ܞ

Introductory Note to the Epistles of Ignatius
[a.d. 30–107.] The seductive myth which represents this Father as the little child whom the
Lord placed in the midst of his apostles (St. Matt. xviii. 2) indicates at least the period when he
may be supposed to have been born. That he and Polycarp were fellow-disciples under St. John, is
a tradition by no means inconsistent with anything in the Epistles of either. His subsequent history
is sufficiently indicated in the Epistles which follow.
Had not the plan of this series been so exclusively that of a mere revised reprint, the writings
of Ignatius themselves would have made me diffident as to the undertaking. It seems impossible
for any one to write upon the subject of these precious remains, without provoking controversy.
This publication is designed as an Eirenicon, and hence “few words are best,” from one who might
be supposed incapable of an unbiased opinion on most of the points which have been raised in
connection with these Epistles. I must content myself therefore, by referring the studious reader to
the originals as edited by Bishop Jacobson, with a Latin version and copious annotations. That
revered and learned divine honoured me with his friendship; and his precious edition has been my
frequent study, with theological students, almost ever since it appeared in 1840. It is by no means
superannuated by the vigorous Ignatian literature which has since sprung up, and to which reference
will he made elsewhere. But I am content to leave the whole matter, without comment, to the minds
of Christians of whatever school and to their independent conclusions. It is a great thing to present
them in a single volume with the shorter and longer Epistles duly compared, and with the Curetonian
version besides. One luxury only I may claim, to relieve the drudging task-work of a mere reviser.
Surely I may point out some of the proverbial wisdom of this great disciple, which has often stirred
my soul, as with the trumpet heard by St. John in Patmos. In him, indeed, the lions encountered a
lion, one truly begotten of “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” Take, then, as a specimen, these thrilling
injunctions from his letter to Polycarp, to whom he bequeathed his own spirit, and in whom he well
knew the Church would recognize a sort of survival of St. John himself. If the reader has any true
perception of the rhythm and force of the Greek language, let him learn by heart the originals of
the following aphorisms:—
0.5. Find time to pray without ceasing.
1.5. Every wound is not healed with the same remedy.
2.5. The times demand thee, as pilots the haven.
3.5. The crown is immortality.⁴⁸¹
4.5. Stand like a beaten anvil.⁴⁸²

^{481 Does not this seem a pointed allusion to Rev. ii. 10?
482 Στῆθι ὡς ἄκμων τυπτόμενος.}

5.5.
It is the part of a good athlete to be bruised and to prevail.
6.5.
Consider the times: look for Him who is above time.
7.5. Slight not the menservants and the handmaids.
8.5. Let your stewardship define your work.
9.5. A Christian is not his own master, but waits upon God.
Ignatius so delighted in his name Theophorus (sufficiently expounded in his own words to
Trajan or his official representative), that it is worth noting how deeply the early Christians felt
and believed in (2 Cor. vi. 16) the indwelling Spirit.
Ignatius has been censured for his language to the Romans, in which he seems to crave
martyrdom. But he was already condemned, in law a dead man, and felt himself at liberty to glory
in his tribulations. Is it more than modern Christians often too lightly sing? —
“Let cares like a wild deluge come,
And storms of sorrow fall,” etc.
So the holy martyr adds, “Only let me attain unto Jesus Christ.”
The Epistle to the Romans is utterly inconsistent with any conception on his part, that Rome
was the see and residence of a bishop holding any other than fraternal relations with himself. It is
very noteworthy that it is devoid of expressions, elsewhere made emphatic, ⁴⁸³ which would have
been much insisted upon had they been found herein. Think what use would have been made of it,
had the words which he addresses to the Smyrnæans (chap. viii.) to strengthen their fidelity to
Polycarp, been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use
of the phrase “Catholic Church” in patristic writings. He defines it as to be found “where Jesus
Christ is,” words which certainly do not limit it to communion with a professed successor of St.
Peter.
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents
connected with the primitive Church. As is evident to every reader on the very first glance at these
writings, they contain numerous statements which bear on points of ecclesiastical order that have
long divided the Christian world; and a strong temptation has thus been felt to allow some amount
of prepossession to enter into the discussion of their authenticity or spuriousness. At the same time,
this question has furnished a noble field for the display of learning and acuteness, and has, in the
various forms under which it has been debated, given rise to not a few works of the very highest
ability and scholarship. We shall present such an outline of the controversy as may enable the reader
to understand its position at the present day.
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One
to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one
to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians,
one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to

^{483 See To the Tralliaus, cap. 13. Much might have been made, had it been found here, out of the reference to Christ the High Priest (Philadelphians, cap. 9).} 

he Smyrnæans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also
in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters
are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than
that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and
they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve
special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.
But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the
seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek
recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and
scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters
of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of
these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. Criticism, indeed, fluctuated a good deal
as to which Epistles should be accepted and which rejected. Archp. Usher (1644), Isaac Vossius
(1646), J. B. Cotelerius (1672), Dr. T. Smith (I709), and others, edited the writings ascribed to
Ignatius in forms differing very considerably as to the order in which they were arranged, and the
degree of authority assigned them, until at length, from about the beginning of the eighteenth
century, the seven Greek Epistles, of which a translation is here given, came to be generally accepted
in their shorter form as the genuine writings of Ignatius.
Before this date, however, there had not been wanting some who refused to acknowledge the
authenticity of these Epistles in either of the recensions in which they were then known to exist.
By far the most learned and elaborate work maintaining this position was that of Daillé (or Dallæus),
published in 1666. This drew forth in reply the celebrated Vindiciæ of Bishop Pearson, which
appeared in 1672. It was generally supposed that this latter work had established on an immoveable
foundation the genuineness of the shorter form of the Ignatian Epistles; and, as we have stated
above, this was the conclusion almost universally accepted down to our own day. The only
considerable exception to this concurrence was presented by Whiston, who laboured to maintain
in his Primitive Christianity Revived (1711) the superior claims of the longer recension of the
Epistles, apparently influenced in doing so by the support which he thought they furnished to the
kind of Arianism which he had adopted.
But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference
to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be
regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner,
in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): “have carefully compared the two editions, and am
very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and
not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. … But whether the smaller themselves are
the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and
has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on
either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question.”
This expression of uncertainty was repeated in substance by Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755),
Griesbach (1768), Rosenmüller (1795), Neander (1826), and many others; some going so far as to
deny that we have any authentic remains of Ignatius at all, while others, though admitting the seven
shorter letters as being probably his, yet strongly suspected that they were not free from interpolation.
Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was, until recently, accepted without much
opposition, and chiefly in dependence on the work of Bishop Pearson above mentioned, as exhibiting
the genuine form of the Epistles of Ignatius.
But a totally different aspect was given to the question by the discovery of a Syriac version of
three of these Epistles among the mss. procured from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the
desert of Nitria, in Egypt. In the years 1838, 1839, and again in 1842, Archdeacon Tattam visited
that monastery, and succeeded in obtaining for the English Government a vast number of ancient
48
Syriac manuscripts. On these being deposited in the British Museum, the late Dr. Cureton, who
then had charge of the Syriac department, discovered among them, first, the Epistle to Polycarp,
and then again, the same Epistle, with those to the Ephesians and to the Romans, in two other
volumes of manuscripts.
As the result of this discovery, Cureton published in 1845 a work, entitled, The Ancient Syriac
Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to Polycarp, the Ephesian, and the Romans, etc., in which
he argued that these Epistles represented more accurately than any formerly published what Ignatius
had actually written. This, of course, opened up the controversy afresh. While some accepted the
views of Cureton, others very strenuously opposed them. Among the former was the late Chev.
Bunsen; among the latter, an anonymous writer in the English Review, and Dr. Hefele, in his third
edition of the Apostolic Fathers. In reply to those who had controverted his arguments, Cureton
published his Vindiciæ Ignatianæ in 1846, and his Corpus Ignatianum in 1849. He begins his
introduction to the last-named work with the following sentences: “Exactly three centuries and a
half intervened between the time when three Epistles in Latin, attributed to St. Ignatius, first issued
from the press, and the publication in 1845 of three letters in Syriac bearing the name of the same
apostolic writer. Very few years passed before the former were almost universally regarded as false
and spurious; and it seems not improbable that scarcely a longer period will elapse before the latter
be almost as generally acknowledged and received as the only true and genuine letters of the
venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down to our times, or were ever known in the
earliest ages of the Christian Church.”
Had the somewhat sanguine hope thus expressed been realized, it would have been unnecessary
for us to present to the English reader more than a translation of these three Syriac Epistles. But
the Ignatian controversy is not yet settled. There are still those who hold that the balance of argument
is in favour of the shorter Greek, as against these Syriac Epistles. They regard the latter as an
epitome of the former, and think the harshness which, according to them, exists in the sequence of
thoughts and sentences, clearly shows that this is the case. We have therefore given all the forms
of the Ignatian letters which have the least claim on our attention.⁴⁸⁴ The reader may judge, by
comparison for himself, which of these is to be accepted as genuine, supposing him disposed to
admit the claims of any one of them. We content ourselves with laying the materials for judgment
before him, and with referring to the above-named works in which we find the whole subject
discussed. As to the personal history of Ignatius, almost nothing is known. The principal source of
information regarding him is found in the account of his martyrdom, to which the reader is referred.
Polycarp alludes to him in his Epistle to the Philippians (chap. ix.), and also to his letters (chap.
xiii.). Irenæus quotes a passage from his Epistle to the Romans (Adv. Hær., v. 28; Epist. ad Rom.,
chap. iv.), without, however, naming him. Origen twice refers to him, first in the preface to his

^{484 The other Epistles, bearing the name of Ignatius, will be found in the Appendix; so that the English reader possesses in
this volume a complete collection of the Ignatian letters.}