time, to suppose that they would arrogate to themselves this use of this word without any high authority to sanction it? And if this epistle is a forgery, where did they obtain their authority for its use? (2.) "A place of worship is called a temple vaòs, having one altar θυσιαστήριον.” (p. 395.) Reply. In answer to this, it will be sufficient to say that this use of these words is scriptural, as may be seen by comparing Luke i. 9. 21. 22, Acts vii. 48; xvii. 24, Heb. vii. 13, and elsewhere frequently. (3.) "The eucharist is called the flesh (apkà) of Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and also the bread (pros) of God." (p. 395.) Reply. With these passages it will be sufficient to compare," And he took the bread (apros), saying, this is my body (σoμa)," Luke xxii. 19, 1 Cor. xi. 24, Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 14, with what has already been said on the Godhead of Christ. κοπω (4.) "But the favourite and predominate expression appears to be, "be in subjection unto the Bishop," (borаGGEDAL TO ENLOKOTE); to which is also added, is xapiri Ocov, "as unto the grace of χαριτι Θεοῦ, God." (p. 395.) Reply. The frequent use of these words is undoubted. An inquiry into the cause of it falls naturally under a subsequent head, and to that the reader is referred for a consideration of it. Objection 5. This objection is in substance, "that it is denied in these epistles that Jesus Christ proceeded from Sigé, (ays) silence, one of the Eons of the Valentinians, which heresy was first preached after the death of Ignatius." Reply. It may possibly be necessary for us to remark, for the information of some of our readers, that the first centuries after Christ swarmed with heresies; that among the earliest were a sect who called themselves Gnostics, from yvwos, science. Those who professed gnosticism, believed in the eternal existence of one being, of the purest light, diffused through all space. After a period of infinite repose, this being produced out of himself two spirits of different sexes, from whom proceeded other spirits of a similar nature, by successive generations, whom they called Aeons, (dives). Among the Gnostics was Cerinthus, who attempted to establish a new religion, even in the days of St. John, composed of Christianity, Judaism, and Gnosticism; and, among other things, he borrowed the Aeons of the Gnostics; and held that Christ, who was one of these Aeons, entered into a holy man called Jesus, and that when 1 See, on this subject, Mosh. Ecc. Hist. B. 1. Cent. 1. par. 2. c. 1. Jesus was apprehended, the Aeon, Christ, flew away to heaven; so that only the man Jesus was put to death.' Hence, it follows, that Christ suffered only in appearance. The heresy of Valentinus was a still further modification of Gnosticism, but it does not appear that he held to any part of Judaism. Among the Aeons of Valentinus, one was called Sigé, and from this, it is said by some, that he made Jesus Christ to proceed. The occurrence of the word Sige, in one of the epistles of Ignatius, has given occasion for those who wish to doubt their genuineness to assert that reference is thereby made to the Sigé of Valentinus, who flourished after the death of Ignatius, and that therefore this epistle cannot be genuine. To this argument it would be sufficient to say, that as these epistles are supposed to have been somewhat tampered with, this must be one of the spurious passages; but as we have seen no good reason to believe they have been so much corrupted as some pretend, we are not disposed to make this reply. We do say, however, that it has not been shown that this expression was intentionally aimed at any heresy of this kind; but, admitting that it was, there is good reason to believe that the doctrine of the Sigé was borrowed by Valentinus from some other and earlier heretics.1 There are also historical reasons for believing that the whole section in which this passage occurs, is directed against the Cerinthians, or persons holding opinions similar to those entertained by them, among whom were the followers of Simon Magus and Menander, with the Docetae and Ebionites. The passage in Ignatius is as follows: "Jesus Christ proceeded from one Father, and exists in one, and is returned to one. If we live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received his grace. There is one God who hath manifested himself, by Jesus Christ his Son; who is his eternal word, not coming forth from Sigé (Silence), who in all things was well pleasing to him that sent him,” (Ep. ad Magnes. Sec. 7. 8.) In the foregoing quotation, three distinct points of heresy are alluded to; the denial of the oneness of the nature of Christ-retaining the Jewish law-and the procession of Christ from Sigé, one of the Gnostic Aeons. Of these, the first two was held by the Cerinthian Gnostics and the Docetae, 1 Mosh. Ecc. Hist. B. 1. Cent. 1. par. 2. c. 5. 2 Mosh. Ecc. Hist. B. 1. Cent. 2. par. 2. c. 5. 3 Iren. adv. Han. L. 1. Pear. Vind. Ign. c. 5. Bp. Bull. Def. Nic. Sec. 3. c. 1. Dup. Ecc. Hist. 1. in Vit. Ign. ♦ Bp. Bull. ubi sup. and Stand. W. P. E. C. vol. 4. pp. 195–198. who also believed that Christ himself was one of the Gnostic Aeons; but whether the Aeon from which they made Christ proceed was called Sigé, we have no means of determining. There is, however, no evidence opposed to the supposition that it was so called. But Valentinus did not hold to the second point above enumerated, and hence the whole description was not applicable to him. Besides, he borrowed the doctrine of his Aeons either from the same source that Cerinthus derived his, or, what is more probable, directly from Cerinthus himself. Again, there is another point in the heresy of the Cerinthians which is alluded to in these epistles,-the doctrine that Christ only suffered in appearance, “But if, as some who are Atheists, that is, unbelievers, pretend, he suffered only in appearance,-why then am I bound?" &c. Ep. Trall. c. 10. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the heresies condensed in these epistles were those propagated by the Cerinthians and but very little, if any, reason for supposing that reference is made to any thing which was peculiar to the Valentinians. Of these four points of heresy, three we know were held by the Cerinthians, their cotemporaries; and it is probable that the other was also believed by them; but we have no authority for saying that more than two were held by the Valentinians. Hence we infer that it is the heresies rife in the age of Ignatius which are alluded to, and not to those of subsequent times; and whatever bearing this fact can have upon the question under consideration, it furnishes a presumption in favour rather than against them. Objection 6. "The language is not such as we should expect from the venerable martyr on his way to the amphitheatre, where he expected to be eaten by wild beasts." (pp. 394, 395.) Reply. This is an objection which it is easy to make, but not easy to prove nor readily to disprove. Before we can say the language of an ancient author is not such as we should naturally expect from a writer of that age, we must acquaint ourselves intimately with the history of the times in which he lived, must study the character of the man whose writings are to be considered closely and critically, must inform ourselves of the peculiarities of the age in which he lived, the modes of thinking peculiar in those days, and the prevalent evils of those times. Without this knowledge, we are not qualified to sit in judgment on the probabilities of truth or falsehood, arising from a conformity, or a want of conformity, to the times, to be found in a piece of ancient composition attributed 1 Iren. Pear. Vind. Ign. and Bp. Bell. ubi sup. to a particular age. This is peculiarly the case with the epistles under consideration, as it is only the distance of a single century which is to decide the question of their genuineness or forgery. Now, it is this very point that furnishes, as we understand it, some of the strongest arguments in favour of the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, and from the internal evidence alone we think it evident that they could not have been written in any period of the early history of the Church, but at, or near the time in which Ignatius lived. We, propose therefore, to point out some of those undesigned coincidences between thoughts and expressions found in the epistles attributed to Ignatius, and those of other early writers of undoubted genuineness. 1. The foundation on which these epistles base the authority of the ministry, was peculiar to that age. Thus Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Church at Corinth, says: "The Apostles have preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ was therefore sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Thus both were orderly sent according to the will of God." To the same effect is the reasoning in these epistles. "The Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to him; neither by himself nor yet by his Apostles."2 "Whomsoever the master of the house sends to be over his own household, him ought we to receive, even as we would him that sent him." The argument both in Clement and these epistles, is, that as Christ and the Apostles were sent by the command, or according to the will of God, whatever was done by the Apostles was binding as the command of God. This is distinctly asserted by both writers. Thus Clement, "God hath ordained by his supreme will, both where, and by what persons, we are to perform our offerings and public service to him."4 So Ignatius; "Be subject to the Bishop as to the command of God," "that ye may be subject to God." Another peculiarity in the language of these epistles, is similar to that contained in the one written by Polycarp to the Philippians. In speaking of Deacons, he says, "the ministers of God in Christ;" and Ignatius says, "reverence the Deacons as the command of God-the Deacons of Christ our God;" and "your Deacons being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." This mode of reasoning in regard to the ministry, though satisfactory at that time, would have had little weight some generations after the days of Ig 1 C. 42. 4 C. 40. 7 Ad. Phil. c. 5. 2 Ad. Mag. c. 7. 9 Ad. Smyr. cc. 8. 10. 3 Ad. Eph. c. 6. natius and Polycarp, for it would then be necessary to appeal to some tangible evidence as proof that the minister had been appointed by the command of God. The simple fact, that the acts of the Apostles were binding as the command of God, would furnish no evidence in favour of the ministerial authority in a latter age, unless the clergy possessed some means of connecting themselves with the doings of the Apostles. Hence we find, that long before the time when it is said that these epistles was forged, another mode of reasoning on this subject had been generally adopted, and was urged as conclusive against all heretics and schismatics. "If any," says Tertullian, in the latter part of the second century, "if any dare to mingle themselves with the Apostolic age, that thus they may appear to be handed down from the Apostles, because they were under the Apostles, we can say ; let them produce the origin of their Churches; let them declare the series of their Bishops, so running down from the beginning by succession, that the first Bishop may have had one of the Apostles, or Apostolic men who continued with the Apostles, for their author or predecessor. For in this manner the Apostolic Churches trace their origin." Contemporary with Tertullian, was Irenæus, who says: "We can enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles Bishops in the Churches, and their successors, even to us. By this appointing and succession, the tradition in the Church, which is from the Apostles, hath come down even to us."2 This argument runs through all the works on this subject which belong to the latter part of the second century, and we may therefore set it down as a characteristic of that period,—that the authority of the ministry was made to rest upon an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles; whereas we have seen that the first part of the same century, and the latter part of the preceding, was characterized by resting the same authority upon the immediate command of God. From what has already been said, it will be seen that, in as far as this consideration can furnish any argument, it is entirely in favour of the genuineness of the epistles in question. But there is another consideration which ought to be mentioned in this place; which is, that there was no motive that could operate at the time when it is alleged that these epistles were forged, to induce any one to forge them. It is said by the objector, that the leading, pervading topic of all these epistles is the necessity of obedience to the Bishop, as to the command of God. But there was no call for any thing of the 1 De Praes. Adv. Haer. c. 32. 2 Adv. Haer. L. 3. c. 3. |