66; reasons for his condemnation,
22 ; Hegesippus' account of his mar
tyrdom, 58 sq. ; the account in the
Chronicon Paschale, 65 sq.; presents
coincidences with the sufferings of
Christ, 596
Symeon the Metaphrast, on the legend of
the Qeo<t>6pos, 27 ; abridgment of the
Epistle to the Romans in, 312
Symphorosa and her seven sons ; story
of their martyrdom under Hadrian,
486 ; criticised in its framework, 487
sq. ; and in its details, 488 ; truth under
lying the story, 488 ; discovery of the
basilica of, 487 sq.
Syriac fragments of the Epistle of Poly
carp, 455, 547 sq., 565 ; do not imply
a Syriac Version, 535, 565
Syriac Martyrology ; day of the martyr
dom of Ignatius in, 141 ; the day
of the martyrdom of Polycarp in, 544 ;
a reading emended in, 544
Syriac translations of Greek patristic
writings, 513 sq.

INDEX.

733

Syriac Version (abridged) of the ' Apo
stolical Constitutions', 251 ; published
by Lagarde, 251 ; Zahn on its relation
to the Greek form, 251; Bickell on
ditto, 25 1 ; see Apostolical Constitutions
Syriac Versions of the Ignatian Epistles ;
suspected existence of, 267 ; enquiries
of Ussher and Fell, 268 ; discoveries
of Renaudot and Assemani, 268 ; of
Cureton, 268 sq.; mss used by Cure-
ton, 72 sq., 89 sq. ; the connexion of
the Syriac Versions with each other
and with the Armenian, 85 sq., 281 ;
Merx's theory of three distinct, 98, 192
sq. ; see Cureton, Short Recension, Ig
natian Epistles of the
Syriac writers, Anonymous ; quote the
Ignatian Epistles, 186 sq.; sources of
their quotations, 187 sq.; Merx's theory
derived from them, 192 sq.; quote the
Epistle of Polycarp, 549 sq.; date and
character of these writings, 550 ; ex
planation and importance of these quo
tations, 565 sq.
Syro-Macedonian calendar ; see Calendars
rrdfsfsarov piya ; see ' Great Sabbath '
2e/3a<m}, occurrence and meaning of the
word, 665, 694 sq.
aq>payls, metaphorical use of, 482
Tacitus; distinguishes Jew and Christian,
9; on the Neronian persecution, 9, 10;
epithets applied to Christianity by, 53;
on the numbers of the Christians, 55
Tatian, at Rome, 436
Taureon, the month, 668
Taylor, Jeremy ; his position in the Ig
natian controversy, 230, 233
Telesphorus, bishop of Rome ; martyred
under Hadrian, 442; notice of his mar
tyrdom in Irenaeus, 486; date of his
martyrdom, 486; perhaps due to Ha
drian's madness, 442, 492
Tergemini, the Gallic; their names, 431;
their Acts, 431, 555; their day, 431
Tertullian; his relation to the 'Acta
Pilati', 55, 473 sq.; on the character
of Trajan, 2 sq. ; follows Melito, 2, 8 ;
his attitude explained, 8, 522; his false
estimate of M. Aurelius, 16; his value
as an authority considered, 55; his
testimony to the correspondence of
Pliny, 55 ; this correspondence the
source of his information on the Bithy
nian persecution, 18, 57 sq. ; not in
debted to Ulpian, 55 ; his criticism
upon Trajan's rescript, 57; Eusebius
uses a Greek translation of his work,
57, 61; parallels to the Ignatian Epi
stles in, 135; refers to Polycarp, 540;

responsible for the story of the Thunder
ing Legion, 473, 522; relation of his
Apologeticum to the Octavius of Minu
cius Felix, 518 sq.; quotations illustrat
ing the persecutions, 522 sq.; on the
Thundering Legion, 522 ; on the death
of the persecutors, 522 sq. ; on the say
ing of Arrius Antoninus, 523
'Testamenta Duodecim Patriarcharum ',
translated by Grossteste and Nicholas
of Lincoln, 77
Thebuthis, Hegesippus' account of, 58
Themistius on the miracle of the Thunder
ing Legion, 472
Theodore of Mopsuestia, alleged refer
ences to, in the Long Recension, 260
Theodore of Studium quotes the Ignatian
Epistles, 210 sq.
Theodoret; on the origin of Christian
antiphonal singing, 3 1 ; mentions Igna
tius, 161 sq.; quotes three of the Igna
tian Epistles, 162 sq. ; his object in his
quotations, 411; importance of his testi
mony, 239 sq. ; had the Vossian letters
before him, 278; mentions Polycarp,
162, 546; date of his Dialogues, 164
Theodoretus, presbyter and martyr, put
to death by Count Julian, 43
Theodoras, the Presbyter, mentions Igna
tius, 202
Theodoras ; confessor under Julian, friend
of Rufinus, 43; by Gibbon confused
with Theodoretus, 43
Theodotus of Byzantium; his apostasy
in persecution, 510; promulgates his
heresy at Rome, 511; his date, 511
Theodotus the martyr; incident at his
martyrdom, 598
Theophilus of Antioch; date of his Apo
logy, '34> 510' S21; shows coinci
dences with the Ignatian Epistles, 134,
335 ; authenticity of his Commentary
discussed, 134; its relation to passages
found in S. Jerome and S. Cyprian,
134; Zahn on this commentary, 134;
his testimony to the existence of perse
cution, 510
Thomas Aquinas, onthe prayer of Gregory
the Great, 6
Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia; martyred
under M. Aurelius, 446, 494; authori
ties for this, 494 ; date of his martyr
dom, 494; his burial place, 454; and
the myrtle tree over his grave, 454
Thundering Legion, alleged Letter of
Marcus Aurelius on the, 469 sq. ; text,
469 sq.; translation, 471; spuriousness,
472; historical persons mentioned in,
472; evidence of heathen writers for
the incident, 472 ; of Christian writers,
473; of the Antonine column, 473;

734

INDEX.

origin and growth of the Christian
version of the story, 474; objections to
it, 474 sq. ; the name 'Fulminata',
474 sq. ; elements of truth in the story,
476; Tertullian on, 522
Thyestean banquets charged against the
Christians, 52, 386
Tiberianus, governor of Palestine; his
alleged letter to Trajan, 3, 18; charac
ter of Trajan depicted therein, 3, 55 ;
spuriousness of the document shown
thereby, 55 ; text given by John
Malalas, 63
Tillemont; on the alleged Letter of
Antoninus Pius, 468; on the epitaph of
Abercius, 482
Timotheus jElurus, patriarch of Alexan
dria; his life and works, 168; quotes
the Ignatian Epistles, 165 sq.; impor
tance of his testimony, 240; quotes the
Epistle of Polycarp, 547 ; origin and
importance of these quotations, 565
Trajan; his attitude towards the Chris
tians differently viewed, 2 ; (i) his
leniency according to ancient and
mediaeval writers, 2 sq. ; Melito, 2 ;
Tertullian, 2 sq. ; Lactantius, 3 ; Eu
sebius, 3; Sulpicius Severus, 4; con
trary view in the Acts of Martyr
dom, 3 ; story of his clemency, and of
the prayer of Gregory the Great for
his soul, 4 sq. ; additions to the story,
4 ; (ii) according to recent critics, the
first systematic persecutor, 7 ; sup
porters of this view, 7 ; this theory
proved untenable, 8 sq. ; his corre
spondence with Pliny, 13 sq., 18 sq.,
50 sq., 59 ; text of his letter about the
Christians, 53 sq., 61 ; it inaugurates
no new policy of persecution, 13 sq. ;
criticism of Tertullian upon it, 57;
history of his correspondence with
Pliny, 54; its genuineness vindicated,
54 sq. ; its date, 56; he never inaugu
rated a new policy of persecution, 15,
440; persecutions during his reign,
genuine and fictitious, 18; how far he
was responsible for them, 18; his
aversion to guilds, 18; shown in his
correspondence with Pliny, 18 sq.;
his edict against guilds, 52; perse
cutes Christianity as a secret society,
21 ; account of his persecution in
Eusebius, 58 sq. ; in John Malalas,
62 sq. ; in the Chronicon Paschale,
65 sq. ; in the Acts of Sharbil and
Barsamya, 66 sq.; martyrdom of
Symeon of Jerusalem under, 18, 21 sq.,
59 sq., 65 sq.; martyrdom of Antio
chene women under, 64; his inter
view with Ignatius mythical, 31 sq.;

his alleged edict of toleration, 63,
68 sq. ; his gladiatorial shows, 341 sq.
Tralles; patron deity of, 617; honours
paid to Hadrian by, 6r7 ; see Olympian
festivals, Philip the Trallian
Trallians, Epistle to the; portion em
bedded in the Epistle to the Romans
(Short Recension), 268, 305; its origi
nal position discussed, 305 sq., 309
Trullan Council, 340
Turcius Almachius, city prefect; in his
place in the story of S. Caecilia;
500 ; inference of date from this, 501 ;
the rise and history of the gens Turcia,
506
Turrianus, Ignatian mss used by, 77 sq.
Tychseum at Antioch, 47 ; contained the
statue of the Fortune of Antioch, 47;
reliques of Ignatius transferred hither,
47 sq.; its name changed to 'Church
of Ignatius', 48; homilies of Severus
delivered here, 48
Tyssington, John; of the Franciscan con
vent at Oxford, 77; quotes the Latin
version of the Middle Recension, 77 ;
argument from this fact, 77
rpiaKas, 662
QeoviroXis, title of city Antioch, 266
&eo<popos, applied to Ignatius, not an in
terpolation nor a title, but a second
name, 25 ; perhaps assumed at con
version; or at baptism, 27; legends
connected with the name, 27 sq. ;
alluded to by Irenaeus, 328
Uhlhorn, on the character of Trajan, 7
Ulpian; rescripts against the Christians
collected in, 57, 463
Urban I, Pope ; his part in the story of
S. Caecilia, 501 ; De Rossi's discovery
of his tomb, 503 ; perhaps two bishops
of the name, 505 ; the date of the
earlier, 505 sq. ; Aube on, 506
Urbicus (Lollius), the prefect ; his date,
493
Usener ; on the introduction of the solar
calendar into Asia Minor, 679 sq. ; on
the 'Asiatic' and ' Ephesian ' calendars,
661 sq.
Ussher, Archbishop ; suspects the Long
Recension, 76, 226 sq., 232; his work
'The Original of Bishops and Metro
politans', 229; attacked by Milton,
231; leading facts and dates relating
to his labours on Ignatius, 229 sq.;
discovers two MSS of the Latin Ver
sion, 76 sq., 232 ; how led to this
discovery, 76, 232; considers Gross
teste author of the version, 76; proba
bility of this, 77; date of publication,

INDEX.

735

73; his correspondence with Dr Ward,
81 ; use made by him of his discovery,
81 sq., 230 ; fate of his library, 82 sq. ;
loss of the Montacute MS, 82 ; appear
ance of his book on Ignatius, 232; he
rejects the Epistle to Polycarp, 232 ;
reason for this rejection, 232; misled
by Jerome, 148, 232; the Epistle to
Polycarp vindicated against by Pearson,
232 ; by internal evidence, 301 ; how
far Ussher's book was considered final,
233 sq., 316; list of his supporters, 316;
opposition of French Protestants to,
317 sq. ; reception in England, 320; on
the date of the Latin Version of the Long
Recension, 117; on the authorship of
the Ignatian Epistle to the Philippians,
242; on the authorship of the Apostolical
Constitutions, 250; his enquiries after
a Syriac Version, 267; on the episco
pate of Polycarp, 421 ; on the year
of Polycarp's martyrdom, 634, 683;
on the day of Polycarp's martyrdom,
683 sq. ; on a passage in Galen, 664
birariKbs, 59
Valens, presbyter of Smyrna ; of Poly
carp on his offence, 578, 584 ; the
name, 584
Valentinus ; character of the Docetism of,
365 sq., 371 ; no allusion in the Ignatian
Epistles to, 371 sq. ; light thrown by
Hippolytus upon the system of, 373 ;
adopts terms already used by Igna
tius, 374 sq.; explanation of this fact,
375 .
Valentinus Paceus ; see Paceus
Valesius ; his chronology of Aristides'
life, 635 ; refuted by Pearson and Noris,
636
Variot; replies to Aube, 55; criticisms on,
54. 57
Vedelius ; his edition of the Ignatian
Epistles, 228; divides them into genuine
and spurious, 228; how far successful,
228; on their connexion with the Apo
stolical Constitutions, 228, 250 ; on
the date of the Long Recension, 260
Verus, L., the elder, 465, 703
Verus, L., the younger ; his adoption by
Antoninus, 465, 703 ; joint emperor
with M. Aurelius, 498, 576, 642; their
title 'fratres Augusti', 642, 656 sq.;
their ages compared, 657 ; visits paid
to the East by, 432 ; date of his Eastern
campaigns, 477, 484 ; his campaign
against Vologesus, 477, 645, 647 ; his
marriage with Lucilla, 477, 484; his
death, 703 ; deification and divine titles
of, 444

Vespasian, evidence for persecutions
under, 15 sq.
Vienne and Lyons, Letter of the Churches
of; its date, 133, 499 ; how preserved,
499 ; shows coincidences with the Ig
natian Epistles, 133, 330; its indirect
evidence to the Letter of the Smyrnaeans,
589 sq., 609 ; see Gallican Martyrs
Vigellius Saturninus ; see Saturninus
Vincentius of Beauvais, gives a legend of
the heart of Ignatius, 27 sq.
Vitalis; mentioned in the Long Recen
sion, 248 ; argument therefrom, 248 ;
form of the name, 248 ; individuals of
the name, 248 sq.
Vitus, bishop of Carrhae, 248
Voices heard at the moment of death,
439 sq-
Volkmar ; his unique attitude in the Ig
natian controversy, 271; self -con
demned, 271; effect of Zahn's work
upon, 273
Vologesus IV., King of the Parthians ;
date of his accession, 646 ; invades
Armenia, 647 ; letter and preparations
of Antoninus Pius, 647 ; the dream of
Aristides, 644 ; evidence for a Parthian
war under Antoninus Pius, 644 sq., 647 ;
war with M. Aurelius and L. Verus,
645, 647 ; its conclusion, 645
Voss, Isaac; publishes six of the genuine
Ignatian Epistles in Greek, 73, 233 ;
date of publication, 73, 233 ; MS used,
233
Vossian Letters ; see Middle Recension
Waddington ; on the Asiatic proconsul
ship of Sergius Paullus, 494; his chro
nology of Aristides, 639 sq. ; over
throws Masson, 639 ; their respective
starting points, 641 ; his date for Quad
ratus' proconsulship, 643 sq. ; identifies
him with the friend of Aristides, 643,
644; on the war with Vologesus, 644
sq. ; his chronology tested, 647 sq. ;
modifications possible, readjustment of
Lipsius and Hilgenfeld considered and
Waddington confirmed, 650 sq. ; the
attack of Wieseler refuted, 655 sq. ; of
Keim, 658 sq.
Ward, Dr, Master of Sidney College,
Cambridge; his correspondence with
Ussher, 81,. 230
Warnaharius; authorship of the Acta
Tergeminorum assigned to, 431, 555
Waterland, accepts as genuine the Vos
sian Letters, 317
Wednesdays and Fridays, the observance
of, 247
Whiston defends the Long Recension,
.266, 317

736

INDEX.

Widows, order of, 332, 385 ; called
' virgins ', 385 ; explanation of the term,
385 ; their presence in the Epistle of
Polycarp, 578
Wieseler; on the character of Trajan, 7 ;
on the chronology of Aristides, 65 5 sq. ;
on the day of martyrdom of Polycarp,
670 sq. ; on the practice of the Quarto
decimans, 671; minor criticisms on,
658, 664, 665, 666
Wodeford, William; of the Franciscan
Convent at Oxford, 77 ; quotes the
Latin Version of the Middle Recension,
77; quotes from Tyssington, 77; argu
ment from this fact, 77
Wood's discoveries at Ephesus, 641, 648,
665
Wright,, Prof. W. ; his 'Catalogue of
Syriac mss', 91, 174, 175, 180 sq. ;
his assistance in the present work, 91,
100, 168, 183, 192, 219
Xanthicus, the month, 455, 660, 661 sq.,
669, 670, 676, 678, 684 sq., 695, 699
Xenophon ; comparison of his style with
that of Ignatius, 395 sq.
Xiphilinus ; the abbreviator of Dion Cas
sius; his date, 526; on the relations
of Antoninus Pius to the Christians,
526

Zahn; testimony to his labours on the route
of Ignatius, 348 ; to his work in general,
272 sq. ; his notation of authorities for
the text of Ignatius, 7 1 ; on the history of
the Armenian Acts of Martyrdom, 89 ;
on the omission of the Epistle to the
Philippians in the MSS of the Middle
Recension, 243 ; on the relation of the (
Long Recension to the last two books
of the Apostolical Constitutions, 253 ;
on the authorship of the Long Recen
sion, 254; on the date of the Long
Recension, 260 ; his theories respecting
the Epistle to the Romans, 263 sq.,
409 sq.; on the 'great sabbath', 612;
on the date of Pionius' martyrdom,
702 ; on . the Commentary of Theo
philus of Antioch, 134; minor criti
cisms on, 82, 107
Zenas, reputed author of the Acts of
Titus, 56
Zoe (S.) ; her martyrdom under Hadrian,
491
Zosimus; companion of Ignatius, 37,
575; perhaps a fellow prisoner, 37,
575
Zoticus of Otrous, 482
Zotion, deacon of Magnesia, meets Igna
tius, at Smyrna, 34, 352

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
p. 18, 1. 29. A fresh illustration of this jealousy of clubs or guilds on the part of
the authorities appears in an inscription published Bull, de Corresp. HellSn. vii.
p. 506 (1883) oBev dirayopebw p.r,re o-vvipxeaBai tovs &proK[6]irovs Kar' iraiplav pvifre
rrpoeo-T-OKoras BpaabvecrSai k.t.X.
p. 31, 1. 3. On this antiphonal singing see Hooker's Works 11. p. 164 sq.
p. 74, 1. 6. For ' thirteen ' it should probably be ' twelve,' since the Epistle to the
Philippians may have been omitted, as in the corresponding Latin Version (seep. 81).
p. 80, 1. 5. Since this sheet was printed, Funk has collated the MS Caiensis, and
gives the results in an appendix to his Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe p. 141 sq.
(1883). He has corrected many errors of his predecessors, but has failed to observe
(see p. 144, 1. 5) that this MS contains an explicit notice of its date.
p. 8r, 1. 15. Mr R. L. Bensly has sent me the following extract from the Liber
Bursarii 1609 — 1634 of Gonville and Caius College : ' Ad Festum Mich. 1631 '; ' Item
to Sr [i.e. Dominus] Younger for wrighting out Ignatius Epistles and a Catalogue of
the Manuscripts in the Library, xiii". 4d.' This agrees with Ussher's date. This W.
Younger is described in 1632 as 'prius scholaris et bibliothecarius hujus collegii.'
p. 83,. 1. 6. In a series of interesting letters in the Academy XX. pp. 10, 53, 404
(July — December, 1881), published since this sheet passed out of my hands, the late
Rev. J. H. Backhouse has given reasons for believing that this MS, with others, was
taken to Italy by Mountague's chaplain Mileson, who became a Jesuit.
p. 101, 1. 5. These Copto-Thebaic fragments have since been published with
a translation in Anal. Spicil. Solesm. IV. pp. 255, 277 (comp. p. viii), being edited by
Ciasca. My own transcript was made many years ago, and I have had no oppor
tunity of collating it since. I see that my text differs in several places from Ciasca's.
See the Additions and Corrections to the second volume.
p. 102, 1. 14. Since this sheet was printed off, Funk's second volume has appeared
(1881), containing a new collation of Monacensis. I have not compared it with my own.
p. no, 1. 30. Funk has procured from Bryennios a. collation of the manuscript
ConstanUnopolitanus also.
p. 112,1. 16. Cureton (Vind. Ign. p. 13), apparently misunderstanding Ham
mond, says that Ussher took his text from Vedelius.
p. 115, 1. 28. It has since been examined by Funk Patr. Apost. n. p. xxix.
p. 118, 1. 21. Since this sheet was printed off, Lagarde's volume Die Lateinischen
Uebersetzungen des Ignatius has appeared (1882). It contains (with other matter)
new collations oi Regin. 81 and Palatin. 150.
p. 1 29, 1. 2. For other parallels in this Letter of the Smyrnseans see below, p. 329.
P- T33> 1- 3°- For other parallels in the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and
Lyons see below, p. 330.
p. 134, 1. 30. Zahn's second part of his Forsch. zur Gesch. des Neutest. Kanons,
containing Der Evangelien-commentar des Theophilus von Antiochien, has since ap
peared (1883). It has been answered by Harnack Texte u. Untersuchungen 1. iv. p
97 sq. In the Brussels MS 9850—9852 a prologue is prefixed to this commentary,
describing it as a. compilation from various quarters. Zahn has replied to Harnack
Nachtrage zu Theophilus p. 198 sq., in his Forsch. zur Gesch. des Neutest. Kan. in.
He considers the prologue of the Brussels MS not to be genuine.
p. 135, 1. 29. Add also to these references in the Acts of Perpetua etc. § 5 ' nos
ig. 1. 47

738 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
non in nostra potestate constitutos esse sed in Dei ' (comp. Polyc. 7 xpwriavbs iavrov
ii-ovo-lav obK i*xei dXXb. 9etp axoXd^ei).
p. 168, 1. 7. There can hardly be a doubt that the author was Timotheus jElurus,
though Churton (Pearson Vind. Ign. p. 98 sq.) following the Quarterly Review (see
Cureton Vind. Ign. p. 49) ascribes it to a later Alexandrian patriarch (a.d. 519 — 535)
of the same name.
p. 231, 1. 4. After my account of this controversy had passed through the press,
Mark Pattison's instructive volume on Milton appeared. He represents the matter in
quite a different light (p. 75);
"The incident of this collision between Milton, young and unknown, and the
venerable prelate whom he was assaulting with the rude wantonness of untempered
youth, deserves to be mentioned here. Ussher had incautiously included the Igna
tian epistles among his authorities. 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 Casaubon's Exercitations
on Baronius 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 offspring 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 (p. 229 sq.) that
Ussher, at least as early as 1631, had seen the true solution of the Ignatian question;
that some years before the date of Milton's tract (1641) 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 detecting 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.
p. 233, 1. 11. Ussher was probably put on the scent of the Medicean MS by
the Ignatian quotations in Turrianus whom he mentions. I have observed the
following quotations from the Medicean MS in this writer ; Adv. Magd. Cent, pro Can.
Apost. (Coloniae 1573) iv. 5 (p. 433) 'Credite in dilectione' from Philad. 9; ib. iv. 7
(p. 442) 'Sic fides est dca7U7ei)s 4/ttDj\..Dilectio vero est 656s i) dvarpipovaa els 8e6v\
from Ephes. 9. This latter quotation is given likewise in Dogmat. dejustif. fol. 38 a
(Romae 1557). In Adv. Magd. Cent. etc. ii. 10 (p. 203) the MS is mentioned byname;
'Hoc solum admonere volui, in exemplari vetustissimo et emendatissimo bibliothecae
Mediceae Florentinae, non 'AvaKX-frrw sed Ar)vw [misprinted A^fto] esse, ' a reference
to Ign. Mar. 4. Though Turrianus praises the Medicean MS for its correctness, he
failed to see that it contained the key to the solution of the Ignatian question.
p. 250, 1. 33. Harnack has recently (1884) attempted to revive Ussher's theory
of the identity of the author (or rather interpolator) of the Apostolic Constitutions
and the Ignatian Epistles, but places him as early as A. D. 340 — 380 ( Texte u. Untersuch.
11. ii. p. 244 sq.). My reasons for adopting a different view are given in the text.
p. 276, 1. 30. I am afraid there is no authority for regarding Pamphilus as a per
sonal friend of Origen, of whom he was a devoted admirer.
p. 315, 1. 2. The work of Funk Die Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe (Tubingen,
1883) had not reached my hands when this chapter was sent to the press. The case
in favour of the Ignatian Epistles is stated with his characteristic good sense.

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 739
P- 347, 1- 3- See for instance the case of Bradford in Foxe's Martyrs vii. p. 196.
p. 351, 1. 1. Information respecting the distances on these two roads will be
found in papers by Prof. W. M. Ramsay in Journ. of Hellen. Stud. 11. p. 44sq.,
iv. p. 337. From this information^ 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 as follows :

Laodicea.

6

Hierapolis

Antiochia 3 1
12
Tripolis
Tralles 45
34
Philadelphia
Magnesia 1 7
25
Sardis
Ephesus 1 5
63
Smyrna.
44
l6o IS2
The distance between Sardis amd Smyrna (63 miles) has been furnished to me by
Prof. Raimsay as an approximate estimate. The railway is much longer.
If these calculations be correct, the route which the delegates of the Churches
would take is a few miles shorter than that of Ignatius, and they might have arrived
at Smyrna before him, even if he had not stayed, as he certainly did for an ap
preciable time, at Philadelphia on the way.
p. 376, 1. 38. After this portion relating to the ministry was printed off, the
remarkable document entitled AiSaxr) twv SwSeKa diroaroXwv was given to the world
by Bryennios (1884). It seems to me to confirm very strongly the historical views
put forward by me in the essay ' On the Christian Ministry ' to which I have here
referred. Nor does it necessitate any modification of what I have written in this
discussion on the genuineness of the Epistles of Ignatius. As I stated briefly in a
paper read at the Carlisle Church Congress (r884), the indications in the AiSaxv seem
to me to point to a very early age. Among those who maintain the opposite view, the
most thorough and learned discussion is that of Harnack (Texte u. Utitersuchungen
II. ii. p. 63 sq.), who places it between a.d. 135 (A.D. 140) and A.D. 165 (p. 159).
Yet it seems not a little strange to assign to a document, of which he himself says
(p. 101) that the ecclesiastical organization more closely resembles that of S. Paul
in the Epistle to the Corinthians than that 'of the author of the Epistle to the
Ephesians', a date bordering close upon the age of Irenseus. The First Epistle to
the Corinthians was written A.D. 57, i.e. nearly a century before the medium date
(A.D. 150) between the limits which he allows to the AiSax'J. The great work of
Irenseus was written during the episcopate of Eleutherus (A.D. 175-189) and there
fore forty years later at the outside. On what conceivable grounds of reason or
experience can we suppose that the development of the Church was so very slow
during that preceding century, and so exceptionally fast during these succeeding
decades? It still appears to me that the indications in the AiSaxv point to the later
decades of the first century; though a little more latitude may be allowed, if it
emanated from Egypt, where the progress of ecclesiastical organization was apparently
slower than elsewhere. The passage however (§ 9), which speaks of the com, from
which the eucharistic bread is made as having ' been scattered on the mountains', seems
fatal to Egypt as its locality. I find that Sabatier (La Didache p. 16;, Paris 1885)
places it even earlier than I had ventured to do, and dates it about the middle of the
first century 'before the great missionary journeys of Paul '.
p. 399, 1. 10. See more on the subject of this term ' Catholic' below, p. 605 sq.
p. 613, 1. 10. The inscriptions here numbered (2), (3), (4), have been published,
since this sheet was struck off, in Papers of the American Scliool of Classical Studies
740 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
I. p. ioo sq. (1885), an article entitled Inscriptions of Tralleis by Dr J. R. Sterrett,
supplemented by Prof. W. M. Ramsay. The error with respect to inscription (8),
which I have pointed out (p. 616), is there tacitly corrected by Dr Sterrett. I am
much pleased to know that Prof. Ramsay arrives at the same solution, with regard
to the Asiarchate of Philip in connexion with the date of Polycarp's martyrdom,
which had commended itself to me, and which I have set forth in the text.
p. 623, 1. r2. See below, p. 697.
p. 625, 1. 17. Aube has since reprinted these Acts in his last volume L'Eglise et
VIEtat dans la seconde moitii du iii' siicle p. 499 sq. (1885). He still places these
martyrdoms in the reign of Decius,
p. 636, 1. n. I should have added that Pearson's date can now be shown to be
wrong. The proconsul of Asia in February 147 was not Statius Quadratus, but
Atilius Maximus, as appears from the inscription C. I. G. 3176; see the note on
p. 641, and comp. Waddington Pastes Asiatiques p. 212 sq.
p. 671, 1. 19. It is clear however from a comparison of Aristid. Op. T. p. 373
(ed. Dind.) rjpos wpa irpwrrj Aiovvalois Tpi-qpr\s lep& rip Aiovvaw cpiperai kvkXw 81'
dyopas with Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 25 irip-irerai ydp tis prjvl ' AvBecrTripiwvi p.eraptrla
Tpir)pr)s k.t.X. (quoted above, p. 694, note), that the Dionysia at Smyrna fell in the
month Anthesterion and at the very beginning of spring. This would not suit
April 6. The month Anthesterion in these parts began on Feb. 2 1 , being synony
mous with Xanthicus (see above, pp. 662, 667). Nor indeed could so late a date as
April 6 well be called ypos uipa irpwrn in these latitudes.
Wieseler assumes that in these two passages the 'Lesser Dionysia' are meant,
whereas in Aristid. Op. I. p. 527 yiyvop.e8a iv Upvpvn Aiovvalois he supposes the
Greater Dionysia to be spoken of. But this is quite arbitrary. It does not follow that
there were any Lesser Dionysia at Smyrna because they existed at Athens; and, if
the lesser festival had been meant, it would hardly have been styled Aiovvaia simply.
p. 678, I. 18. Droysen (Hermes XV. p. 363 sq. r88o) adduces the inscription which
I have quoted (p. 665) from Wood's Ephesus, as showing that a lunar calendar still
prevailed there, and as proving that the 'Ephesian' Calendar of the Hemerology is
false in all points. As regards the lunar calendar, the only facts which he alleges are
the retention of the old Ionian names of the months and the word larapAvov. Both
these tests I have shown to be fallacious. As regards the second point, the assumed
disproval of the ' Ephesian ' calendar, I can only say that to my mind it is a most
valuable confirmation of the correctness of this and the closely allied 'Asiatic'
Calendar. It does indeed show that, so far as concerns the names of the months, the
Ephesians used the old Ionian nomenclature at least for municipal purposes in pre
ference to the Macedonian ; but it strikingly confirms the structure of these calendars.
The three points are these ; (1) That according to these calendars the second of the
month would correspond to viii Kal.; (2) That these calendars commenced with
the autumnal equinox; and (3) That Anthesterion is the sixth month, so that 2nd
Anthesterion would be viii Kal. Mart., as it is here represented. This cannot reason
ably be regarded as an accident. Nor is it easy consistently with known facts in Pro
consular Asia to conceive a lunar calendar which would produce such a coincidence.
But even if it could be shown that the retention of these Ionian names was bound
up with a lunar calendar, the fact that in the account of Polycarp's Martyrdom not
the Ionian name (Anthesterion) but the Macedonian (Xanthicus) is used would point
only the more directly to a solar calendar.
 -  J
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SON AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

3407