hordes of wild beasts; let breaking of bones, and tearing of members; let the scattering in pieces of the whole body, and all the wicked torments of the Devil come upon me,— only let me enjoy Jesus Christ."

To quote all the passages from this intrepid assertor of divine truth, which have reference to our present argument, is unnecessary, and might even be tedious. We shall con

fine ourselves to a few statements directly to our purpose out of various epistles. Writing to the Trallian Church, "Let all men," he says, "reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ, and the Bishop, as Him who is the Son of God; the Presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the Apostles. Without these there is no Church '." In the same epistle, having exhorted the Trallians to "continue inseparable from Jesus Christ," he proceeds, "He that is within the altar is pure: but he who is without, (that is, who does any thing without the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons,) is not pure in his conscience"." In his epistle to the Philadelphians, having saluted them in the blood of Jesus Christ, "which," says he, "is an eternal and enduring joy, especially to all who are at unity with the Bishop and the Presbyters who are with him, and the Deacons; whom, established by the determination of Jesus Christ, he has firmly settled, according to his own will, by his Holy Spirit." To the Church at Smyrna, having exhorted the members of it to unity and concord, he thus describes the only method, in his opinion, of preventing schism. "See that ye follow, all of you, your Bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father. Follow your Presbytery as Apostles. Reverence, moreover, your Deacons, as you would the mandate of God. Let nothing be done without the Bishop, in matters pertaining to the Church. Let that eucharist be considered duly constituted, which is either offered by the Bishop, or by him whom the Bishop has authorized. Wherever the Bishop is, there let the people be as, where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the Bishop's license, either to baptize, or to celebrate the holy communion: but whatever he shall approve of, is also pleasing to God; that 3 Ibid. ed. præf.

1 Cotel. ed. cap. 3.

2 Ibid. cap. 7.

འ

1

thus, whatever is done may be done safely and correctly 1." One passage more may suffice from the writings of this illustrious martyr. In his Epistle to St. Polycarp, who, like himself, was an immediate Disciple of the Apostles, he thus exhorts the people through their spiritual head: “Do all things to the glory of God; hearken unto your Bishop, that God may also hearken unto you: my soul be surety for them that submit to their Bishop, with their Presbyters and Deacons; and let my portion be with them in God?!"

So very clear and decided are the passages now quoted, and so competent is the author, both in point of character and of knowledge, as a witness to the Apostolical institution of Episcopacy; that those opponents who reject this institution have no resource but to impugn the authority of the writings ascribed to Ignatius. There is some plausibility in the arguments by which this attack has been supported: and the controversy has called forth, on both sides, more learning and ability than almost any other disputed fact in ecclesiastical literature. At the same time we are fairly entitled to remark, that Bishop Pearson's powerful vindication of the well known Seven Ignatian Epistles, from some of which we have quoted, appears so far to have settled the question, that no theological disputant of any reputation has ventured to come forward with a regular and systematic reply. That we may, however, afford the general reader some acquaintance with a controversy intimately, (though not altogether essentially) connected with our subject, we shall suppose the anti-episcopalian objector to express his thoughts in something like the following manner :—' claim authority for an author, whose works, as your own divines acknowledge, are some of them interpolated, and others spurious. I, therefore, discredit the whole. determine how far forgery has been carried, when once forgery has been proved, is impossible. I cannot enter into all your niceties of criticism; nor fill my eyes with the dust of antiquity to ascertain which of these alleged writings are genuine, and which spurious. All must stand or fall together. Besides, Ignatius was too good a man to make so much parade of his fortitude, as is expressed in these Epis

1 Cotel. ed. cap. 8.

2 Ibid. cap. 5, 6.

"You

To

tles. The eagerness for martyrdom with which you inflate him, implies forgetfulness of his Master's precept, when persecuted in one city, flee to another.' To this moral ground of dislike I add critical objections. The style is unnatural, and unsuitable to his circumstances. A martyr on his way to the scene of torture would have written with simpler diction. He would not have used the grandiloquent and hyperbolical phraseology you ascribe to him. His compound epithets are interminable. Moreover, I deny the system of Church government for which you make him a voucher, to have existed in his time: Ignatius would have known that the constitution of the Church was not Episcopal but Presbyterian in his day. Again, your testimonies are unsatisfactory and insufficient: and even if you could prove the genuineness and authenticity of any portion of these writings to have been allowed by the Fathers, I attach but little value to that argument. The Fathers were plain, inartificial, simple men; having neither sufficient caution to suspect, nor sufficient sagacity to discover imposition '."

Such is an outline of the argument by which the assailant of the Ignatian Epistles would overthrow their authority. Let us now try the force of these objections. The introductory assertion that the writings of any author must stand or fall together, and that, when partial forgery has been proved, there is no necessity for laborious inquiry how far it has proceeded: would be fatal to all history, as well as to all literature. Spurious compositions have been attributed to the most approved historians, theologians, philosophers, and poets, both in ancient and modern times. Sacred and profane writers have equally been liable to this objection. Among the latter every scholar is familiar with doubtful or confessedly forged writings ascribed to Hippo

A recent anti-episcopalian writer dates the Ignatian Epistles no older than the fourth or fifth century; and makes a general appeal to "learned men" as his authorities for this opinion. But he is contradicted by Salmasius and Blondel, the two most learned of the writers on that side, who both unite in placing the Epistles in question two or three centuries earlier. Blondel dates them at the end of the second century; and Salmasius at least fifty years before. Vide Walo. Messalin. p. 253.

crates, Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Tacitus, and Quinctilian '. In like manner spurious documents have been imputed to Apostles and Evangelists. St. Paul, in particular, warns the Thessalonians to this effect. "Be not soon shaken in mind," says he, "by letter as from us ;" and concludes with alluding to the discrimination that was expedient in ascertaining the identity of his letters: "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle. So I write." These are his concluding words. This Apostle, therefore, was far from sanctioning the idea, that the writings ascribed to any author were to be accepted or rejected, without deliberate and judicious scrutiny 2.

Respecting the works of Ignatius, the case is this. There are eight Epistles, three in Latin and five in Greek ascribed to him, which were unknown to the ancients, and are undoubtedly spurious. Of the remaining seven Epistles, two editions are extant; one comprising what are called the longer, the other, the shorter Epistles. The longer are so denominated from their containing interpolations and paraphrases of the shorter, evidently introduced in later times by some opponent of the Trinity, in support of the Arian heresy. The eight spurious Epistles, are, by the best critics, ascribed to the same hand as the interpolations; and were forged for the same heretical purpose 3. It is remarkable. in proof of this Arian tendency, that these interpolated writings have been received as the true Epistles by Arian writers of recent times (and by Whiston in particular), while the shorter and more orthodox edition has been rejected by them as containing doctrines, which, in their

1 Among these it is curious to notice, that two-thirds of Hippocrates are disallowed by the learned: and that a work (De Oratoribus) ascribed by some to Tacitus, by others to Quinctilian, gives sufficient reason, on the principle we are now condemning, for the rejection of all the works of both those admirable authors.

2 Among inspired writers to whom spurious Gospels have been attributed, we may enumerate St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Matthias, St. Bartholomew, and St. Philip. There is a Gospel mentioned by St. Jerome, as having been attributed to the twelve Apostles. So also were the Apostolic canons and constitutions. In short, the whole authority of Apostolic Scripture would, if this most absurd mode of reasoning were admitted, be set aside.

3 See Dupin Biblioth. des auteurs ecclésiastiques, art. Ignatius, and Cotell's dissert. d. fen. tom. ii.

judgment, could not, in the age of Ignatius, have prevailed in the Church.

The inordinate display of courage, and the ambition of martyrdom expressed in the Epistles which we contend for, and alleged as incompatible with the moral character of Ignatius, are unimportant in this question. Granting the language to be as boastful as is pretended, it might, nevertheless, be very genuine. Such language, all historians are agreed, was in perfect accordance with the spirit of the times, when the crown of martyrdom was aspired to with an eagerness which modern apathy may well disbelieve 1.

:

With respect to criticism on inflation of style, it is enough to say, that there is nothing very high-flown in these writings and if there were, an oriental style would not be inconsistent with the thoughts and habits of an Asiatic author. The Bishop of Antioch might very naturally express himself in Antiochian Greek. It would even be surprising if he did otherwise. Instead of an objection, this furnishes internal evidence of authenticity.

To affirm that the Church polity described in the Epistles of Ignatius could not have existence in his time, is to beg the question. It is to take for granted the very thing to be proved. Bishop Pearson shows, and we shall ourselves hereafter demonstrate in the progress of our present argument drawn from antiquity, that the language of other writers,

1 Vide Pearsoni Vind. Ignat. cap. 9.-As many persons, from the zeal with which they have been accustomed to hear the Ignatian Epistles reprobated, may imagine there is something in them morally shocking, it may be useful to state a few out of numerous authorities distinguished for learning, talents, and piety, who have received and admired these much calumniated writings. Not to mention estimable Roman Catholic divines, we may refer the most scrupulous inquirer to Vossius, Casaubon, and Le Clerc, among foreigners; and to our own Pearson, Usher, and Hammond: we are tempted to add a reference, with which some of our readers may be surprised, and others gratified, namely, John Owen, whom Dr. South, in his peculiar language, stigmatizes as the "great Coryphæus of rebellion:" John Owen was, however, respectable for his piety as well as erudition, and though a zealous anti-episcopalian, is thus quoted by Pearson: "In earum (scil. epistolarum) aliquibus suavem et gratiosum-ut nostrates loquuntur, fidei, delectionis, sanctitatis et zeli Dei spiritum spirantem et operantem agnoscit (Owenus scil)."-Vide Pearson's Vind. Ignat.